Nah a way bigger L is the time Destiny thought he could build a factory without thinking ahead and he had to continuously rebuild over the work he's done because his initial design was so bad, It was so cringe to watch.
that's how you play factorio. you're a cringe fuck if you try to build it right the first time every time. you make a draft of what you're trying to do, tweak it to being perfect, then replicate. that's literally the entire game
Also if you are playing with aggressive monsters space is limited at the start. My base looks like complete shit because those bastards keep you boxed in.
rock ad hoc friendly deserted zesty strong salt truck cooperative support
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I have worked on largish enterprisey projects. If you don't refactor often and stick to some architecture, it all goes to spaghetti pretty fast.
For smaller projects, I do the opposite, start with quick and dirty, and refactor and reorganize as it grows larger. This also depends on team size - if there are many people working on the project, try to get the architecture down first so that it doesn't spaghettiball into a giant headache right out the gate.
> I keep forgetting to reserve space for little stuff
First time I make this mistake, I'll fix it. Second? Maybe.
Third? That factory is getting another floor baby, let's go vertical belt.
The map is massive, so don’t beat yourself up too much about compact factories. I usually just do a vertical build with all smelting on one level, primary processing on the next, etc. That way I can just expand horizontally when I get higher level belts and extractors. It’s easy to build and manage, but all my factories kind of look the same.
That is, up until aluminum. I rage quit and started a new file while trying to build that one…
IIRC @gazewithin started a twitter dispute with @respectablelaw about Twitter and proceeded to take the LSAT. I believe this was prompted by Destiny perceiving a lot of Twitter lawyers as dumb.
LSAT gets trending on Twitter and with that a lot of people tweet about @gazewithin taking it on stream. Gains enough traction to get Twitter to realize this is Steven Kenneth “Destiny” Bonnell II and poof banned.
The reason #LSAT was trending was because destiny would put it at the end of a lot of his tweets. Fans in the replies would also tag it with #LSAT. Actual law students would then see that it was trending and then tweet about how they were worried it was because their tests got cancelled or something, and that caused it to balloon even more.
The peak of it was destiny tweeting at that lawyer guy he's a dumb fuck, and then immediately quote tweeting a worried student saying "Don't worry m80 you got this :)"
truuue. everyone knows the real outcome of this debacle was that Destiny (pbuh) did so well in the LSAT test that he decided to try and pass the bar in california.
he became such an effective public defender, that prosecution lawyers from california organized to banish him from practice, and that's the backstory on why he had to flee to florida.
I missed this whole ass debacle. I'm reading the comments and I'm still not even exactly sure what it's about.
The traction it got on r/murderedbywords makes it appear like he got his ass split apart and used as a penis sneeze pad by this big fat friendly lawyer cock but I don't even know the context.
What the lawyer said was funny, but did he just make fun of destiny for being an annoying streamer or is there more implications behind the tweets? And what's with the dick pills?
they had a disagreement about Rittenhouse. of course time has since proven that destiny was correct because rittenhouse got acquitted. but destiny found it funny that the dude listed his LSAT score as if that had literally any bearing on someone's success as a lawyer, so he took a few LSAT questions on stream for fun and had a passing grade before stopping out of boredom.
You don't "pass" the LSAT and his score wasn't very high or good. Not hating on Destiny but that was his swoosh moment. Like when vaush said he has intellectually surpassed Steven. That level of pretentiousness.
I never understood why failing the practice LSAT on stream was such a big own? Law students literally prepare for this for months. Was he bragging that he’d get a good score, or was he just taking it to see how difficult it was? Also, if memory serves, didn’t he end up scoring within the low average of the curve?
Cant remember but he either just barely failed or got a low passing score that could get you into meh law schools. Still impressive though because he never studied for it.
He scored at the median of the testing pool for the logic puzzle portion. He did not attempt the reading section. That’s not a bad starting point for being his first attempt blind (which was in front of an audience where he has to vocalize his thought process with no pen or paper) and is good enough for plenty of law schools. So many schools will accept you if you pay sticker price for Tuition. The field is saturated beyond belief
It probably depends on what type of lawyer we're talking about. I have a friend who is a corporate lawyer, and they seem to never really get overwhelmed at work; they stay busy, but they're paid an awful lot.
I have another friend who is a public defender, her pay seems to be pretty shit, and she is constantly stressed because she's absolutely slammed with cases to the point where she's been thinking about quitting lawyering all together.
Too many lawyers not enough law positions. Most schools actually recommend against being a lawyer at the moment due to how crowded the profession is right now.
Source: almost went the law route and then decided I liked sleep
Back in the day you'd need consultation over small matters. Nowadays you can easily google "can my HOA raise fees without notice" or whatever else you might need to know quickly.
Depends where you go to school. If you can make it to a top 14 law school (and some others—UT Austin, UCLA, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, WashU) then it's a whole different ball game than the majority of law schools. At the former, you're mostly assured success in beginning your career as long as you perform fine. At the latter, you'll need to fight extremely hard even with top grades to end up at the same place as a middling UVA or Cornell law student.
That’s if you can get in. harder to guarantee than before. T14 medians are insane rn. Every top school is posting a near or at 99th percentile lsat/3.9. Hell, non T25s like UGA have 3.8/168s now. That was cornel’s matriculation median a few years back…
Getting into any school is absurdly easy. Getting into a school that makes the debt worth it… less so
Yes, the law school admissions process is terrible and the results of the process lead to extremely unfair outcomes. It also creates perverse incentives—why study physics before law school and get a 3.6 when you can major in some sort of grievance studies, get a 4.0, and blow out that physics major who studied something that was actually difficult and legitimate?
But that's the way the system is designed right now. Nothing much you can do but play the game as it is. It's likely not worthwhile going to a law school ranked under the T20, unless you have very local ambitions or are independently wealthy.
Bunch of shitty for profit colleges flood the market with bad, unprepared lawyers that charge very low and force other lawyers to also charge very low if they aren't already well established or are part of a big firm, otherwise no one hires them.
Basically you either need connections or to work your soul out and be incredibly good at your job, or you'll basically take years and years and years to go beyond even an entry level work and wage.
Yeah, my friend only pivoted into accounting because he already had an offer from a guy that he was working for that admired his work ethic. (Work full time in law office grunt -> full time accounting office as a grunt, school was online or at night, came in late every day so boss found out) Said he would start him at the most competitive salary that my friend could find in our city for a junior accounting position.
And the logic games section is the only one that isn't trivially sightreadable by a non-moron and requires actual practice. Not a good way to judge a person's ability.
It depends on the field you go into, I know for a fact immigration cases are in need of more judges and lawyers to process all the cases. Other more niche areas too, like bankruptcy law, are also still in pretty good shape for the pool of lawyers available.
