More like [ˈd̪ät̪ä], no long vowel.

That's my B, I was looking at Ecclesiastical Latin for that one :3

Interesting points though, thanks for the elaboration. Shows the layers of silliness that is depending upon other languages for the way we pronounce words.

Your science teacher was wrong, unfortunately. In Classical Latin, datum is pronounced as [ˈd̪ät̪ʊ̃ˑ] "dah-too(m)" and likewise data as [ˈd̪äːt̪ä] [ˈd̪ät̪ä] "dah-tah."

Not that Latin should really have a say in how we speak English anyhow.

Air Canada should be top 5 imo. I want my three nights in an expinse hotel (the only one with available rooms, at that) reimbursed, goddammit, I don't care if it was out of your control due to "weather" on the nice, sunny day that my wife was having at my destination.

I might be a little biased...

A hypercorrection based on a misunderstanding of the Latin declension for the word, at that.

Happy Canada day, legends.

Take the red pill, all linguistic categories are equally unreal.

Nearly half the temperature needed to boil water.

Hello, I'd just like to clear up this common misconception. Much like 18 USC § 331, which only targets the fraudulent defacement of coinage, criminal intent is also a requirement to be charged under the applicable criminal code for banknotes, 18 USC § 333. Pressing a penny at the zoo isn't illegal and neither is what the crazy person did to those banknotes. These codes are intended to prosecute attempts to change the face value of banknotes or remove metal from coinage to sell the scrap and pass off the coins as being their full value.

18 USC § 331:

Whoever fraudulently [emphasis added] alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or

Whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled, or lightened—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

18 USC § 333:

Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, [emphasis added] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Someone should repost his comments without attribution, remix them without indicating as such, and/or use them for commercial purposes. Then we wait and see if he tries to enforce the license.

M*cros*ft

No, it's been in English since Old English, but is cognate with Swedish hej.

Not as bad for his character as is his controversies section on wikipedia

I'm in a similar situation to you with my wife, dog, and cat. I just quit pharmacy school because I couldn't take it anymore and now I don't know what direction to go in. I totally get OP as well, I've had to be told many times by my wife and others that people do genuinely like life and that I just can't understand that because I'm depressed, but meds sure ain't helping. I can't seem to get over the utilitarian algebra of how [good/pleasure]-[bad/pain]>0 could possibly be true, if you know what I mean. Which is funny because I'm not even a utilitarian, but for myself it somehow applies.

Good luck getting that new job.

Well then you should have just said that instead, because your initial reply was unwarranted given that I made my position on police enforcement in this regard quite clear.

I use weed lol.

Drug isn't a dirty word, I apply this thinking to any and every drug, whether or not it's a "drug of abuse." If it hasn't been shown to be safe during pregnancy, then it shouldn't be used in pregnancy.

Jailing is not the answer, no, but throwing in "[m]arijuana may not even harm fetuses" is not the kind of message we want to be sending. One of my professors is a leading expert in cannabis research in Canada, and he is currently studying the effects of cannabis on fetal development in rats. They and previous studies are finding/have found increased anxiety and decreased cognition and sociability in rat pups exposed in utero, with worse effects in females than males. Other studies have found some physical deformations I believe, but I'm not so familiar with their research. My professor is studying this specifically because of the extent of its use in pregnancy and his concern with the long-term and large-scale effects of this. Cannabis is a drug and should not be used – without exception – in pregnancy until its safety and efficacy is established. I sympathise with women in a tough situation, but it's simply not fair to the children. I just think throwing in these kinds of phrases is dismissive of rational concerns, even if the responses to these concerns are irrational.

Oh, I need a new toque, mind getting me one?

Müesli

I concur. Furthermore I will note that 2.4 mg estradiol valerate IM is below the dose range for the indication of MtF transitioning, and the frequency should be every two weeks instead of weekly (though admittedly 4.8 mg per 2 weeks is almost there, and weekly vs biweekly dosing probably doesn't matter all that much, but I trust the source). I've posted the dosing recommendations for you in the image below. It is from a source called Lexicomp, which is unfortunately paywalled (I have access via my uni). Lexicomp cites this article which is also unfortunately paywalled. I suppose you'll just have to trust me, though I will add the necessary disclaimer that this is not medical advice and I accept no responsibility for your use of this medication, and the information provided is solely for the purpose of harm-reduction.

Linguistic prescriptivism disgusts me.