I hate to break this to you, but there's only 43 people on lemmy at all. We're all just pretending to be everyone, including you.
You aren't you at all, you're a constructed personality inside someone's mind with a lifetime of false memories and a thin veneer of "free will" to give you the illusion of being a real person.
Nothing says there have to be duplicated organs at all. You wouldn't necessarily even need two sets of lungs for them to be able to speak, just an air bladder that gets filled up without doing any major oxygenation. You could even have the "horse" lungs doing all the work for that too, without the need for a secondary air sac.
You could even do away with a full skeletal system in the upper section. Could be almost all muscle around some bones for support and mobility.
All that would be necessary for the upper part are digestive tubing, breathing tubing, and a skull on top of a section of something akin to vertebrae for turning the head itself.
Think of that human torso being a very complicated neck rather than a half of a human grown onto a horse.
Now, I would think that with the extra space, there would be something like a stomach in there to begin breaking things down before sending them along but that isn't mandatory for the basics to work.
Now, where things get interesting is reproduction. There's where you'd see some trippy arrangement to allow for birthing a baby. I've always thought that maybe the "human" part isn't developed the same. More of a lump of a head with stumpy little proto-arms that finish growing after birth. Just enough so they could run and eat, with the rest of the torso section slowly arising from its flesh prison fully during puberty.
They'd spend their first few years slowly growing the trunk and arms, allowing the muscles to develop over time.
Even if there are ribs, they wouldn't have to be attached to anything. They could just be under the muscles a little to give structure without the need to have organs to protect.
Also, how many sets of genitals do they have? Do the front and back have to match if there's genitals on both? There's sci-fi centaurs where the whole thing is way more complicated than you'd think.
Man, he's one of the greatest songwriters of the era. Deeply underappreciated.
But I've never been able to get into him as a performer. He's fine on guitar, but his singing just falls flat for me, live or studio. He's not bad, his voice is pleasant enough, and he's on key and all that, it just doesn't "do" anything for me.
Which sucks, because the dude's talent as a songwriter is insane. Like, "if you needed me"? C'mon, that alone would be enough for anyone to retire proud. I want to like him as performer, and I always give him another try when someone drops a link online, or plays it irl. It just hasn't worked yet.
Gen z are the millennial's kids. The older millennials are hitting their forties now. Not all gen z are the kids of millennials, some are gen-x kids too.
I've never seen any kind of outrage over comfortable clothes by millennials on any big scale. Or gen-x. Hell, not even all of the baby boomers do, unless it's at work.
If you're seeing it irl, then it's likely just parents parenting, which is a different thing entirely. Online? You gotta at least grab some screen shots of handful of examples before this is even believable as a generation level thing. Better, provide links to it, since screen shots can be faked easily by anyone older than about 12.
If you are seeing it, is it on a specific media outlet? You'll find that some are more prone to stupidity like bitching about other people's clothing than other forms of media.
Tbh though, how the fuck can you even tell what generation the people complaining are? Do they give their age? Seems pretty damn weird unless it's YouTube, but most of those are memes to begin with. "I'm 70 years old and I love/hate this" type of bullshit.
I think you're full of malarkey tbh, but if you aren't,I would actually be interested in seeing where this is because millennials have rocked comfy clothes in public for well over a decade. It would be very funny if that's changing as they age.
Now, there's the adjacent, but not the same thing of band shirts or similar merchandise. The difference is that in theory, the band/artist is going to benefit from the purchase. It is still advertising that I'm paying for, but, because merchandise is often a big income stream for musicians in particular, I don't object to being their billboard if I like them enough to get anything of theirs in the first place.
When it's a clothing company? Hell no. If their label/logo is more than the size of a tag, I'm not doing it. I don't mind the idea of a trademark/label/tag being present, that's expected. It's when the branding becomes the design that it's a problem.
Gods, they are so damn strange, but it works. Knifey was the first track of theirs I ran into, and I was obsessed with it for a week until I could get it out of my head.
It's all just balls out insanity with no filter beyond very basic song structure. In the best way, that isn't a complaint.
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.
