>(slang) Extremely good at something (usually a video game).
Neither the Merriam-Webster dictionary nor the Cambridge dictionary[0] list meaning 4, further hinting that it is a use that is mostly occurring in niche online communities. Note that I'm not saying meaning 4 is incorrect[1]. There's no such thing. Words is words. Usage is meaning. But I think I am justified in my belief that it is still relatively uncommon.
[0] The OED wanted money to show me their list of meanings.
[1] Although it is almost assuredly a mishearing of "crack".
> "this might be the last election you ever vote in" meme
To be fair the left is saying the same, because Trump will end democracy, this time for real.
I am not American, so often only the crazy/extremist views reach me over the ocean, but I did read over the past years the hope in leftist circles, that migrants will make Florida and Texas first a purple and then blue.
I think you model Pro-Lifers incorrect. Do you know any dedicated catholics in real life? And yes, while it is a weird/artificial sci-fi tech, per definition unnatural, even people opposed seem to agree that the unborn child is innocent and did nothing wrong.
Anyway, I see more cautious interest for artificial wombs by anti-abortion advocates than by pro-abortion advocates.
> “The term ‘artificial wombs’ is misleading about this technology,” Catholic policy expert Leah Libresco Sargeant told the Washington Examiner. “A [neonatial intensive care unit] incubator is already a kind of artificial womb, trying to provide some of the support the baby would have otherwise gotten from his or her mother. If we’re able to provide better support to extremely premature babies, I’m all for it.”
While my feeling currently is that pro-phoicers see it as a “threat to abortion rights”, because it challenges the viability standard. That alone makes pro-lifers want to embrace it! See a typical discussion here among pro-lifers:
> Artificial wombs are the easiest way to test if someone actually views abortion as simply ending a pregnancy or ending a life. Most of the time, PC don’t want to admit they support the ending a life because it contradicts all their arguments that abortion is simply ending a pregnancy.
> It’s the most pro-choice thing ever for us to give them a solution that should be a compromise between our viewpoints, and them to still whine about wanting to kill their babies instead.
I wouldn’t bet against you. He has only 27 years left until he is 80. Maybe he will get 100 years old, maybe he will get a heart infarct next year.
But this will make the matter more urgent for him, there is no reason for him to take it slow and steady, the opposite, he will push Starship hard. The next few years it will be vital for NASAs Moon landing. And after establishing a fuel depot in Earth orbit, which sounds science fiction now but is the plan for Artemis III, there will be whole new possibilities.
Doesn’t seem like this is updated when a goal is reached?
For example:
> 10,000 Teslas a Week [Link]
2,615 days since Elon Musk promised producton of 10,000 units a week by the end of 2018. (8/2/2017)
"What people should absolutely have zero concern about, and I mean zero, is that Tesla will achieve a 10,000 unit production week by the end of next year."
Elon Musk, quoted by Giovanni Bruno in The Street
They are producing now around 2 million cars a year which is four times 10K a week.
———————————
> Teslas Are Boats [Link]
1,703 days since Elon Musk advised consumers that Teslas can safely function as a boat for short periods of time. (1/31/2020)
"A Tesla works as a boat for short periods of time, as an electric car has no air intake or exhaust to block & battery/motor/electronics are water-sealed."
Elon Musk in a Tweet
I mean, yes? Everytime there is a flood people are astonished about this. This videos from 5 days ago:
> Super Fast Starlink [Link]
1,315 days since Elon Musk promised Starlink customers their speed would double by the end of 2021. (2/22/2021)
"Speed will double to ~300Mb/s & latency will drop to ~20ms later this year"
Elon Musk in a Tweet
I had assumed that statements are added only after they've become false, so the 1st and 3rd of your examples would have been added on or around 01.01.2019 and 01.01.2022 respectively.
As to boats vs flotsam (the 2nd), I've already used up my thinking-about-Musk budget for the next couple of years, but since you've nerd-sniped: floating Teslas weren't cargo, so they're not flotsam; they weren't deliberately thrown overboard, so they're not jetsam; and as they haven't been abandoned, they're not derelict; but as I doubt they can navigate, unless they're displaying vertical lights or balls they're not conforming boats not under command, either.
Could be cheaper on the Moon. The plastic/glass sheeting needs to be vacuum safe and hold pressure in. Plus you need energy anyway for heating (and cooling!), especially for the 2 week long moon nights. Being underground is not only better as radiation shield but also a better/safer controlled environment.
reply