I hate spelling mistakes in professional work as much as anyone, but the spell-checker would not catch "principal" being used for "principle".

This is actually one of my favorite uses for contemporary AI technology. It very much can (and does) catch this type of spelling error. Google Docs does this for me quite often. It's not always right -- but it often prompts me to review exactly this type of situation. It's pretty amazing, really.

Yeah several spell checkers are context aware like grammarly (I haven’t used it in a long time though).

Matt is leaving so much evidence against himself that he's practically doing opposing counsel's job for them.

The issue here is that Mullenweg is on record everywhere (including on HN) saying that the "WP" is not the trademark problem; it's "Wordpress" and "WooCommerce".

But a cursory glance at Google results for "Wordpress hosting", "woocommerce hosting", or "managed wordpress hosting" will lead you to hundreds of results from a plethora of web hosting companies that have been doing this, many for more than a decade.

The Wordpress Foundation (that owns the "Wordpress" trademark) has not taken any legal action against any of these companies for precisely the same use it's accusing WPEngine of. A judge could well rule that they have not defended their trademark and this claim holds no water.

Again, IANAL, but it's generally not the case that you are required to go after all infringers of your trademark (I imagine because that would be overly burdensome requirement, as someone nefarious could spin up even a blatantly offensive use in some remote town in Alaska for example and go "ha-haw you failed to defend"). You just have to not never defend it.

it is absolutely the case that you are required to go after infringers if you want to be able to enforce your trademark. A trademark isn't just another word for copyright. It's a signifier of a brand with consistent quality. If you let thousands of sites slide for a decade+, then it no longer conveys a consistent level of quality and when you try to enforce it the judge is likely to shut you down.

And with Google's track record, eventually end up on KilledByGoogle.com

Affinity already disappointed the original believers when they started off telling people they could pay a one-time fee and get all future updates for free. They then ditched version 1.xx buyers by releasing a version 2 that you could only use if you paid them again.

Affinity should not have said that (if they did), and no one should have believed them. That's just not how software or business works. Even if we go back in time to packaged software, big updates were always a pay for upgrade.

If you switch to the Australian AirBnB site, you can see an all-inclusive price because they are required by law to do so there.

It's a scam if a cleaning fee is charged and the renters are ALSO expected to do a truckload of cleaning themselves, for which the fee is presumably charged.

And a less charitable interpretation is that it's a scam because it's deceptive advertising to show a lower nightly rate.

There's more to them than meets the eye.

HTTP ERROR 429

That's what I'm getting.

It seems to me that the client would need a Creative Cloud subscription of their own to serve the fonts for their website.