Gah, Skittens EVERYWHERE

Little Eva - Loco-Motion

Martha & The Vandellas - Dancing in the Streets

James Ray - I've Got My Mind Set On You

Big Mama Thornton - Hound Dog

Robert Knight - Everlasting Love

Erma Franklin - Piece of My Heart

The Family - Nothing Compares 2 U (written by Prince)

The Supremes - You Can't Hurry Love

The Supremes - Keep Me Hanging On

Lord Creator - Kingston Town

The Paragons - Tide is High

Commodores - Easy

And here's an entire playlist with songs by black artists covered by The Rolling Stones:

If you go without it you feel unwell in a way that you never usually feel unwell. Sweating, tired, sleepy, headaches, irritable, depressed, etc. For example when I was in opium withdrawal I got incredibly depressed in a way that I’ve never been before or since. When you quit caffeine you might get super bad headaches even if you never usually get any headaches.

Thoughts of it regularly bother you and the thoughts go away once you’ve taken it but only temporarily. Unlike with a food craving which usually stays away once you’ve satisfied it or distracted yourself from it.

You find yourself rationalizing with yourself why you should break your own rules about how much you can take and how often. For example you might only let yourself drink alcohol every four days but start thinking that three days is actually close enough to four days, right? Especially if this happens regularly.

You’re using it so often that you feel the need to lie about how much you use because other people might think it’s concerning

If the substance or activity is nearby it’s genuinely difficult to not consume it or participate in it in a way that’s really frustrating.

You feel bad when you’re not on it and your brain tells you “if you just take the thing you wouldn’t feel this way”

You can only feel “whole” or “normal” when you’re on a substance even though it’s a recreational drug

Wrong!!!

I think that Asylum seekers and Migrant workers and The Undocumented and Everyone Else should get free healthcare too

oh wow the glass-tower office buildings we constructed when we thought air conditioning and central heating would never have downsides...have downsides?

and we're still building them?

while the Victorian house museum where I work, with thick walls and small windows and big wooden shutters stays ~10 degrees above (winter) or below (summer) the outside temperature for days on end with no help at all?

uh. okay then

Image credits according to the post: @yellofish

Image credits

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.

For all the reasons above AND ALSO because this particular lawsuit is a defamation case

Privacy lawsuits are hard because most privacy laws are super super weak, and there's very rarely a lot of money or enforcement backing privacy laws for...twenty million reasons, really...

But defamation suits? Those have teeth.

(In large part because, at least in some countries and including in the US, defamation laws protect public figures the least - and "public figures" legally includes most if not all politicians, and a hell of a lot of other rich ppl too)

A German court has ruled that Google can be held directly liable for false claims made by its AI Overviews, a decision that could put a serious legal dent in the whole “the AI made me do it” defense. According to The Next Web, the Regional Court of Munich issued a temporary injunction after Google’s AI Overviews wrongly tied two Munich publishers to scams, subscription traps, and dubious business practices. The court treated those AI-generated summaries as Google’s own statements, not just ordinary search results pointing to third-party pages. That distinction matters. Search engines have traditionally had more protection because they index and link to other people’s content. AI Overviews changes the machinery. Google is not just showing the web anymore. It is summarizing it, rewriting it, and sometimes apparently hallucinating a tiny legal grenade into the results page.

“Of course.”

“It’s horseshit. We made it up. If the public thinks government agents go around in suits and sunglasses, we can go around in our actual uniforms and nobody will think twice about it.”

“I mean, I get it, but it’s a lot less classy.”

“Classy schmassy. I once had to smuggle an entire Neptunian armada out of Beaverlodge, Alberta. I had 20,000 warships in the back of a pickup truck, I wore the suit and nobody even asked me for a license.”

There was a furious silence as she grappled with this. Then: “Fine. Fine, I’ll wear the stupid vest.”

New Sticker design! Featuring my Marigold Dragon declaring WAR to all English sterile lawns >:D LET WILDLIFE THRIVE! Plant native plants and flowers! ✨🌱🌿🌳🌻🌼🌷💐🐛🦋🐞

I'll be selling this one on Polaris later this year! After the convention in October, I'll update this post and put the design up for order on my Redbubble shop :)