Also, enshitification of the work environment and mistreatment of employees in general makes for a who gives a crap mentality that’s backed up by a belief of a bad reference no matter what you do. This leads to indirect sabotage of everything and long term rot from the inside. Eventually even billion dollar momentum crumbles under its own mass. It’s myopic late stage greed.

There are 10 kinds of people that understand Bigfoot. Those that do and those that don’t.

"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.

"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.

Only the emperor has such magnificently transparent clothes you would swear he was wearing nothing at all.

While funny, that’s not actually how it works. Releasing small particles into the atmosphere of any color can greatly enhance the nucleation process and is especially effective at trapping heat by letting more energy in than radiated heat outward. Then the obvious answer becomes we must pollute more fine particles in the upper atmosphere, preferably by removing all regulations like for container ships so it’s profitable. /sarcasm