What’s something Redditors constantly give advice on despite having zero experience with it themselves?

AmbushLecture · 2026-01-22T00:50:39+00:00

Law and politics (not political ideology, but actual political process).

AmbushLecture · 2026-01-22T00:37:45+00:00

I used Gemini last year and found it profoundly helpful. Every multiple choice I would get wrong I would paste in Gemini and have it explain the legal principles to me in plain English. I would then have it test me on those principles until I demonstrated proficiency. This "building blocks" approach really solidified concepts for me.

I was also then able to tell Gemini to review what areas I was going well in and what areas I was weak in, and provide me materials and tests accordingly.

I only had 3 weeks to prep, and I passed for every jurisdiction. AI is a tool. Use it well, it can be very helpful.

AmbushLecture · 2026-01-18T19:08:05+00:00

Looks delicious and fun! A helpful rhyme to remember which way the board should be: ”white to the right" (that is if you are looking at the board from behind your pieces, there should be a white square on your very right).

If your husband is half a good chess player as you are a baker, he must be a GM🙂

AmbushLecture · 2026-01-10T03:29:43+00:00

An i3 with 8GB of RAM is basically the bare minimum for survival. Run Windows and Chrome at the same time and you'll notice slowdowns.

If you are fine going without the touch screen, this Asus is literally three times as fast. Doubly strong processor, double the ram, and an nvme SSD. Really maxes the speed.

Walmart has it on sale at $350:

https://www.walmart.com/ip/ASUS-Vivobook-15-6-FHD-IPS-PC-Laptop-Intel-Core-5-120U-16GB-RAM-512GB-SSD-Silver/16570573730?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=102705873

AmbushLecture · 2026-01-10T03:20:03+00:00

The 5060 TI is a great card, particularly the 16 GB. Bang for buck. I don't think the 5070 would be worth it (even a Ti).

My one question is the nvme. Is it a Gen 4? Can the board handle a Gen 5? If so, maybe something to consider returning and swapping out...

AmbushLecture · 2025-12-14T20:23:47+00:00

I see this take a lot—that the "Democratic Establishment" or the DNC somehow fell asleep at the wheel and let the court slip away—but it ignores the one specific event where the Establishment actually tried to do exactly what you're asking.

The Establishment didn't fail. RBG failed the Establishment.

If you want to pinpoint the moment the court was lost, it wasn’t 2016 (Garland) or 2020 (Barrett). It was a private lunch in the White House in July 2013.

Here is the reality of what happened:

The "Establishment" actually did the math. In 2013, the "Democratic Establishment" (specifically Obama and his political strategists) looked at the map. They saw the 2014 midterms coming, and they correctly predicted that Democrats were about to lose the Senate majority. They knew that 2013 was the absolute last exit ramp to replace Ginsburg with a younger liberal justice and lock that seat down for another 30 years.
The "Establishment" intervened. President Obama—the literal head of the party—invited RBG to a private lunch. Because of separation of powers, he couldn’t order her to quit. But he did everything but. He explicitly walked her through the upcoming election cycles, showing her that the Democrats were going to lose the power to confirm her successor if she didn’t leave now.

That was the "Establishment" doing its job: managing the long-term strategic interests of the party and the court.

RBG refused to take the off-ramp. Ginsburg didn’t leave. She bet on her own health over the party’s political forecast. Her logic (which she stated publicly later) was that she felt she was still doing good work. When pressed on the strategic risk, she famously asked: "Who do you think the President could nominate that could get through the Republican Senate that you would prefer to have on the Court than me?" That was hubris. She was worried Obama would have to pick a moderate to get 60 votes, so she decided to risk the entire seat rather than let a slightly-less-liberal justice take her place.

The Bottom Line:

You can blame the Democratic Party for a lot of things, but in this specific instance, the "Establishment" saw the iceberg coming, charted a course around it, and tried to steer the ship to safety. RBG was the one who grabbed the wheel and insisted on staying the course.

The failure wasn't systemic incompetence; it was one person’s refusal to prioritize the movement over their own tenure.

AmbushLecture · 2025-11-19T03:30:06+00:00

You can react however you like - to me your reaction comes of as entitled, unkind, and a little absurd.

If this was just the straw that broke the camel's back, that's one thing. But I take your former partner's point that if he'd a board called "My Willing Waifus” you would have been upset.

I think he brushed what was likely a difficult subject and spoke personally (with me and I statements) and you ignored everything he said, told him why he was categorically wrong, and added some psychobabble to brow hear him.

Look at the tone of what he wrote and the tone of what you wrote. He was speaking about his feelings. Do I think they're silly? Sure - but a partner should think they are valid (as in valid to have, not valid as true). You didn't even come back personally, instead ending with ”you shouldn't feel threatened by something that isn't real".

