Well, I hate to break it to you, but when your opinion is outright ignorant, I don't think it reasonable to call it unpopular. It's just wrong. That's not even word play, it's just the condition of subjects where there is adequate evidence to work with.
I suppose you could just call it an empty opinion, if you were wanting a less accurate way of looking at it.
But the truth is that willful ignorance isn't an opinion, it's just stubbornness and stupidity rolled into one.
EDC life ftw?
Probably a typo, but just in case: you don clothing.
Yup :)
As others have already said, you go with the initial sound rather than the written letters. The written word is mostly built around conveying speech, so the rules fit what you would use if reading out loud. There are plenty of cases where writing conveys other cues than verbal, but the core of it still applies to sound.
That actually applies to most punctuation as well, depending on how one defines "most".
Any initialism is going to be counted as the first letter being a word for the purpose of a/an usage, when said letters are pronounced as letters. In the case of RTS (an initialism), you wouldn't ever say it as a word, unlike RAM, which is almost always pronounced as a word and is thus is an acronym. That's the difference between those things, btw. We tend to call all of them acronyms, and that's okay, but there is a difference.
Jfc, don't be that guy. Just take the lumps and ignore them like any other director does.
Man, this occur really an opinion, it's a rant.
Which is fine, I guess, but it means you won't get useful responses for the most part.
Here's the thing though. You can't crowd source medical advice. Well, you can, but doing so is an idiot's bet. You might get lucky and get good advice, but chances are it'll range from useless to possibly risky/dangerous.
It's hard enough to diagnose when you have a solid patient history and a good intake interview. Going from there to prescribing is another set of evaluations to get the most results with the least side effects.
And you sure as fuck need to give plenty of disclaimers if you do give advice so that some idiot doesn't follow it without thinking it through.
Me? Idgaf about liability because I won't give advice without a shit ton of disclaimers, and outright telling the person they shouldn't take the advice.
But I agree with you. If you aren't going to do something useful, just scroll on. No need to waste anyone's time with the bullshit.
Yeah, obviously, or the title wouldn't even have happened.
And it's been that way for a while now. Back when windows 10 happened, I was able to install mint, get most of my preferred programs set up, and handle data transfer with zero CLI use. Which was awesome, because my dyslexic ass would have taken forever otherwise. It wasn't until I started putzing around for pop and giggles that I even opened a terminal.
My mom w as able to jump right in after installation of mint, and go through the gui to try things out, no issues.
That's a win-win right there
Not just no, hell no.
People like to think that the seventies is when you automatically lose your ability to think and do anything useful. That's bullshit; it's individual, genetics combined with access to good nutrition, healthcare, etc.
I used to work as a nurse's assistant, specifically in home health where the patients were often at home with spouses, and other age peers. I had patients as old as their 90s that could still function mentally just fine, but had physical issues. I had patients older than that too, several just past 100, but they really wouldn't have been able to be a walmart greeter.
But even with the patients that did suffer cognitive difficulties, there were plenty of family members and friends that didn't. Most people suffer only minor cognitive decline in their seventies. Given otherwise good health, there's no necessity for someone without a diagnosis that would prevent them from doing their job to be forced to retire.
What we need are term limits, not ageist bullshit. The problem isn't age, or even a given political bent, it's the accumulation of power and influence that then becomes a commodity open for purchase, leading to corruption.
Now, I wouldn't object to mandatory fitness evaluations, but that's going to be as corruptible as anything else political. I certainly think some specific diagnoses should exclude someone from making decisions for the entire nation, that affect the entire world, but that's a tough thing to make happen, much less make work.
But age? Age is absolutely not a factor in fitness for any public office. Hell, I'm of the mind that none of the elected offices should have minimum ages, beyond a national age of adulthood so that the people in the position aren't immediately beholden to someone like a parent. Pick whatever arbitrary age you want for that, and we're good to go as long as it passes muster legally.