Because of an old rule (plurals get double letter), I believe the recommended way by the Academy is «E.E. U.U.». Not sure if they’ve said otherwise recently.
It’s also not uncommon to see «E.U.A.», «E.U.» or those same but without the dots.
No confusion with the European Union, though, because that’s «Unión Europa»: «U.E.».
Entire nations: You cannot keep “America” for yourself. There is history, maps, books, the independence of other countries in the region called for the liberation of “America” (e.g. Simón Bolívar “the liberator of America”; “America for the Americans”; Sentimientos de la Nación: “America is free and independent of Spain and all other nations, governments, or monarchies”).
The U.S. of A.: Yeah… No. I’m America now. There’s no other “America” because there’s only North America and South America, 🤷🏼♂️ don’t you know? And the land is The Americas because it’s two in one. Duh. Erasure? I call it freedom! 🇺🇸🦅
All languages do this to an extent.
Exactly. In Spanish, we have some ‘curious’ names for Germany and its states and cities. «Alemania» is the name of the country. «Renania-Palatinado» is Rheinland-Pfalz, Bayern got turned into «Baviera». «Colonia» is Köln, «Friburgo de Brisgovia» is Freiburg im Brisgau…
The second one is not a big problem. Within the Spanish speaking world, only a couple of accents give ‘universal’ problems, really. Some Chilean variants, some Caribbean variants, some Andalusian accents… Otherwise, it’s fine.
I’ve got virtual friends or acquaintances in different parts of Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Spain, etc. They all conjugate some verbal times ‘weirdly’ or say ‘funny’ things, but yeah, pretty normal communication. I actually adopted some words from their regions.
(No, I still won’t celebrate a fucking day for the Spanish speaking world, friend from Spain that leans a little heavily into Hispanism…).
Are you talking about Arabic? I understand it changes a lot. It must be amazing to speak Arabic. The oceans of culture, of old philosophers, poets, etc.
Healthcare for Argentina? Milei is destroying public welfare. That’s for other oligarchs. $40B in exchange of… Well, Milei is acting unhinged and won’t explain, but probably lands, water, lithium. Trump bought something, we just don’t know what yet.
And including CDS in the next DSM would help a lot. We need to identify people with the CDS profile as the things that work for them are (slightly) different from ADHD’s.
We are not the armchair philosophers of yesteryear.
Ironically, a big problem here is philosophical.
The autism spectrum was formed from reuniting different disorders and proposing a board neurodevelopmental category in which symptoms may vary widely from individual to individual. That was ontology informing nosology. Now we are seeking patterns again within this spectrum and finding a different number of them depending on which criteria we focus on. This is again a matter of abstract categorization, prioritizing some concepts over others, defining entities beforehand: philosophy again.
The latest study that was very popular found four categories considering age in which DSM-5 symptoms appear, and ‘cluster’ and severity of said symptoms. Those four categories still don’t explain the PDA profile or the giftedness comorbidity that seems to actually change the cognitive patterns of classic ASD such as the preference for concrete thinking and the black and white (polarized) thinking, probably because behavioral and cognitive patterns weren’t an important axis here.
Horribly said, the preliminary work in nosology is philosophical. I guess in all sciences. We often make our minds about what we are searching for before starting to empirically searching for it; and then the findings channel another series of scrambling concepts, updating hypothesis, etc.
Funnily enough, the philosophical weight only grows when the brain is part of the enigma (entire branches of philosophy dedicated to the “mind”, the brain, etc.). Armchair philosophers’ work again so that the field work is actually well designed/directed and meaningful in the ways we want it to be.
Let’s not reduce the role philosophy has in current times, please.
Advanced whatever will always lead to philosophy, and there are no definitive answers there or elsewhere. You can debate the meaning of a state of matter, of gender, of life, of number, etc. (That’s why there is philosophy of physics, biology, mathematics, chemistry…). So I don’t think that’s the point.
Yes, both sex and gender get complex, but the answer to conservatism isn’t to say that advanced science has it all figured out because that would be a lie. They’ll ask us to demonstrate ontological categories that we cannot demostrate through science. It might be true sometimes the: “you are conservative because you rely on basic science, and progressivism and other leftists ideas lie on advanced science”, but ultimately, the debate is open and we need to be careful not to bluff about science being on our side because science has its limits.
Philosophy is the final battleground, and in there we do have strong arguments, but still, I feel this “smarter than thou” attitude is not it.
We all are, yes. Also, accounts fall into the “cherry picking” problem. E.g., I’d had assume my friend’s only interest is Warhammer if I only knew him by his posts.