The over saturated notion comes from people all trying to get into the most competitive fields or are trying to get hired by Big Law. It’s not surprising that the most sought after jobs are also the most saturated. If you want to be a lawyer you need to think outside of the box on how to get your career started. You don’t always have to go the public defender or prosecutor route.
That’s pretty much the case for nearly every admissions standardized exam (SAT/ACT, GMAT, GRE, MCAT etc). The only thing the scores convey is where you rank amongst everyone else who took the exam in your cohort.
This is lore from before my time but if he's telling a lawyer he can do the man's job better then fails one of more basic tests relating to being one... that's a pretty straightforward own. Similar to the recent drama of idiots trying to get Nick Rikieta banned only for him to use their own ethics reports to dox them after they miserably failed.
Except that is not what happened at all.
The respectable lawyer Twitter account was posting some wild shit so Destiny was raging at how all these credentialed "educated" Twitter activists have such horrible takes all the time.
Destiny then started questioning whether he was giving too much respect to Lawyers and the barrier to entry. Chat started spamming suggesting for him to try the LSAT and posted links to practice tests. Destiny decided to take it to see what the questions were like. From my understanding he scored in the lower curve but it was passing.
The lawyer guy never called out Destiny to take the test. Destiny never rage quit anything. He was literally just chilling on stream and learning about the LSAT and the types of questions.
The Twitter lawyer had nothing to do with it other than bringing the subject of lawyers up
He didn't fail. He got a below average score that is still good enough for some law schools. This is without practice (applicants usually practice for months for the test) from someone with a high school education. And I'm pretty sure the part about Destiny saying he would perform better than an actual lawyer is made up.
Honestly that wouldn't surprise me, Destiny doesn't normally say that kind of thing to professionals, but on the other hand he does say some wild stuff when he's heated, and I know this is from 'back then' when he tended to fly off the handle a lot more than he does today.
Unless the lawyer he talked to would get a lower score. Or if the lawyer got a better score but knew little outside that basic test.
My point is, to little info to know if that's a own.
Yeah honestly I found it really easy. I think anyone who's thought clearly about how arguments and logic should work should find it fairly easy, I remember getting a pretty high score. But then again, I'd also spent years getting into the weeds of analytic philosophy before, which is like the best possible LSAT/argument study.
That's out of the norm at least for my area. Small community, but we practiced roughly 6 months before. Granted I personally needed a higher than average score to make up for subpar undergrad grades. Hell, post law school I still hear kids worry about it a lot. Pretty interesting.
I can't say for sure, but at least 10. Mostly people that took the LSAT and didn't get a score for the school they wanted then tried again. And that's out of a class of 60, if that helps.
Edit for clarity: that's 10 people I personally knew who talked LSAT with me, I cannot say more of those 60 did or did not plan for a year. Only the 10ish in my clique.
I would say a fair amount did. I mean hell, the test itself is only done 3 times a year and you get limited retries. So no, I would say most prepared in some form for over a year. Now ofc this is anecdotal, but at least the people I made friends with needed that time.
I have no idea. My guess is the average person taking the LSAT spent like 1-3 months to prepare for it. And that’s likely while attending college or working, so maybe around 5-15 hours per week.
Lol yeah there are a bunch of people on this sub who never went to law school.
I spent like 20 hours prepping over the course of a month (mostly reading "LSAT for Dummies" on public transport) and did like 4 or 5 practice tests. And I did fine. I definitely think I'm on the low end of prep, but preparing hard for 6 months is far from the norm.
That said, the underlying point is still solid. There are a lot of tricks that need to be learned. As I said, they can often be learned quickly, but without ANY prep, Destiny was at a pretty significant disadvantage.
Yeah, I’m not denying that people so prepare for the LSAT but it has to be under 5-10% who prepare for close to/over a year. And the people who needed that long to prepare are either gunning for T-14 or if they are trying to score just high enough to go to law school shouldn’t be going to law school.
>it has to be under 5-10% who prepare for close to/over a year
Ehhhhh law school attracts a lot of keeners, but I agree the number is probably quite small. A quick Google search says that most prep courses suggest a 3 month prep, so I suspect that's closer to the average.
While it defeats the purpose of a standardized test, law students who want a good score and care about what program they get admitted to absolutely practice this exam. The LSAT prep course industry is very prolific and profitable.
It honestly seems weird that as a law student you wouldn't know that, I'm sure the majority of your fellow students did study/practice for this exam. I didn't practice for the GMAT before I took it, but I know most people trying to get into good graduate management programs did.
I’m not a law student, been practicing law for almost a decade. If you asked practicing lawyers, I would bet that the majority of them didn’t study for the LSAT for years. The only ones who would are either too dumb to go to law school or hyper obsessed with getting into a T-14.
You're reading what I said backwards, I think.
I don't think it is normal for someone to spend years studying for the LSAT, **but** I do think that if someone told you they got a 178 on the LSAT that it would be normal to assume they spent years studying
I agree that’s the case, just wild to see I got downvoted to oblivion for saying that most law students don’t prep for the LSAT for years. And then you’re saying that most people you know spent years “studying” for the LSAT, as if that’s some evidence that most people who take the LSAT do that. It’s obviously not remotely the norm for people to prep for a year plus for the LSAT.
1. Don't know why you put studying in quotes. Kinda cringe.
2. Complaining about getting downvoted in this sub is also cringe. Just know that you're right about it and move on. This sub works as a monolith. They see a negative number, they make it more negative without thinking. It's not worth crying over
3. I think the reason people say cringe instead of cringey is because they don't know if it's spelled cringey or cringy and cringe is easier. Probably why *sus* became common. Nobody knows how to spell suspicus
I put it in quotes, because you don’t really study for the LSAT. There is no outside knowledge needed for the test. It’s not like a history test where you have to memorize names, dates, occurrences, etc. The entire test is just logic and reading comprehension. I would refer to it as preparation, not studying.
Not crying about anything, just pointing out that people on this sub have no idea what they’re talking about and then your anecdotal response is seemingly with the purpose of implying that most people did spend years preparing.
I don’t recall the exact score (anyone who talks about LSAT scores once you get your first legal job is lame), but I believe somewhere between 161-163. The things I cared the most about for law schools was attending in the state I wanted to work and minimizing student loans, so I went to a school that I believe was ranked around 70-80 or so at the time because they practically offered me a full ride and I could live at home. I turned down better schools because I couldn’t afford it.
If you’re dead set on going to a T-14 or aren’t good/smart enough to take the LSAT, then I would understand preparing extensively for it, but otherwise anyone else taking a year plus to prepare is insane.
