Geimfari

It's not wrong but it is confusing – it's showing you what its current status is, which should be shown somewhere else than in the timeline.

The page says that as of today (2020-01-01) the status is active. The wording is confusing.

It's strongly discouraged and looked down upon. Editors with a conflict of interest take up a disproportionate amount of other editors' time and are practically never able to write neutrally about themselves or their company.

Absolutely. You could even add fake citations to online newspapers – the odds of someone checking are very low, and I continually stumble upon either blatant fabrications or misunderstandings that have stood there "sourced" for years on high-traffic articles.

It's an app for children. Would you not expect to be ousted from Club Penguin for repeatedly starting discussions about Abu Ghraib?

Almost all textbooks and dictionaries use their own transcription key, I haven't come across plain old IPA in language learning textbooks, only in linguistics textbooks.

It's only a sign that we're doing something wrong if you assign a positive value to procreation. Many of us don't, either for ethical reasons (life includes suffering, and you have no right to inflict suffering on someone who didn't ask for it) or environmental reasons.

And as the logical conclusion of that ethical value system, I do sincerely hope we get a Children of Men scenario where we put an end to procreation entirely. (I'm aware that that viewpoint is fringe)

Air traffic control at domestic airports in many regions do communicate with pilots in the local language (even if they're are all able to switch to English at a moment's notice).

It's all just jargon, for those of us working in the field it's really not difficult to both know the international Latin medical terms and the local terms to use with patients or colleagues.

That would be men-who-have-sex-with-men, those with infected partners, sex workers, and intravenous drug users.

That is a fairly large number of the population that would be placed on an expensive drug with several side effects.

The drug has several non-minor side effects, is prohibitively expensive, and is the same as the treatment for someone who already has the virus. I for one think it's improper to prescribe a drug with these nephrological side effects to a large number of otherwise healthy individuals, not even accounting for the cost.

No that's not the case, the side effects of PrEP aren't minor. PrEP should not be prescribed so lightly.