Calling RPVs, UAPs or UASs "flying acronyms" is misleading ,as these terms are not acronymns, being abbreviations; although conceivably you could make a sort of word out of "RPAS".
"Drone" is of course a word properly used to describe a pre-programmed pilot-less machine ( normally an aircraft) loosely and unfortunately used by the ignorant as a synonym for an RPV.
The fact that such a term it is in common incorrect usage , does not necessarily infer its acceptance by those professionally involved. The press call any tracked vehicle with a gun a "tank", refer tautologically to 'SAM Missiles" , confuse "aerostats" with tethered LTA platforms and seem to think that "dirigible" refers to a rigid structured aerostat. I see now that a "Fencer" is being referred to as a fighter ( O.K. that was originally an old ASCC cock-up but "Bencer" wasn't really a retrospective option).
By all means let us laugh at the puerile antics of the "meeja" but don't let us fall into the trap of acceptance of misleading and ultimately confusing terms.
And while we're at it, when (and why) some years ago did the term "strike" lose its particular connotation? I also note that "proliferation" has also seemingly changed its meaning in parlance vis-a-vis WMD.