Na na na na na na na na Batfam

And the show kind of stops there too, because Michael doesn't have a reassurance for her. He knows he's supposed to say something comforting, and he tells her that, and he's an extradimensional being that knows a LOT more than her and he's stumped.

But. I'm not.

The thing is, Eleanor isn't right.

it was never about Eleanor's worth.

Eleanor was ALWAYS worth changing for, and it didn't matter.

Michael's whole deal through the entire show is that even the most garbage human beings are worth something for who they could be tomorrow, or the day after that, or the day after that, or however long it takes for them to learn and grow and change. Of course Eleanor was worth changing for! She was always worth changing for!

But a tree cannot change into autumn colors until it has grown leaves, the same way a person cannot change until they have grown the ability.

Eleanor's "worth" does not factor into it. No matter how she feels about it, it was not on her. She was worth it, and it's not on her that her mother couldn't change yet. It was not a failure on her part of not doing or being enough to force a change in her mother. It is not a failing of worth on Eleanor's part.

Since I've seen a couple of people asking this I want you to know that I'm saying this completely sincerely:

Can you buy a Ferrari with a dollar?

A quick Google search tells me the Ferrari is worth $300-500k or thereabouts. Can you buy it with one dollar?

Nope! Because it doesn't matter what the car is worth if you don't have the ability/resources to buy it.

Just like it doesn't matter what Eleanor is worth, if her mother doesn't have the ability to change.

"but you could go out and earn enough money to buy the Ferrari if you want it"

Correct! Just like Eleanor's mother went and earned the ability to change.

But that takes time, and small children grow up fast. For all we know, it WAS Eleanor that inspired the change, it just did not happen fast enough to help Eleanor.

Happy pride month to all my rainbow friends (and rainbow-adjacent pals) 🤩🏳️‍🌈

That was the exact thought process

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.