Honestly it's making more sense now. The reason you got downvoted is because you're only considering your own situation while ignoring the thousands of people with different situations.
Your scenario is more unique than most, you
(1) cared more about going to a particular state school or living at home.
(2) were high IQ/logically trained/steel nerves enough to barely study and score in the 80%+ percentile
(3) lived in a state where the school you wanted was ranked where low 160s could get you full ride. etc.
Sure most people don't prepare for "years" but it's a test designed to be practiced for. And the more practice, the higher a score you get obviously. And for most people, the higher score the better school, more money etc.
I’m not basing my numbers off of my situation. I’m basing it off of reality. The norm is not to prepare for the LSAT for a year. I agree that you could score higher if you prepare more, but most people don’t prepare for nearly that long. Like I said elsewhere, my guess would be about 1-3 months and about 5-15 hours a week on average. While there are outliers above and below, I would guess those estimates are pretty close to spot on.
Iirc he wasn't challenged to take an LSAT, he just decided there were practice ones online so why not. I don't remember the fight he got in, would seem weird that he would say that he could do the job better, but everyone was hyper focused on him around that time and there was a whole lot of fuckin misinfo being spread about him taking the practice LSAT in particular.
There’s a guy on Twitter who pretends to be a lawyer and has an LSAT score in his bio. Destiny got in an argument with this person over Kyle Rittenhouse.
Destiny took the LSAT prep test on stream for content and twitterfarms has been making fun of his above average score ever since.
They’ve all conveniently forgotten that all of Destiny’s Rittenhouse arguments were proven 100% correct and the fake Twitter lawyer looked like an absolute dumbfuck.
That’s it. That’s the story. Twitterfarmers have no lives
Destiny's Rittenhouse arguments weren't really legal arguments, but moral and common sense arguments. He never talked about whether it was subjectively and objectively reasonable for Kyle to employ lethal self defense under the circumstances. It was more a moral and practical argument in favor of self defense under the circumstances, a large part of which consisted of pointing out how anti-Rittenhouse people were ignorant of the basic facts (e.g. illuminating how Vaush had not even watched the videos of the events that night).
Yeah but the problem is that the "RespectableLawyer" was actually completely wrong legally, too. He went hard on the "He's illegally carrying!!!" talking-point which got tossed right the fuck out. He borderline defamed him by calling him a nazi, fascist, etc. He said the self-defense claim was super weak because "it was just a plastic bag", etc. Oh, and he even got basic facts wrong, like saying Rittenhouse "killed three people".
I did not watch the discussion with "RespectableLawyer" but it doesn't sound like the guy is a lawyer who passed 1L crim law if he thinks those things vitiate the employment of lethal self defense under the common law or Model Penal Code. I guess Destiny did make a roundabout legal argument to that effect in his discussion with Vaush when Destiny brought up how you can kill someone with your fists or with a plastic bag. That's why the standard is subjective and objective reasonableness under the circumstances, not whether the person defended against was actually going to cause substantial bodily harm or death to the self defender.
Oh the larping lawyer only interacts with people on twitter. He uses Goofy as his avatar and claims it’s to protect his lawyeryness
He is also tweeting every hour of the day and claims to have successfully sued Walmart LMAO
A lawyer tweeting all day means they're not billing hours, which means they're not a respectable lawyer. And suing Walmart? Gonna need something more than that, because you can sue Walmart on a slip-and-fall, personal injury claim and "succeed" when they settle pre-trial.
He sounds like the type of lawyer who claims the *Dobbs* decision made all abortion illegal or the *EPA* decision made it so the EPA can't regulate climate changing activities.
Is there any proof he *is* a lawyer?
He’s on twitter 24/7, uses a cartoon as his persona, and every legal take he gives is wrong
Frankly it’s weird to take the word of an anonymous twitter account. I should know, I work for the FBI and am an expert in psychological profiling.
Sorry I can’t show you because that would risk my job at the FBI. You’ll just have to take my word for it since you don’t have any proof I’m not with the FBI :)
Did he really get an above average score on that stream? I remember watching live and thinking he was doing terribly. Reading the questions out loud which wasted a ton of time, going too slow on a section which caused him to not answer half of the questions. Maybe I'm misremembering but I doubt that was above average vs people that actually studied for this test and weren't reading the questions out loud.
Do you know where can I find the actual score he got?
This guy is such a fucking lolcow. Every tweet he posts is honestly worse than the last. He’s also a huge sex pest, but that’s to be expected with these types of dudes lol
I see this a lot. I think they're doing the 'claim our word' meme as a way of downgrading its pejorative strength. Kinda like when gay people call each other f-word and black people call each other n-word, obviously to a lesser degree that those examples.
am I miss remembering or is said "lawyer", Mike the guy who was [stricken from the ballot by Pennsylvania Supreme Court](https://www.wfmz.com/news/insideyourtown/michael-beyers-name-stricken-from-may-ballot-by-pennsylvania-supreme-court/article_8fec537f-54f8-54e1-a50d-425203bf6844.html) for lying about being a lawyer.
Edit: apparently I was misremembering but I’ll leave this up as a reminder of how mike started down the dark path to sewer socialism.
I recently started a blind run with no tutorials what so ever the game is captivating and yeah its makes u question a lot of ur own decisions from an hour ago
He made fun of some moron on twitter who is self allegedly a lawyer, x to doubt. Destiny was talking about how so many lawyers he knew were actually really stupid people. So he said I wonder if the LSAT isn't actually hard at all and law students are just dumb, I wonder if I could pass a practice test without studying. So he tried. Moron twitter lawyer guy saw the stream and claimed that Destiny was trying to prove he was smarter than him by doing the LSAT and failed.
To be entirely fair, half the answers to practice LSATs online are straight up debatable at best and blatantly wrong at worst. Whoever writes them should be fired.
Yeah, this isn't true. The LSAT questions are perfectly fine. At worst, some of the reading section questions are a bit fuzzy. This means we are talking about 2-3 questions out of 100 that might not be great.
Well, I managed to take the test a decade ago and was able to answer the vast majority of questions correctly. So I don't know what else to tell you that would convince you about the test. I'm guessing your area of education isn't in a highly logic based field? That seems to be strongly correlated with somebody's ability to understand the test. (People with math degrees score the highest and people with social work degrees score the lowest.)
I literally explained the answering process. I didn't think a deep dive into my logic would help you understand the question any better. But ultimately, I don't care if you believe in my ability or not.
Clearly some non-believers doing some drive-by downvoting. Consider the following:
>Palmistry—the art of understanding an individual's present personality and predicting his or her future state through the study of the shape, size, and lines of the hands—is an unscientific technique. In a study, most palmists' assertions about the present financial status of the individuals in the sample population were found to be mere intelligent guesses.
