He’s still going. This is the kind of person we need in every field.

Women should just be honest… and then women and men should work together to correct anyone who fails to respect their honesty.

Anybody here know John Vena? He needs this.

Installing windows for most of that time hasn’t been a thing people do. They bought a computer and it had the internets (the picture with the blue e) and the word (the picture with the paper and a W) and that was pretty much them sorted. We’re weird for knowing the difference and that’s not a bad thing to be.

It’s December already? When did that happen?

Bile

And then one day you have kids, and they innocently put on Disney’s Robin Hood…

Hmm… I am a fan of this aesthetic so…

Hard to beat Darkher for dark and witchy. Incredible music in its own right as well.

But also…

Eivor Pålsdottir

Nyghtegale from the Green Knight

Amira Elfeky

Jolene via Joliet

Halfsleeper

Bulgarian choral music

Rïcïnn

Hetane

Linea Aspera

Lindy Fay Hella is hella fey. (Sorry)

Lamb has something to them that feels right too.

Kati Ran of course.

Noeta

The Negative Harmony cover of Maneater though lots of negative harmony covers could angle toward that uncanny valley feeling of illusionists.

Something in the Dark

Cloak of Feathers for something more metalic

Alice Francis if she’s a bit cocky

Kovacs has a touch of spooky in her jazzy

Yep. It’d be a massive improvement to see artists getting an iota of the deference the courts show to large corporations.

To make the last part clearer, the state we have now effectively is the ‘no IP’ state, but as created by uneven enforcement. Per the letter of the law, companies are supposed to pay for the IP they use, including, somehow, AI derivatives. Things are bad enough but dumping IP entirely would mean there wasn’t even those ostensible protections. It’d be some Libertarian’s fantasy I don’t want to be anywhere near.

The problem is the imbalance, not the idea of protection. We don’t jump to laissez faire legislation because regulatory capture exists. It makes good sense to give legal rights to individual creators for their works so they can choose whether to seek to monetize them or make them freely available, at least until their death. If you wrote a book/song/program/etc. I want you to have the authority to make that determination for your creation, and in a system of person vs person, while it’s not a given that both people would enter litigation as equals, it would at least be more likely than when one of the ‘people’ is a multi-million dollar VC-funded company. If companies have no personhood, they cannot own IP from creation to the end of the universe. No corp personhood would also limit their ability in many jurisdictions to enact lobbying, regulatory capture, and various other chicanery. I’m not saying it’d be easy but it would be effective and a solid step in the right direction, where eliminating IP would only enable further corporate abuse.

Plausibly

Generally, yeah. I just was thinking ‘what can he plausibly say that won’t get him stabbed?’

Contra does some great dark comics. This feels like it was rushed.

Uh… I was just thinking it was strange because you, being a girl, can stare at women more freely because they won’t think you want to sexually assault them?

IP laws are meant to protect creators, but are backdoored by corporate personhood. Remove corporate personhood and the world of IP law immediately becomes less toxic.

“Yes” ¹

1. Lastname, Me (2023). Part 3. In A Book of Things I Wrote Just to Cite Them (37th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1–100). story, Me Publishing.

Dog needs more walks.

If it’s in your ‘private wine cellar,’ either you already paid for it or it was gifted, still free-ish. If your wife is making you pay to ‘re-taste the honeymoon wine,’ you might have other problems.

Peanuts are a commonly lethal allergy to something that, while not unavoidable, is surprisingly prevalent. I have heard it’s awful.

The individual poster may or may not be real, but anti-union ‘training’ and propaganda are definitely real.