None of them, they all grow it in their backyards or harvest it in the wild

Given that he said he had no money for a funeral I'm guessing he was planning to pull her body out one day and go "oh my goodness, she's dead!" and have a funeral rather than just try to continue collecting her pension in perpetuity.

I say "look it up". Applies to lots of forms of search, be it google, DDG, YouTube, Wikipedia, a dictionary, a manual, pretty much anything.

Lol same. I think it's probably because commenting is more like normal conversation; you're responding to other people in ways that are specifically meaningful to the circumstances. Writing is sorta like talking to the void in my mind. I find I spend much more time thinking and checking and re-reading to make sure I'm appealing to my imagined audience, rather than just contributing a sentence or two to a conversation where the audience is a bit more concrete.

Why are outdoors cats so widely accepted? We have had cats for millennia. They are deeply ingrained in our cultures. We have known about their impact on local wildlife for less than 100 years. It will take time for it to be socially unacceptable to have a cat that is allowed outside.

Spot on!

Worse still is the pronunciation of "bologna". How. Just how. None of you seppos have the right to tell me about how I pronounce "herbs" or "pecans". Then again, our pronunciation of "lieutenant" is messed up.

Copyright gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to modify the work, to use the work for commercial purposes, and attribution rights. The use of a work as training data constitutes using a work for commercial purposes since the companies building these models are distributing licencing them for profit. I think it would be a marginal argument to say that the output of these models constitutes copyright infringement on the basis of modification, but worth arguing nonetheless. Copyright does only protect a work up to a certain, indefinable amount of modification, but some of the outputs would certainly constitute infringement in any other situation. And these AI companies would probably find it nigh impossible to disclose specifically who the data came from.

But since vaccination is considered a medical procedure, you cannot give a vaccine without informed consent. In this case it's the parent's consent because the child is incapable of giving informed consent. There is plenty of case law stating that medical practitioners cannot perform medical procedures if the patient has withdrawn consent despite the best of intentions and practices. It's ultimately not up to the healthcare provider except in very specific cases, and vaccination is not one of those.

Parental consent is usually used as a substitute where a child is too young to give consent for a procedure. In Australia and the UK once a child is able to understand the procedure and associated risks they are considered "Gillick competent" and their consent outweighs the parent's, but until then the parent is the one who gives consent on the child's behalf. Parental consent is also used as a substitute when the child is incapacitated by injury or illness such that they are incapable of giving informed consent. Health practitioners and first aiders can also assume consent in life-threatening situations where the patient is incapable of giving consent (e.g. giving CPR to someone in cardiac arrest).

Nobody has been able to make a convincing argument in favour of generative AI. Sure, it's a tool for creating art. It abstracts the art making process away so that the barrier to entry is low enough that anyone can use it regardless of skill. A lot of people have used these arguments to argue for these tools, and some artists argue that because it takes no skill it is bad. I think that's beside the point. These models have been trained on data that is, in my opinion, both unethical and unlawful. They have not been able to conclusively demonstrate that the data was acquired and used in line with copyright law. That leads to the second, more powerful argument: they are using the labour of artists without any form of compensation, recognition, permission, or credit.

If, somehow, the tools could come up with their own styles and ideas then it should be perfectly fine to use them. But until that happens (it won't, nobody will see unintended changes in AI as anything other than mistakes because it has no demonstrable intent) use of a generative AI should be seen as plagiarism or copyright infringement.

This time it isn't (I think)