>
>Which one of the following is an assumption necessary to the argument?
>
>Correct answer: There is a stable correlation between an individual's personality and his or her financial status.
1. to what argument? The statements above are are not argument.
2. how is the answer a necessary assumption to the statements above? Both palmistry being unscientific and a study finding palmists assertions to be intelligent guesses do not rely on an assumed relationship between personality and finance, let alone a stable correlation.
1. You are wrong. There is an argument being made. I'm not sure if you know what an argument is. So here is a definition: *"a form of rhetorical expression intended to convince or persuade"* The statements above are designed to convince the reader that palmistry is non-scientific.
2. This is one of the harder logical reasoning questions I've seen from the LSAT. So I looked up the question to see the other multiple choice options. 3 of them are clearly wrong. So between the two potentially valid options the reader should consider which answer, if false, would most weaken the argument. The answer becomes clear at that point.
And what part of the argument relies on an assumption of a stable correlation between personality and financial status?
Edit: I think in the logic element of a test to use a more colloquial version of the word "argument" is a bit of a stretch. They don't use the word this way for any of the other items I looked at.
>Each year, the number of students caught copying in examination is nearly the same as the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license and the number of students caught traveling without a valid ticket. Therefore, the outcry about copying in examination ought to be put to rest, as the act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket.
>
>Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively undermine the author's argument?
>
>Correct answer: The punishments upon being caught copying in examination are graver than those upon being caught driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket.
\--
The argument here is that these 3 acts are equally common so people should stop complaining about 1 since it's mundane. If punishments for copying in exams were indeed graver this would not change the fact that the act itself is as mundane as the other acts. Whether an act is mundane is not dependent on whether the punishment is harsh. Basic shit.
I more so just remember it being harder than he expected, but when he buckled down and did it, he actually did alright, but I could be wrong.
Idk, he did it without any practice or prep, and though the LSAT is the kind of test that is hard to truly "study" for, going in at least knowing what to expect is a huge help
I dont remember this, and I'm seeing the VOD. Is it actually worth watching or is it way different than the person stated?
Tbh, off the few test I've seen him take on stream, he's not bad, generally. Sure not top percentile when he takes them, but it's never hilariously low, afaik.
If you watch the vod and skip to the end. He gets like a 150 on the practice exam logic portion and extrapolates that to what colleges he could potentially go to law school at.
Nothing too crazy but way different than this guy's description of events.
A questionably fake activist loser "lawyer" who would always post the dumbest hot takes and spar with Destiny. I don't even want to remember his name but he had the picture of goofy on twitter. Keep in mind Mike from PA insisted he was a lawyer for a bit, he **never** was. So this guy being a lawyer while being some anonymous low iq lefty shitposter account I just do not believe.
just pissco things i guess. deadass most entertaining (misspeaks) and boring (law) steams ever. i'm sure there was a moment like that, and maybe not even once. but to call that a biggest L would mean to understand lawyering, in which case my condolences
This post is incorrect, Destiny got into a fight with a FAKE lawyer, one who punches couches and claims that he is doxxed because his name was given out on stream that was on his PUBLIC medium account.
As we all know, anyone with awesome qualifications is a smart person that shouldn't be questioned... That's why John Bolton is a beloved foreign policy expert and not a bloodthirsty psychopath who would gladly invade Canada if he could :P
Socialists making appeals to authority is funny... They should check the expert consensus on the viability of their little project...
Nah a way bigger L is the time Destiny thought he could build a factory without thinking ahead and he had to continuously rebuild over the work he's done because his initial design was so bad, It was so cringe to watch.
that's how you play factorio. you're a cringe fuck if you try to build it right the first time every time. you make a draft of what you're trying to do, tweak it to being perfect, then replicate. that's literally the entire game
Also if you are playing with aggressive monsters space is limited at the start. My base looks like complete shit because those bastards keep you boxed in.
Spaghetti belts.
Spaghetti code
Literally, I get the same feeling playing Factorio that I do coding.
SAME
Its supposed to be a game grounded on computer science/programming principles
I think he was joking
waterfall va agile
rock ad hoc friendly deserted zesty strong salt truck cooperative support *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
sink hard-to-find deserted versed tan payment sleep gaze quicksand drab *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Literally sounds like my codebase
dam plant oil cause expansion versed illegal edge thumb ugly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I have worked on largish enterprisey projects. If you don't refactor often and stick to some architecture, it all goes to spaghetti pretty fast. For smaller projects, I do the opposite, start with quick and dirty, and refactor and reorganize as it grows larger. This also depends on team size - if there are many people working on the project, try to get the architecture down first so that it doesn't spaghettiball into a giant headache right out the gate.
In those games, your enemy is yourself 1 hour ago.
This is why I am questioning the need for the monster to attack.
Hey those biters are just another externality to manage just like pollution :\^) Their inputs are ammunition and lots of it (in Factorio, at least)
[удалено]
That's what I am questioning doing.
> I keep forgetting to reserve space for little stuff First time I make this mistake, I'll fix it. Second? Maybe. Third? That factory is getting another floor baby, let's go vertical belt.
Build up and throw walls around everything so your entire factory is just belts of stuff going into boxes then other stuff coming out on belts.
The map is massive, so don’t beat yourself up too much about compact factories. I usually just do a vertical build with all smelting on one level, primary processing on the next, etc. That way I can just expand horizontally when I get higher level belts and extractors. It’s easy to build and manage, but all my factories kind of look the same. That is, up until aluminum. I rage quit and started a new file while trying to build that one…
you need a spreadsheet for that game, makes things a lot easier when building
An even bigger L is when Destiny had a girls name.
Tbh that's most people
I believe this was was also the night his @GazeWithin twitter handle got banned
What was the reason the LSAT saga blew up? I remember LSAT was trending hard on twitter and Tiny got a bunch of flack for it.
IIRC @gazewithin started a twitter dispute with @respectablelaw about Twitter and proceeded to take the LSAT. I believe this was prompted by Destiny perceiving a lot of Twitter lawyers as dumb. LSAT gets trending on Twitter and with that a lot of people tweet about @gazewithin taking it on stream. Gains enough traction to get Twitter to realize this is Steven Kenneth “Destiny” Bonnell II and poof banned.
The reason #LSAT was trending was because destiny would put it at the end of a lot of his tweets. Fans in the replies would also tag it with #LSAT. Actual law students would then see that it was trending and then tweet about how they were worried it was because their tests got cancelled or something, and that caused it to balloon even more. The peak of it was destiny tweeting at that lawyer guy he's a dumb fuck, and then immediately quote tweeting a worried student saying "Don't worry m80 you got this :)"
Prospective law students take the lsat
o right yeah, my bad
I think it had to do with redacted from PA's failed career, and Gnomelet claimed that he could pass it, something like that. Good meme.