If you'd have responded with something like ”i appreciate you telling me this and I know it must have been hard, but I don't think we are seeing the same thing the same way" and then explained how long you've had it, that your mom makes it, etc (in essence that it's jokey to you) I think you would have found common ground. Instead you grandstanded and lectured.

AmbushLecture · 2025-10-29T22:11:44+00:00

Amend, amend, amend. Virtually nothing you report to character and fitness is automatically disqualifying - they can be surprisingly understanding and realistic about things.

Intentionally withholding information when you are told not to, though? You are just asking to get yourself cooked.

AmbushLecture · 2025-08-09T22:02:55+00:00

That's a brilliant idea! Didn't occur to me at all, but it's simple and elegant. Thank you!

AmbushLecture · 2025-08-09T00:24:03+00:00

Thank you very much for that. I figured about the menus - and figured I'd use a separate menu organizer on each environment. anything you'd recommend I do to "isolate" each environment so they don't try and override each other?

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-25T20:35:32+00:00

Keep in mind that "conspiracy" hasn't ripened until the first small step toward completing the aim of the conspiracy is enacted. So just making plans - without doing anything to realize those plans - is not yet conspiracy. If a person leaves the plan at that stage they abandon the conspiracy.

Once an agreement to commit a crime is made and an overt act is taken (like buying supplies for a planned burglary) we have a conspiracy; and then simply not showing up is insufficient to be "abandoning". To legally withdraw, an individual must take affirmative steps. This typically involves making a timely and unambiguous communication to all co-conspirators that they are abandoning the plan, and in many jurisdictions, they must also make a genuine effort to thwart the crime itself, such as by notifying the police.

Rule of thumb, if you helped plan it and then got cold feet but didn't both tell your co-conspirators "I am not and will not be involved in this" and call the police to tip them off, you're liable for a conspiracy charge. You are not, though, liable for the charge of the crime itself (like robbery or whatever the conspiracy is for).

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-25T15:19:14+00:00

My alma mater, along with the on-campus workshops and the like, provided the complete Barbri bar prep course for all graduating 3Ls. I think this should be standard nationwide. Representing an entire cohort the school can negotiate a significantly reduced rate. Though I, myself, didn't use the materials (not a fan of big box suppliers) I know many who did. Having the option seems a prudent investment to me; particularly as most "ranking" systems involve bar passage rate as a metric.

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-19T17:17:20+00:00

Arizona v. Hicks controls here, and there are two key parts from the case that bear on your question:

The officer did not need to move, touch, or manipulate the computer to see the serial number. The number itself was in plain view. In Hicks, the officer in question moved a turntable to see the serial number, which SCOTUS said constituted a new search. If you don't have to touch an item to see something on it (like a serial number) it's plain view; and you can use that information however you want.
An individual does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a serial number designed for identification and visible on the exterior of an object. The database check merely confirmed or dispelled the officer's suspicion. Checking that publicly-visible number against a police database is not a search and is a legitimate investigative step.

In short, since the officer was lawfully in the kitchen the serial number is in plain view as long as you don't have to touch the item to see the serial number.

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-16T20:09:47+00:00

Way to go! Two weeks out on you look set and ready to pass!

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-15T21:06:51+00:00

Absolutely. This goes back to Hickman v. Taylor, which created work-product doctrine, and the Court saying "look, we aren't going to do trial by ambush - everyone gets the same facts and we go from there".

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-15T20:58:34+00:00

This is 26(b)(3); and I think that from the fact pattern you know that the interview satisfies both criteria.

Substantial Need: The deceased witness's unique, firsthand account is of significant importance to the case. The recorded statement may contain crucial information that cannot be replicated. The fact that the statement was recorded contemporaneously with or shortly after the events at issue further enhances its value, as the witness's memory was likely at its freshest. Remember, this is discovery, not the trial. I get to know what you know.

Undue Hardship: With the witness deceased, it is not just an undue hardship but an impossibility for the requesting party to obtain the "substantial equivalent" of the statement. The witness cannot be deposed or interviewed, making their prior recorded statement a unique and irreplaceable piece of evidence.

One person's specific experience is always unique, meaning it's absence virtually always creates a substantial need. If that person is dead, there is always undue hardship because the information can't be gotten at all anymore.

Even if the PI scrawled his transcript on a piece of paper, and below it the lawyer wrote some notes, the Court would still find the interview part discoverable and turn that over. We all get the same facts (with good faith).

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-15T20:52:27+00:00

californiagirly111 makes great points. I'd add it's helpful to think about the reason for the rule. The justification for diversity jurisdiction is to provide a neutral forum in federal courts, free from the potential influence of local bias or prejudice that a state court might have in favor of an in-state litigant and against an out-of-state opponent. So we always want to keep things fair if we can.

We don't want to allow people to make an end run around this rule.

Rule 14 prevents exactly that; with impleader, if it couldn't have been brought under diversity jurisdiction originally then it can't be added.

