Dude, I’m a prog head, and I have to say you are so, so wrong. Some of the best prog rock has released in this millennium.

Oh no. I remember that video now. I didn’t need to remember that video. Why did I have to ask?!

I’ll probably regret asking, but I’m out of the loop and insatiably curious.

Brick in the window video?

It’s saying that copyright law doesn’t apply to AI training, because none of the data is copied. It’s more akin to a person reading an impossible amount at an impossible speed, then using what they read as inspiration for their own writing. Sure, you could ask an LLM trained on, say, Edgar Allen Poe’s works to recite the entirety of The Raven, but it can only “recall” similarly to a human, and will have just as many mistakes (probably more, really) in its recitation as a human would.

Spoken like someone who either didn’t read the article or has a deep misunderstanding of what AI training is.

Or a super-duperlative.

Yes, that’s normally a good rule to follow, since “whom” is for a sentence’s object, but this is a special case. The clause in question is either a salutation that has no subject or object, and so either “whoever” or “whomever” is correct, or it’s a subject clause (a noun phrase, really) with an unnecessary, stylized “to” for the sake of comedic impact, in which case “whoever” would be correct.

FYI, your post title should use “whoever”, not “whomever”.

A good trick to tell whether to use “who” or “whom” is to replace “whom” with “him” or “who” with “he”. It’ll be immediately obvious (to a native English speaker) which is correct.

Whomever invented LED bus advertisements becomes Him invented LED bus advertisements

Vs

Whoever invented some stupid shit becomes He invented some stupid shit

Those suppressing the discussions about the suppression of discussions have been suppressed.

No, see y’all’ve got it backwards. It’s the Gulf of America, not the Gulf of the United States of America. He’s making it more inclusive!

/s

It’s not, though. This is the first sentence in the article:

As Michael McGrady pointed out in his recent guest post for Techdirt, nearly 41 percent of Americans subject to age verification laws targeting porn and, of course, porn consumers.

It can be inferred, of course, from that line, but isn’t explicitly stated.

A review of the account revealed that “Watermelon cloth” regularly posted content critical of social inequalities in the United States, the Ukrainian and Israeli governments

Disinformation or common sense?

Tubgirl.

Not a term, but a lack thereof:

People I have to regularly interact with for work have been excluding “to be”, especially with “needs”, and it’s infuriating.

This issue needs escalated. That report needs fleshed out. Let me know if anything needs cleared up.

Whoever wins…

We lose.

Ha! I use it because I just don’t want the use of “languid” in the language to languish in anguish.

Like I’m lying in the backseat of my parents’ car in the 90s watching the powerlines and the clouds languidly roll by.

Nope; you read an article, and I just reacted to comments on Lemmy, assuming that those commenting had read the article.

If I’d simply opened the link, I’d’ve seen it was on mozilla.org and would’ve realized it was just that the OP made a shitty clickbait title, not another Mozilla hit piece.

Shame on you, OP! Also shame on me.

Yet another Mozilla hit piece that seemingly-intentionally misrepresents the good they’re doing for users.

It begs the question: who has the means and motivation to consistently pay “journalists” to malign the only browser that has the slightest chance of tearing any significant amount of users away from chromium-based browsers?

EDIT: Turns out the answer to my question above might, in fact, be OP! They wrote a patently false, inflammatory title that isn’t supported by the article (or reality) at all, and I fell for it like a sucker.

Say it with me once again:

Fuck Nintendo.

They’re the Disney of the video game industry.