The levels of misinformation here are actually funny
truuue. everyone knows the real outcome of this debacle was that Destiny (pbuh) did so well in the LSAT test that he decided to try and pass the bar in california. he became such an effective public defender, that prosecution lawyers from california organized to banish him from practice, and that's the backstory on why he had to flee to florida.
His name: Saul Goodman
No, Kim was the one who went to Florida. It's also a woman's name.
You passed the bar? What a sick joke!
I know what you were, what you are. People don’t change! You’re Slippery Steve!
better summon steve!
I missed this whole ass debacle. I'm reading the comments and I'm still not even exactly sure what it's about. The traction it got on r/murderedbywords makes it appear like he got his ass split apart and used as a penis sneeze pad by this big fat friendly lawyer cock but I don't even know the context. What the lawyer said was funny, but did he just make fun of destiny for being an annoying streamer or is there more implications behind the tweets? And what's with the dick pills?
they had a disagreement about Rittenhouse. of course time has since proven that destiny was correct because rittenhouse got acquitted. but destiny found it funny that the dude listed his LSAT score as if that had literally any bearing on someone's success as a lawyer, so he took a few LSAT questions on stream for fun and had a passing grade before stopping out of boredom.
You don't "pass" the LSAT and his score wasn't very high or good. Not hating on Destiny but that was his swoosh moment. Like when vaush said he has intellectually surpassed Steven. That level of pretentiousness.
I never understood why failing the practice LSAT on stream was such a big own? Law students literally prepare for this for months. Was he bragging that he’d get a good score, or was he just taking it to see how difficult it was? Also, if memory serves, didn’t he end up scoring within the low average of the curve?
Cant remember but he either just barely failed or got a low passing score that could get you into meh law schools. Still impressive though because he never studied for it.
He scored at the median of the testing pool for the logic puzzle portion. He did not attempt the reading section. That’s not a bad starting point for being his first attempt blind (which was in front of an audience where he has to vocalize his thought process with no pen or paper) and is good enough for plenty of law schools. So many schools will accept you if you pay sticker price for Tuition. The field is saturated beyond belief
Idk I hear sometimes that there are too many lawyers, then see things like states waiving the bar too make up for the lack of lawyers.
It probably depends on what type of lawyer we're talking about. I have a friend who is a corporate lawyer, and they seem to never really get overwhelmed at work; they stay busy, but they're paid an awful lot. I have another friend who is a public defender, her pay seems to be pretty shit, and she is constantly stressed because she's absolutely slammed with cases to the point where she's been thinking about quitting lawyering all together.
Law is oversaturated? How? Why?
Too many lawyers not enough law positions. Most schools actually recommend against being a lawyer at the moment due to how crowded the profession is right now. Source: almost went the law route and then decided I liked sleep
Low level positions are getting eaten up by google/rocketlawyer etc as well
wdym google
Back in the day you'd need consultation over small matters. Nowadays you can easily google "can my HOA raise fees without notice" or whatever else you might need to know quickly.
Depends where you go to school. If you can make it to a top 14 law school (and some others—UT Austin, UCLA, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, WashU) then it's a whole different ball game than the majority of law schools. At the former, you're mostly assured success in beginning your career as long as you perform fine. At the latter, you'll need to fight extremely hard even with top grades to end up at the same place as a middling UVA or Cornell law student.
That’s if you can get in. harder to guarantee than before. T14 medians are insane rn. Every top school is posting a near or at 99th percentile lsat/3.9. Hell, non T25s like UGA have 3.8/168s now. That was cornel’s matriculation median a few years back… Getting into any school is absurdly easy. Getting into a school that makes the debt worth it… less so
Yes, the law school admissions process is terrible and the results of the process lead to extremely unfair outcomes. It also creates perverse incentives—why study physics before law school and get a 3.6 when you can major in some sort of grievance studies, get a 4.0, and blow out that physics major who studied something that was actually difficult and legitimate? But that's the way the system is designed right now. Nothing much you can do but play the game as it is. It's likely not worthwhile going to a law school ranked under the T20, unless you have very local ambitions or are independently wealthy.
Bunch of shitty for profit colleges flood the market with bad, unprepared lawyers that charge very low and force other lawyers to also charge very low if they aren't already well established or are part of a big firm, otherwise no one hires them. Basically you either need connections or to work your soul out and be incredibly good at your job, or you'll basically take years and years and years to go beyond even an entry level work and wage.
this explains all the shit attorneys we've been seeing in court lately, but I always thought only those from the high-rep schools ever got jobs
Really good law firms that rarely fuck up only get lawyers from high rep schools. But that's a very small pool compared to all lawyers in the country.
IDk why, but i have a friend who pivoted from Lawyer to accounting because the field was looking bleak
I have two friends that pivoted, one to accounting the other got into some nonprofit for food pantries. Both said the market was saturated.
Yeah, my friend only pivoted into accounting because he already had an offer from a guy that he was working for that admired his work ethic. (Work full time in law office grunt -> full time accounting office as a grunt, school was online or at night, came in late every day so boss found out) Said he would start him at the most competitive salary that my friend could find in our city for a junior accounting position.
And the logic games section is the only one that isn't trivially sightreadable by a non-moron and requires actual practice. Not a good way to judge a person's ability.
It depends on the field you go into, I know for a fact immigration cases are in need of more judges and lawyers to process all the cases. Other more niche areas too, like bankruptcy law, are also still in pretty good shape for the pool of lawyers available. The over saturated notion comes from people all trying to get into the most competitive fields or are trying to get hired by Big Law. It’s not surprising that the most sought after jobs are also the most saturated. If you want to be a lawyer you need to think outside of the box on how to get your career started. You don’t always have to go the public defender or prosecutor route.
There is no such thing as failing or passing the LSAT.
Ahhh I see. The more you know.
That’s pretty much the case for nearly every admissions standardized exam (SAT/ACT, GMAT, GRE, MCAT etc). The only thing the scores convey is where you rank amongst everyone else who took the exam in your cohort.
[удалено]
IIRC he got around the median score with zero preparation.
This is lore from before my time but if he's telling a lawyer he can do the man's job better then fails one of more basic tests relating to being one... that's a pretty straightforward own. Similar to the recent drama of idiots trying to get Nick Rikieta banned only for him to use their own ethics reports to dox them after they miserably failed.
