Fixed it - thanks! “Dodói” (I also forgot the diacritic) is boo-boo, indeed - a childish way to call small injuries.

Amon isn’t a common pet name here. The one naming him was my mum, who loves Old Egyptian culture; to give you an idea, my childhood cat was Cleópatra, and even one of my current cats (Kika) was supposed to be called Ísis. (The one naming Kika was my nephew - by then he already understood how this “naming” thing works.)

Research on language acquisition is often genuinely cute.

I have some related anecdote on this. When my nephew was learning to talk (back then he was, like, 1~2yo? He’s now 16), I recorded and transcribed some things that he said. Here’s a few of them:

Look at the pattern - pre-stressed vowels get raised. The reason why my nephew was doing this in Portuguese is basically the same as why Orla (from the text) is using [χ] (the “guttural ck”) in her English, because even as the child is learning to talk, they’re already picking up features from the local variety. And that pattern where the vowels get closed before the stress is common place for Sulista Portuguese speakers (check how “mexerica” is pronounced, with [i] instead of [e]), just like Scouse English conditionally renders coda /k/ as [ç x χ].

Yup, I’m using it as a unit of length there. It’s clear enough in context even if the result is a bit silly.

Two* empty cardboard boxes. One is roughly the width and length of my desktop tower; another is ~1/3 of the size of the first.

My desk used to have two drawers, right below the surface top. I was always hitting those bloody drawers with my thigh. Eventually I had enough, unscrewed them, and threw them away.

…ok, but what about the stuff that I stored there? Inside the big box, that is now over my desktop tower. The smaller one and its lid became divisions for the bigger one. It’s organised, within the reach of my hands, and far from my thigh.

*actually three. One of my cats saw it on my chair, as I was organising the stuff here, and went into “if it sits, I fits, I call dibs” mode. It’s in my living room now.

I don’t think that the title is a mistake either; I was focusing solely on what the title says, on a language level, versus what the other user (Kairos) believes to be more accurate.

With that out of the way: yup, copyright was always like this. The basic premise of copyright is to not allow you to share things under certain conditions, and yet this sharing is essential for culture.

In English, the simple present often implies a general truth, regardless of time. While the present continuous strongly implies that the statement is true for the present, and weakly implies that it was false in the past.

From your profile you apparently speak Danish, right? Note that, in Danish, this distinction is mostly handled through adverbs, so I’m not surprised that you can’t tell the difference. Easier shown with an example:

Note how English is suddenly using a different verb form for the second one.

Counting centuries as it has been traditionally done makes sense, because -1 and +1 are different numbers. Using “N00s” doesn’t because -0 and +0 are the same number.

And it’s easy to remember because the Nth century always ends (if positive) or starts (if negative) in the year N*100.

Moral of the story: don’t tell people to fix what is not broken.

They* technically can bite you, but the bite doesn’t hurt, so it’s likely only effective against other really small critters. They can also release some sort of glue, kind of annoying if they do it while tangling in your hair, but harmless.

I wonder if their visual similarity to wasps isn’t some form of defence on its own, as mimicry. They also seem to build nests in places where they won’t get into trouble with mammals, like inside the hollows of tall trees. And that opening “tube” is closed off at night.

*from some websearch I could find one slightly more dangerous species, called “tataíra” or “abelha de fogo” (lit. fire bee). Even then it’s just spitting formic acid, like ants would; and mostly used not against larger critters, but while pillaging beehives of other species.

On itself, a simple claim (like “copyright destroys culture”) cannot be fallacious. It can be only true or false. For a fallacy, you need a reasoning flaw.

Also note that, even if you find a fallacy behind a conclusion, that is not enough grounds to claim that the conclusion is false. A non-fallacious argument with true premises yields a true conclusion, but a fallacious one may yield true or false conclusions.

The issue that you’re noticing with the title is not one of logic, but one of implicature due to the aspect of the verb. “X destroys Y” implies that, every time that X happens, Y gets destroyed; while “X [is] destroying Y” implies that this is only happening now.

I believe that most of the native species here don’t even sting, and if you annoy them they’ll flock around you and… that’s it, like a bunch of kids calling you meanie. Or at least the ones that look like wasps, like this:

I’ve seen quite a bit more of those this winter.

I wonder if this is related to the fact that I’ve seen quite a bit more native bees in my neighbourhood. (I’m in South America mind you.) And people freaking out because they look like wasps.

Pigs are the original artist’s muse.

Well… that seems accurate, in the light of Ancient Greek slang. Like using χοῖρος/khoîros “pig” to refer to the vagina.

[Sorry. I couldn’t resist being pedantic and vulgar at the same time.]

