[seba_dos1]

Hah, I had expected this knee-jerk response, but kinda hoped you'd avoid this pitfall. Alas.

See, I could tell you that in English, "second to" is a construct that usually means "next to" or "inferior to" and has nothing to do with "being in second place", and that if it did, it would make the popular construct "second only to" completely redundant. But others already did that in sibling comments before me, and you could just respond with "you're wrong" anyway, so what's the point? Pointing to an LLM is, of course, often a lazy and unhelpful cop out from the discussion, but in this particular case it's pointing you to a dataset that's explicitly about extracting meaning and finding relationships between phrases in languages - so you don't have to trust me or anyone else that this phrase is actually being used in this particular way, you can find it out yourself based on enormous training datasets illegally collected from all over the Internet.

[avazhi]

If what you are saying were true, I could rank anything high by simply putting everything actually higher than it in rank into one named set and then turn around and say that the thing I want to highly rank comes in 2nd only to that first set of n items.

[seba_dos1]

You haven't read a word of what I wrote, have you?