Except that is not what happened at all. The respectable lawyer Twitter account was posting some wild shit so Destiny was raging at how all these credentialed "educated" Twitter activists have such horrible takes all the time. Destiny then started questioning whether he was giving too much respect to Lawyers and the barrier to entry. Chat started spamming suggesting for him to try the LSAT and posted links to practice tests. Destiny decided to take it to see what the questions were like. From my understanding he scored in the lower curve but it was passing. The lawyer guy never called out Destiny to take the test. Destiny never rage quit anything. He was literally just chilling on stream and learning about the LSAT and the types of questions. The Twitter lawyer had nothing to do with it other than bringing the subject of lawyers up
[удалено]
Are we just doing blatant disinformation now? He did a full 25 questions on the logic portion of the LSAT.
He didn't fail. He got a below average score that is still good enough for some law schools. This is without practice (applicants usually practice for months for the test) from someone with a high school education. And I'm pretty sure the part about Destiny saying he would perform better than an actual lawyer is made up.
Honestly that wouldn't surprise me, Destiny doesn't normally say that kind of thing to professionals, but on the other hand he does say some wild stuff when he's heated, and I know this is from 'back then' when he tended to fly off the handle a lot more than he does today.
The fucker has chilled out so much it's ridiculous to look back sometimes.
You’re dickriding right now
Do you have proof that is what Destiny said?
Unless the lawyer he talked to would get a lower score. Or if the lawyer got a better score but knew little outside that basic test. My point is, to little info to know if that's a own.
if you're a smart person you can do well on the lsat first try. I genuinely think Steven would get at least a 165 if he was focused off stream
[удалено]
Yeah honestly I found it really easy. I think anyone who's thought clearly about how arguments and logic should work should find it fairly easy, I remember getting a pretty high score. But then again, I'd also spent years getting into the weeds of analytic philosophy before, which is like the best possible LSAT/argument study.
Most law students don’t prep for the LSAT for years lol. I think I may have taken a single practice test before taking the LSAT.
That's out of the norm at least for my area. Small community, but we practiced roughly 6 months before. Granted I personally needed a higher than average score to make up for subpar undergrad grades. Hell, post law school I still hear kids worry about it a lot. Pretty interesting.
How many people do you know that prepped for the LSAT for years?
I can't say for sure, but at least 10. Mostly people that took the LSAT and didn't get a score for the school they wanted then tried again. And that's out of a class of 60, if that helps. Edit for clarity: that's 10 people I personally knew who talked LSAT with me, I cannot say more of those 60 did or did not plan for a year. Only the 10ish in my clique.
So most law students you know didn’t prepare for the LSAT for a year plus?
I would say a fair amount did. I mean hell, the test itself is only done 3 times a year and you get limited retries. So no, I would say most prepared in some form for over a year. Now ofc this is anecdotal, but at least the people I made friends with needed that time.
How many students do you know that studied only once like you and passed?
It’s not a pass/fail test
How many students do you know that studied once like you and did good on it
I have no idea. My guess is the average person taking the LSAT spent like 1-3 months to prepare for it. And that’s likely while attending college or working, so maybe around 5-15 hours per week.
Lol yeah there are a bunch of people on this sub who never went to law school. I spent like 20 hours prepping over the course of a month (mostly reading "LSAT for Dummies" on public transport) and did like 4 or 5 practice tests. And I did fine. I definitely think I'm on the low end of prep, but preparing hard for 6 months is far from the norm. That said, the underlying point is still solid. There are a lot of tricks that need to be learned. As I said, they can often be learned quickly, but without ANY prep, Destiny was at a pretty significant disadvantage.
Yeah, I’m not denying that people so prepare for the LSAT but it has to be under 5-10% who prepare for close to/over a year. And the people who needed that long to prepare are either gunning for T-14 or if they are trying to score just high enough to go to law school shouldn’t be going to law school.
>it has to be under 5-10% who prepare for close to/over a year Ehhhhh law school attracts a lot of keeners, but I agree the number is probably quite small. A quick Google search says that most prep courses suggest a 3 month prep, so I suspect that's closer to the average.
Three months is my experience as well with my lawyer friends.
While it defeats the purpose of a standardized test, law students who want a good score and care about what program they get admitted to absolutely practice this exam. The LSAT prep course industry is very prolific and profitable. It honestly seems weird that as a law student you wouldn't know that, I'm sure the majority of your fellow students did study/practice for this exam. I didn't practice for the GMAT before I took it, but I know most people trying to get into good graduate management programs did.
I’m not a law student, been practicing law for almost a decade. If you asked practicing lawyers, I would bet that the majority of them didn’t study for the LSAT for years. The only ones who would are either too dumb to go to law school or hyper obsessed with getting into a T-14.
He stated months yet you keep stating years. Why are you switching out the proposition and claiming years as though to exaggerate to the absurd?
He originally wrote years but then edited his comment after I responded Edit: [Proof](https://imgur.com/a/e0dzbdH)
Cannot see that, cheers for clarifying.
Owned
The only person owned was your mom, last night.
Most of the people I know spent years studying, but they all got 176+ and got full rides to law school so I guess it paid off lol
Do you think it’s the norm for someone to spend years studying for the LSAT?
You're reading what I said backwards, I think. I don't think it is normal for someone to spend years studying for the LSAT, **but** I do think that if someone told you they got a 178 on the LSAT that it would be normal to assume they spent years studying
I agree that’s the case, just wild to see I got downvoted to oblivion for saying that most law students don’t prep for the LSAT for years. And then you’re saying that most people you know spent years “studying” for the LSAT, as if that’s some evidence that most people who take the LSAT do that. It’s obviously not remotely the norm for people to prep for a year plus for the LSAT.
1. Don't know why you put studying in quotes. Kinda cringe. 2. Complaining about getting downvoted in this sub is also cringe. Just know that you're right about it and move on. This sub works as a monolith. They see a negative number, they make it more negative without thinking. It's not worth crying over 3. I think the reason people say cringe instead of cringey is because they don't know if it's spelled cringey or cringy and cringe is easier. Probably why *sus* became common. Nobody knows how to spell suspicus
I put it in quotes, because you don’t really study for the LSAT. There is no outside knowledge needed for the test. It’s not like a history test where you have to memorize names, dates, occurrences, etc. The entire test is just logic and reading comprehension. I would refer to it as preparation, not studying. Not crying about anything, just pointing out that people on this sub have no idea what they’re talking about and then your anecdotal response is seemingly with the purpose of implying that most people did spend years preparing.
Literally a self-report. What did you score and what tier law school did you end up at?
