> Most acronyms are ambiguous. How would I be sure the answer there is what OP was referring to?
Is that what happened in this case? Did you initially try Googling yourself, only to encounter multiple definitions of "UAP" which seemed irrelevant to the article? Given the search results that came up for me, as well as the extent to which UAPs have been in the news lately, that would be surprising.
> Rude. And ineffective.
My goal is not to be rude. But I put about as much effort into answering your question as you did into asking it. You would have gotten your answer faster, while creating less work for others, if you had simply typed your question into Google instead of the HN comments field.
If you want to go the extra mile, you can even answer your own question, and make that your comment. Something like "OP's comment was the first time I had encountered the acronym 'UAP'. After a Google search, I found it means 'unidentified aerial phenomena'. In case others were wondering."