Thank you! I’m planning to create a full post about it here, in the future, but to keep it short:

Tarune (native name Taruōmda /taɾ.wũ:.da/ ) is the classical language used by scholars, in the conworld that I’m building. It isn’t spoken natively any more, although most people in the Meza Republic and Lāng Kingdom speak descendants of the language (Meznagar, Paṛ Ngara, Mín Wān, etc.)

The language also has two “sister” languages, Old Sirtki (with a phonology inspired on Ubyx) and Makshna (the “white sheep” of the family). In turn, all three descend from the language spoken by star travellers, unknowingly recolonising Earth 10 million years after humans were locally extinct.

The major inspirations for the phonology were Kaingang (from where I got this idea of removing the nasal series), Sanskrit (the retroflex series) and Quechua (uvular series and 3 basic vowels system). I’m currently re-working the morphology, trying to implement a fusional version of case stacking alongside marked accusative. Easier said than done.

Yup, it’s mine. Sorry for not clarifying. It’s a 10yo or so project, part of a rather large language family, but still incomplete.

While I don’t consider it “alien” because it’s built upon features found in real languages, Tarune’s phonemic inventory is really weird in comparison with your typical European language:

• / p t ʈ c q /
• / b d ɖ ɟ ɢ /
• / f s ʂ ç h /
• / w l ɾ ɻ j /
• / a i u a: i: u: /
• / ã ĩ ũ ã: ĩ: ũ: /

No, I’m not forgetting about /m n/ and the likes - Tarune doesn’t have phonemic nasal consonants at all. The associated sounds only surface allophonically, for voiced stops “sandwiched” between nasal vowels. Nasalisation is primarily a vowel contrast in the conlang.

Same deal with velars - you get some velar allophones for the palatal and uvular series, like /qi/ and /cu/ being realised as [ke] and [kʊ], but you don’t really have a */k g x/ series.

For my main thoughts on this matter, refer to this comment. I’ll only mention what’s different from this source to the other:

“We are more transparent than many players in this industry who have used public content to train their models and products,” Meta said.

“Since some people kill puppies, just kicking one is totally fine” moral reasoning might perhaps give you some breach in countries following Saxon tribal law, but not in countries following Roman civil law. In those, what matters is the law, not how the relevant organs handled other similar cases.

The law in this case being the LGPD (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados - Data Protection General Law). If it’s found that Meta’s activities violate the LGPD, well, cry me a river, “I dun unrurrstand, Google does it worse, I’m so confusion…” won’t save Meta’s skin.

A spokesperson for Meta said in a statement the company is “disappointed” and insists its method “complies with privacy laws and regulations in Brazil.”

Yeah, just like my cat complies with the policy of leaving my furniture alone. You aren’t fooling anyone, Meta.

“This is a step backwards for innovation, competition in AI development and further delays bringing the benefits of AI to people in Brazil,” the spokesperson added.

Cut off the bullshit. Only Meta itself will reap the benefits of this sort of rubbish.

The relevant organ behind this decision mentioned in the article in the OP is the ANPD (Autoridade Nacional de Proteção de Dados, “National Authority of Data Protection”).

Additionally, the Senacon (Secretaria Nacional do Consumidor, roughly “Customers’ National Secretary”) is also going after Meta and demanding it to clarify:

• their usage of customer data to train AI;
• the purpose of the above;
• its impact on customers;
• the data usage information policy being adopted;
• [which, if they exist] support channels that allow customers to exercise their rights [in this regard]

I think that this is actually a bigger deal than what the ANPD did. It basically means that the customer’s protection entities in Brazil aren’t really buying Meta’s bullshit about “chrust us we have legitimare inrurrest”.

Source, in Portuguese.

Another relevant tidbit is that, when it comes to privacy, data, and internet, Brazilian organs’ typical modus operandi is “copypaste what’s being done in Europe”. And lots of European governments “happen” to be rather pissed at those megacorps.

Perhaps now I can convince my relatives to use Matrix instead of that disgusting shit called zapzap WhatsApp.

Fuck no. A religion dictates:

1. what you think to be true or false. I’m a human thus an ignorant; there’s no fucking way that I’d establish a system of beliefs that would be completely true. And the very fact that people would sheepishly look at my religion and say “its chrue cuz our faith says so lol” makes it counter-productive.
2. what you judge as good or bad. Except that my moral values might not hold so well across the time. Worse - once you gather a thousand people, most of them braindead muppets, some will care about the letter of those moral rules instead of the spirit.
3. what you do or don’t. I’d be effectively removing agency from the people who follow my religion, telling them what they should be doing, be it on rituals or whatever.

Then I derped. My bad!

As a wise man once said, “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they aren’t after you.” Oh wait, that was Kurt Cobain, not a wise man.

Jokes aside, don’t assume that a piece of info about someone else is fine to share, because it is for you. OP likely has their reasons and that’s to be respected. (NB: this is coming from someone who doesn’t mind even sharing their city online.)