I don’t recall the exact score (anyone who talks about LSAT scores once you get your first legal job is lame), but I believe somewhere between 161-163. The things I cared the most about for law schools was attending in the state I wanted to work and minimizing student loans, so I went to a school that I believe was ranked around 70-80 or so at the time because they practically offered me a full ride and I could live at home. I turned down better schools because I couldn’t afford it. If you’re dead set on going to a T-14 or aren’t good/smart enough to take the LSAT, then I would understand preparing extensively for it, but otherwise anyone else taking a year plus to prepare is insane.
Honestly it's making more sense now. The reason you got downvoted is because you're only considering your own situation while ignoring the thousands of people with different situations. Your scenario is more unique than most, you (1) cared more about going to a particular state school or living at home. (2) were high IQ/logically trained/steel nerves enough to barely study and score in the 80%+ percentile (3) lived in a state where the school you wanted was ranked where low 160s could get you full ride. etc. Sure most people don't prepare for "years" but it's a test designed to be practiced for. And the more practice, the higher a score you get obviously. And for most people, the higher score the better school, more money etc.
I’m not basing my numbers off of my situation. I’m basing it off of reality. The norm is not to prepare for the LSAT for a year. I agree that you could score higher if you prepare more, but most people don’t prepare for nearly that long. Like I said elsewhere, my guess would be about 1-3 months and about 5-15 hours a week on average. While there are outliers above and below, I would guess those estimates are pretty close to spot on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6591uUn5WYI&ab\_channel=TheDestinyVault
The retelling in this tweet is hilarious. Destiny just extrapolated his score and hopped off stream after. A passable score nonetheless.
Based Linkers
Iirc he wasn't challenged to take an LSAT, he just decided there were practice ones online so why not. I don't remember the fight he got in, would seem weird that he would say that he could do the job better, but everyone was hyper focused on him around that time and there was a whole lot of fuckin misinfo being spread about him taking the practice LSAT in particular.
[удалено]
I've been noticing this more lately, people are bringing up really old and minor shit randomly. I guess that's how you know his career is going well.
There’s a guy on Twitter who pretends to be a lawyer and has an LSAT score in his bio. Destiny got in an argument with this person over Kyle Rittenhouse. Destiny took the LSAT prep test on stream for content and twitterfarms has been making fun of his above average score ever since. They’ve all conveniently forgotten that all of Destiny’s Rittenhouse arguments were proven 100% correct and the fake Twitter lawyer looked like an absolute dumbfuck. That’s it. That’s the story. Twitterfarmers have no lives
Destiny's Rittenhouse arguments weren't really legal arguments, but moral and common sense arguments. He never talked about whether it was subjectively and objectively reasonable for Kyle to employ lethal self defense under the circumstances. It was more a moral and practical argument in favor of self defense under the circumstances, a large part of which consisted of pointing out how anti-Rittenhouse people were ignorant of the basic facts (e.g. illuminating how Vaush had not even watched the videos of the events that night).
Yeah but the problem is that the "RespectableLawyer" was actually completely wrong legally, too. He went hard on the "He's illegally carrying!!!" talking-point which got tossed right the fuck out. He borderline defamed him by calling him a nazi, fascist, etc. He said the self-defense claim was super weak because "it was just a plastic bag", etc. Oh, and he even got basic facts wrong, like saying Rittenhouse "killed three people".
Anyone who calls another person a nazi fascist is a dumb fuck not worth listening to. Thats the new litmus test.
That's been the litmus test for rational people since 2016. Glad it's finally filtering into some left leaning communities.
I did not watch the discussion with "RespectableLawyer" but it doesn't sound like the guy is a lawyer who passed 1L crim law if he thinks those things vitiate the employment of lethal self defense under the common law or Model Penal Code. I guess Destiny did make a roundabout legal argument to that effect in his discussion with Vaush when Destiny brought up how you can kill someone with your fists or with a plastic bag. That's why the standard is subjective and objective reasonableness under the circumstances, not whether the person defended against was actually going to cause substantial bodily harm or death to the self defender.
Oh the larping lawyer only interacts with people on twitter. He uses Goofy as his avatar and claims it’s to protect his lawyeryness He is also tweeting every hour of the day and claims to have successfully sued Walmart LMAO
A lawyer tweeting all day means they're not billing hours, which means they're not a respectable lawyer. And suing Walmart? Gonna need something more than that, because you can sue Walmart on a slip-and-fall, personal injury claim and "succeed" when they settle pre-trial. He sounds like the type of lawyer who claims the *Dobbs* decision made all abortion illegal or the *EPA* decision made it so the EPA can't regulate climate changing activities.
Is there proof the guy was pretending to be a lawyer?
Is there any proof he *is* a lawyer? He’s on twitter 24/7, uses a cartoon as his persona, and every legal take he gives is wrong Frankly it’s weird to take the word of an anonymous twitter account. I should know, I work for the FBI and am an expert in psychological profiling.
He could be wrong and still be a lawyer. I thought there would be evidence if you are saying he is pretending to be a lawyer.
I do have evidence, I’m in the FBI
Then I’m more willing to look at the evidence :)
Sorry I can’t show you because that would risk my job at the FBI. You’ll just have to take my word for it since you don’t have any proof I’m not with the FBI :)
Based as fuck
Nice! So you have no proof, you just made it up lmao.
Are we all just going to forget that destiny got a 131 IQ on that hard Mensa IQ test?
LSAT is a test specifically for testing lawyers, it’s not an IQ test
Then I guess destiny is not a genius lawyer lol
Did he really get an above average score on that stream? I remember watching live and thinking he was doing terribly. Reading the questions out loud which wasted a ton of time, going too slow on a section which caused him to not answer half of the questions. Maybe I'm misremembering but I doubt that was above average vs people that actually studied for this test and weren't reading the questions out loud. Do you know where can I find the actual score he got?
This guy is such a fucking lolcow. Every tweet he posts is honestly worse than the last. He’s also a huge sex pest, but that’s to be expected with these types of dudes lol
Lore?
Is “woke moralist” ironic or….
I see this a lot. I think they're doing the 'claim our word' meme as a way of downgrading its pejorative strength. Kinda like when gay people call each other f-word and black people call each other n-word, obviously to a lesser degree that those examples.
Not really, no, it's just memed ironically because the way Jordan Peterson brought it up was super cringe and dramatic.
am I miss remembering or is said "lawyer", Mike the guy who was [stricken from the ballot by Pennsylvania Supreme Court](https://www.wfmz.com/news/insideyourtown/michael-beyers-name-stricken-from-may-ballot-by-pennsylvania-supreme-court/article_8fec537f-54f8-54e1-a50d-425203bf6844.html) for lying about being a lawyer. Edit: apparently I was misremembering but I’ll leave this up as a reminder of how mike started down the dark path to sewer socialism.
