God damnit, yesterday I explained to someone in another thread what Trump meant when he said he could get Elon to kneel and beg, that Trump as President could revoke EV subsidies and/or heavily influence or defund NASA such that they stop funding SpaceX.
I did not expect this goddamned moron to just actually say as much, directly, out loud, 12 hours later.
“Opposite” would necessarily suggest a different outcome (i.e. Musk not beholden to Trump).
(Haven’t had a logic course in literal decades, so maybe someone can correct me if I’m misremembering. I forget how to draw those logic square thingies…)
God damnit, yesterday I explained to someone in another thread what Trump meant when he said he could get Elon to kneel and beg, that Trump as President could revoke EV subsidies and/or heavily influence or defund NASA such that they stop funding SpaceX.
I did not expect this goddamned moron to just actually say as much, directly, out loud, 12 hours later.
He actually said the opposite here.
What the parent comment is saying is the implication is that without Elon’s money, he wouldn’t consider EVs. So same meaning.
Saying that he “has no choice” now doesn’t really sound like he’s the one in control of the decision. That’s definitely not the same thing.
No, he said the converse.
“Opposite” would necessarily suggest a different outcome (i.e. Musk not beholden to Trump).
(Haven’t had a logic course in literal decades, so maybe someone can correct me if I’m misremembering. I forget how to draw those logic square thingies…)
You’re right, thanks.