your dryer might be 50A and your AC 40A, but they rarely go at the same time. Same with the stove which has a 40A plug.

I take it you've never lived anywhere in the US south, or even the US west (AZ, parts of TX, etc)....from about April through start of NOV.

Having all of those on at the same time is quite common....especially any combination you want to make with AC.

My AC has clicked on and pretty much will not click off till first part of November....I'm in New Orleans.

Thankfully, my water heater, stove and oven and dryer are gas....but not everyone has the luxury of gas so yes, all those electrics can easily be on at same time, especially with a family of any size...and especially on weekends.

"If you had to not dislike someone to give them a fair trial then every child rapist, murder and other scumbags would walk free every day."

First scumbags do walk free every day and it's better than imprisoning a bunch of innocent people. If you disagree... tough shit, that's our system in the US. Otherwise the people need fear the state when it is the state which should fear the people.

"You only have to show you can provide a view based on the facts not on whether you like the person."

There is no way to show that during jury selection, only a way to fish to out bias that colors your judgement... like disliking the person.

"Simple dislike does not automatically equate to bias."

No, it to doesn't automatically equate to a failure to overcome bias. Dislike is a bias. He's entitled to a jury who is neutral at worst.

Musk has an undeserved negative reputation among a radical political faction which dominates the location. This suggests the judge is likely among that faction. Discovery wouldn't make any moderate or apolitical person dislike him, his actions are generally altruistic... including his basis for suing Altman. Altman on the other hand is disliked for honest reasons... the worst of which are the basis of this case.

like? No. But not dislike either. If they dislike you then it isn't neutral... or since this is a civil matter it should at least be an even spread. Most people are neutral or positive on Musk but not in a heavy blue zone like that. Altman isn't really a public figure outside of tech.

There was never any credible reason to doubt it nor any motive for lying in the first place. A subset of it was codified but definitely not all of it.

"The only way you wouldn't have a negative view of them would be if you've completely disconnected from society"

The only people with a negative view of Musk are left wingers and they are a shrinking minority despite the sad echo-chamber that has grown here on Slashdot.

Congress (Article I) has passed many, many laws without veto from the president (Article II) which have withstood challenges in the Supreme Court (Article III) which have established policies of wealth distribution,

Err....exactly which many laws have given us wealth redistribution ?

"It is a jury of your peers. If all your peers hate you, that is a you problem."

Musk doesn't have that problem. A large but vocal minority hates him which is highly concentrated in the place where they are holding the trial and apparently includes the judge.

Faulty analogy. Musk is not a dictator and has not been found to have done anything illegal, immoral, or harmful. He is a politically polarized figure in the sense that half the political spectrum hates him while the other half is neutral to him. Even if your 'for or against' reasoning applied, in a criminal case "for" would be required if we must choose. But this isn't, there is a large population of polarized people who hate Musk... the majority of the population is neutral or mildly approving of him while Altman is not especially favored by anyone. They should be able to find a reasonable jury who aren't opposed to either or move to a jurisdiction where they can.

Yes, he disregards that the outcome was predicted and the simple fact that there is no contrasting benefit to outweigh even one case of this policy going wrong. Even it were 'extremely rare' there is no downside to putting men in men's prisons and preventing 100% of those 'isolated' stories.

His claim is the default, men are men whether they pretend to be women or not. He doesn't need to provide the support anymore than someone claiming an apple will fall if you let go of it. These things are already the current well known and established state, already proven and well supported by the current publicly known evidence.

It is you; claiming gravity does not apply to apples who identify as helium filled balloons; who are making an extraordinary claim which requires not only new evidence but extraordinary evidence.

Drama is fiction or an artificial/inflated appearance of something being striking or alarming. Karen White's case is innately and legitimately alarming with no embellishment. It is also an EXAMPLE of a policy being applied which is public and applied consistently and the majority PREDICTED outcome of that policy.

"Believing trans people have rights and should receive the only treatment psychiatry has found to work"

It hasn't been found to work or arrest the social contagion at all, if anything it has drastically increased the incidence and thus increased the number of children at high risk of suicide and there has been no contrasting analysis on the success of seeking to correct the dementia which feels the physical reality of gender could somehow be wrong.

"The lack of substance of your argument is that you ignore context"

You've failed to make any sort of argument. He has provided both a broad study and an example of an experiment wherein a public policy is resulting in incidents of exactly the sort predicted in advance. When you form a hypothesis of what will happen in advance, then apply the hypothesis, then see the outcome which was predicted we don't call that 'anecdote.'

"I was willing to believe it up until the point it was obvious it wasn't going to happen, i.e. when they raised prices instead of dropping them."

He released the $35k Tesla 3. If you don't think that's affordable then fine but it's what he said wanted to do. It's hardly his fault that things couldn't stay that way in the face of Bidenomics blowing up prices.

"Not hating Elon before he demonstrated himself to be a massive piece of shit is actually a mark of a rational person, just like hating Elon once he did is."

Hating people is the mark of a massive and irrational piece of shit. Supporting free speech and standing in opposition to socialists is just the mark of basic decency.

"/me - Thumbs through my copy of the US constitution looking for anything in the limited, enumerated federal roles and responsibilities alingning with wealth redistribution."

Funny how most people who cite the constitution gloss over Article III like it's non binding.

If I recall.....Article 3 of the US constitution has to do with setting up the judicial branch...Supreme Court, etc.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with wealth redistribution, the subject I was addressing originally where you quoted me....?

"The asset tax is dumb. how is he supposed to pay that tax without diluting his ownership stake? "

That's the goal. The government exists for the benefit of the people, the people suffer when all wealth accumulates at the top. Massive ownership stake is not only NOT a goal of the government, it is the problem to solve.

/me - Thumbs through my copy of the US constitution looking for anything in the limited, enumerated federal roles and responsibilities alingning with wealth redistribution.

Hmm....On a state level, well I guess they can but thankfully precious few even think about doing this.

If nothing else, it ends up pushing wealthy people OUT of your state and overall you stand to have a tax revenue loss over a short period of time.

People are mobile you know.....