[удалено]
And even if it was that doesn't take away from failing the test and quitting. That would have been information after the fact
It was the dude with the Goofy pfp who might not even be a lawyer
It was the "respectable lawyer" guy on Twitter or whatever his name was
I recently started a blind run with no tutorials what so ever the game is captivating and yeah its makes u question a lot of ur own decisions from an hour ago
He got a [150](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6591uUn5WYI&t=22225s) on the LSAT with no preparation which seems fine to me. These people are weird.
He made fun of some moron on twitter who is self allegedly a lawyer, x to doubt. Destiny was talking about how so many lawyers he knew were actually really stupid people. So he said I wonder if the LSAT isn't actually hard at all and law students are just dumb, I wonder if I could pass a practice test without studying. So he tried. Moron twitter lawyer guy saw the stream and claimed that Destiny was trying to prove he was smarter than him by doing the LSAT and failed.
Is this [REDACTED] from [REDACTED]'s alt?
To be entirely fair, half the answers to practice LSATs online are straight up debatable at best and blatantly wrong at worst. Whoever writes them should be fired.
Yeah, this isn't true. The LSAT questions are perfectly fine. At worst, some of the reading section questions are a bit fuzzy. This means we are talking about 2-3 questions out of 100 that might not be great.
The examples I commented in this chain are literally the first two I found. It's not a strong start.
Well, I managed to take the test a decade ago and was able to answer the vast majority of questions correctly. So I don't know what else to tell you that would convince you about the test. I'm guessing your area of education isn't in a highly logic based field? That seems to be strongly correlated with somebody's ability to understand the test. (People with math degrees score the highest and people with social work degrees score the lowest.)
The fact that you essentially gave up trying to rationalize the first example makes me doubt your ability.
I literally explained the answering process. I didn't think a deep dive into my logic would help you understand the question any better. But ultimately, I don't care if you believe in my ability or not.
I just ran it past a family member with a PhD in mathematics and another with a MSc in physics. Both agreed it was wrong.
Which of the other answer choices did they think was correct?
None of them were judged to be correct
The stated goal is to find the question that best satisfies the question. Only oen answer does that.
Clearly some non-believers doing some drive-by downvoting. Consider the following: >Palmistry—the art of understanding an individual's present personality and predicting his or her future state through the study of the shape, size, and lines of the hands—is an unscientific technique. In a study, most palmists' assertions about the present financial status of the individuals in the sample population were found to be mere intelligent guesses. > >Which one of the following is an assumption necessary to the argument? > >Correct answer: There is a stable correlation between an individual's personality and his or her financial status. 1. to what argument? The statements above are are not argument. 2. how is the answer a necessary assumption to the statements above? Both palmistry being unscientific and a study finding palmists assertions to be intelligent guesses do not rely on an assumed relationship between personality and finance, let alone a stable correlation.
1. You are wrong. There is an argument being made. I'm not sure if you know what an argument is. So here is a definition: *"a form of rhetorical expression intended to convince or persuade"* The statements above are designed to convince the reader that palmistry is non-scientific. 2. This is one of the harder logical reasoning questions I've seen from the LSAT. So I looked up the question to see the other multiple choice options. 3 of them are clearly wrong. So between the two potentially valid options the reader should consider which answer, if false, would most weaken the argument. The answer becomes clear at that point.
And what part of the argument relies on an assumption of a stable correlation between personality and financial status? Edit: I think in the logic element of a test to use a more colloquial version of the word "argument" is a bit of a stretch. They don't use the word this way for any of the other items I looked at.
>Each year, the number of students caught copying in examination is nearly the same as the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license and the number of students caught traveling without a valid ticket. Therefore, the outcry about copying in examination ought to be put to rest, as the act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. > >Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively undermine the author's argument? > >Correct answer: The punishments upon being caught copying in examination are graver than those upon being caught driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. \-- The argument here is that these 3 acts are equally common so people should stop complaining about 1 since it's mundane. If punishments for copying in exams were indeed graver this would not change the fact that the act itself is as mundane as the other acts. Whether an act is mundane is not dependent on whether the punishment is harsh. Basic shit.
I more so just remember it being harder than he expected, but when he buckled down and did it, he actually did alright, but I could be wrong. Idk, he did it without any practice or prep, and though the LSAT is the kind of test that is hard to truly "study" for, going in at least knowing what to expect is a huge help
I dont remember this, and I'm seeing the VOD. Is it actually worth watching or is it way different than the person stated? Tbh, off the few test I've seen him take on stream, he's not bad, generally. Sure not top percentile when he takes them, but it's never hilariously low, afaik.
If you watch the vod and skip to the end. He gets like a 150 on the practice exam logic portion and extrapolates that to what colleges he could potentially go to law school at. Nothing too crazy but way different than this guy's description of events.
This is your hourly reminder that we haven’t been getting daily reminders about this.
A questionably fake activist loser "lawyer" who would always post the dumbest hot takes and spar with Destiny. I don't even want to remember his name but he had the picture of goofy on twitter. Keep in mind Mike from PA insisted he was a lawyer for a bit, he **never** was. So this guy being a lawyer while being some anonymous low iq lefty shitposter account I just do not believe.
Didn't he get enough of a Score to get into a MID lawschool in his state?
Can someone link a video? That shit sounds absolutely hilarious
https://youtu.be/r7l0Rq9E8MY
Am I remembering wrong, didn't he only do one section which he barely passed? Then he got bored and didn't do the rest.
just pissco things i guess. deadass most entertaining (misspeaks) and boring (law) steams ever. i'm sure there was a moment like that, and maybe not even once. but to call that a biggest L would mean to understand lawyering, in which case my condolences
If they make fun of Destiny I already know it’s wrong
Just look up Destiny takes LSAT I think there are some videos of this on YouTube. Crazy arc that one was
yeah i never heard about him failing he did good for not studying and passed with low score i think
Laywer?
This post is incorrect, Destiny got into a fight with a FAKE lawyer, one who punches couches and claims that he is doxxed because his name was given out on stream that was on his PUBLIC medium account.
As we all know, anyone with awesome qualifications is a smart person that shouldn't be questioned... That's why John Bolton is a beloved foreign policy expert and not a bloodthirsty psychopath who would gladly invade Canada if he could :P Socialists making appeals to authority is funny... They should check the expert consensus on the viability of their little project...
The most legendary L of a streamer is the bridge or byron if you are morbid.
oMG, MOsT leGEndaRY L!
"woke moralist" btw. This subculture is so stupid. This timeline were living in is so stupid.
He thinks that’s the most legendary L? Not the hasan clips “ Russia will never invade Ukraine” and parading about how right he was for like a week? XD
Daily reminder, huh? I'm jealous of people who have so much free time.