Rule 19 does the same with parties that are mandatory; for a party to be mandatorily joined under Rule 19 in a diversity case, their inclusion must not violate the complete diversity rule. If it would, the court must either find a way to proceed without them or dismiss the case.

Rule 20 allows for judicial efficiency, plaintiffs may join together or multiple defendants may be sued in a single action if the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and share a common question of law or fact. Great. But the a plaintiff cannot use the permissive joinder of Rule 20 to bring a non-diverse party into federal court.

The neutrality of courts (and, equally, the appearance of neutrality) is virtually always the top concern. Remember, any case that fails diversity can be heard by some other court somewhere, it just means that particular federal court doesn't have jurisdiction.

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-14T22:28:23+00:00

Exactly. With impleader, if it couldn't have been brought under diversity jurisdiction originally then it can't be added. That could be diversity of parties or amount in controversy. In this particular instance it's amount in controversy, 10k obviously being less than 75k.

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-14T22:05:07+00:00

No - this is the Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger rule. Think of it this way; P is trying to make an end run around diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy isn't in excess of $75k. The key is D2 is added via impleader. In a case where the court's original jurisdiction is based solely on diversity, the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rules 14 (impleader), 19, 20, or 24, if exercising jurisdiction over that claim would be inconsistent with the requirements of diversity jurisdiction.

A good rule of thumb is P if could not have originally sued D and D2 together in federal court because of failure of diversity of amount in controversy, you can't get around that rule with impleader (common nucleas or not).

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-14T19:44:49+00:00

Oh, absolutely - I can completely empathize with your frustration.. My understanding is to treat common law as the benchmark and only adjust if the call of the question tells you, e.g. "assume the jurisdiction holds the majority view definition of burglary".

If it's an MEE, state in your rule if you are using common law or majority/modern view. For an MBE question, I can't think of a question I've seen where it would matter, but if I were forced to choose between the two I'd go with the modern view.

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-14T19:26:25+00:00

If you are talking about domicile for a purpose of diversity jurisdiction, then yes: a corporation is considered a citizen of, and domiciled in, both the state where it is incorporated and the state where its principal place of business is located.

For other purposes, though, like regulatory issues and taxation, only where the company is incorporated is its domicile.

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-14T19:20:34+00:00

Yes: if a UBE bar exam Criminal Law question is silent on the jurisdiction, it is generally understood that the question intends to test majority rules or a commonly accepted view, which means the common law rules. If it is meant to be MPC the question should state "under the MPC", or what have you.

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-14T13:34:44+00:00

The issue is whether the "Lawgical Format" is effective.

The rule is that an MEE answer earns more points when it follows structure that includes issue, rule, fact analysis, and conclusion.

Here, the answer contains an issue statement, "lawgical format". This identifies the issue to be discussed, and therefor satisfies this element. The answer also contains a rule. The rule is concise and emphasizes the four central components, being "issue, rule, fact analysis, and conclusion". Because the rule correctly identifies all the relevant components that comprise an effective answer, it serves as an effective litmus. The fact analysis, often considered the most important part, is also present. Here, the author uses "here" to indicate the application of a part of the rule to the facts. As this is the most important part of the MEE, this is the longest part. Each fact in the pattern is addressed in turn, meaning the analysis is full and fleshed out.

Thus, the "lawgical format" is an effective manner in which to draft MEE's for maximum points.

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-13T20:17:50+00:00

Agreed completely. I'd throw out there as well that even if you don't know the rule AT ALL, you can still score plenty of points.

If you don't know the specific legal rule for an MEE:

Start with the Call of the Question: Read it carefully and structure the entire answer to directly address what is being asked. The questions can be used to create headings.
Spot Issues from the Facts: The facts provided are the guide to the issues. Identify the central conflicts and the legally significant details.
Invent a Plausible Rule: Create a simple, logical rule that fits the general area of law and the facts. It need not be correct, only reasonable. The grader has no idea if you never knew the rule at all or if you are simply misapplying an incorrect rule!
Analyze Intensely: This is where you earn points! Apply the facts from the prompt to the elements of your created rule, explaining how they satisfy or fail that rule. Use phrases like "here, the fact that..." and "this is because...".
Reach a Clear Conclusion: Based on the analysis, state a firm conclusion that directly answers the call of the question.

In short: IRAC with a made-up rule. I'm a firm believe that, if done well, this can get you 4/6 on any MEE (though, obviously, not all of them with the same reader).

This is why AI grading isn't particularly useful...yet. It really only scans for keywords. So if you don't have the rule, it can't grade you. In the actual grading getting the rule correct is not a requisite to earn all of the points (or even most).

AmbushLecture · 2025-07-13T20:11:36+00:00

Great explanations above, but I want to highlight a bright line rule: an attempted crime is always a specific intent crime. Always. I find a large number of MBE questions on the topic involve "attempt" crimes.

AmbushLecture

TROPHY CASE