Re:"Unique" has evolved beyond your notions (Score 1)

Language is understood by consensus - meanings are implicitly agreed upon by whatever group is using it at any one time. It constantly changes, and equally that means changes can be redirected and resisted.

Agreed, but you've already lost the battle for "unique" in the same way many people here are still fighting the battle "hacker" vs "cracker" battle. The battle is over, there is consensus. Get over it.

Language evolution isn't done by committee. It's not a case of people agreeing or disagreeing with a new usage of a word. The moment people are using it, and you understood what they meant by it, the battle is over. You can't undo a definition by correcting people. Words lose a particular definition only one said definition is forgotten for lack of use. And if anything, I think it's more likely that the word "unique" will lose the "only one in existence" definition before it loses the "unusual" definition. So if you want to be clear that something is unique in the sense that there is only one of whatever it is, say that there's only one of it, and don't use the word unique.

Sooooo...by the above, would it be incorrect to state that a person's fingerprints or DNA (except in the case of identical sibling(s), and even that is subject to debate on the DNA) are unique?