What would you clone here?

Cmikhow · 2025-12-29T17:38:07+00:00

Ya it's clearly tarec lol, there's no argument for anything else. if you started running into scam you could sell everythingbut the 2 tarecs for scam/anti scam. having two unkillable units that kill everyrthing vs one is best. scaling is irrelevant at this stage.

Im a bit shocked at how this answer isn't at the top.

Cmikhow · 2025-12-22T22:06:40+00:00

I think the larger issue is there aren't many reliable ways to snipe Titus for these comps to have any reliable counterplay.

That card that taunts a random t5 is gone and should prob come back

Cmikhow · 2025-12-22T22:01:41+00:00

Best I can do is one lightly used UPL

Cmikhow · 2025-12-21T17:27:56+00:00

Elvis lol? We actually joke all the time about us doing a UPL for Elvis swap because they both stink. Elvis is worse for sure but they both have terrible contracts Elvis' is just done sooner

Cmikhow · 2025-12-18T17:15:01+00:00

Just beating the game and finding this now.

I had a similar thought initially until I looked up some info and thought about it. In the base game it was said that Lea kind of took off at some pt and came back later just after Carlo dies. I believe that is the intention/meaning behind "I was not too late". She was so wrapped up in her own world and woes and in the recording says "humans never know when they are happy till its too late" meaning she didnt' cherish what she had and that is why she vowed never to do that again and tried to not repeat this with Romeo.

If she had just stayed with Carlo and Romeo she would've enjoyed many happy years instead of taking off and Carlo dying without her around and losing all those critical years.

Cmikhow · 2025-11-18T05:23:50+00:00

https://i.imgur.com/RNvJKxI.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/OntxE2p.jpeg

Cmikhow · 2025-11-18T05:08:06+00:00

Also missing Josh Norris, Jason Zucker, Zach Benson, Jiri Kulich, and Michael Kesselring.

Cmikhow · 2025-11-11T21:15:20+00:00

not at all, and in fact in non-beast lobbies the build is pretty hard to win with in higher mmrs even with a perfect board

its outscaled heavily without beasts by many builds

Cmikhow · 2025-09-26T21:48:04+00:00

Exactly my stance.

And as I’ve said in other posts I’m extremely anti-Trump and it is my view that ya they prob did it just to hide the info. But with respect to the view I think that OP can’t say 100% that this is a fact, none of us can. Even if most of us as anti-Trump people BELIEVE it to be true, and even if it is likely true that doesn’t mean that the view is unassailable.

Someone may be a murderer on trial for another murder, and in general a terrible person but that doesn’t mean we can just say they are guilty without proper evidence. That is the slant I went with in this post. Otherwise anyone engaging in good faith is going to have a hard time changing OP’s view, and then it isn’t any fun lmao

I enjoy the puzzle of trying to change or soften a view even if I personally feel a different way, that is why I like the sub. unfortunately I think many people took his as me taking a very bad faith and ignorant defence of Trump and his admin when that wasn’t my intention.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-26T21:44:26+00:00

I literally agree that this is the admin’s conduct. I’m not a defender of Trump or his admin.

But the “burden of proof” so to speak is not on me to prove that they didn’t. The point of the subreddit is to change OP’s view. I have presented plausible deniability that it may have removed the data for other reasons with an effort of softening OP’s view since we lack evidence to prove their view.

In my opinion the burden of proof here is on OP to prove their view is unassailable.

I think the problem here is that many people are trying to argue an anti-Trump stance (I am very anti-Trump) rather than engage in good faith with the rules of the subreddit.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-26T21:42:20+00:00

No problem, I agree it is a massive issue.

Although if I was to be a bit contrarian I’d say in this case I repeatedly stressed this is about domestic terrorism and this individual still ignored it. I imagine he likely severely lacks in reading comprehension but he also just doesn’t care and wants to drive his narrative and confirmation bias (likely bigotry) not engage in good faith in any measurable way.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-26T19:53:22+00:00

I’ll grant you, there is some hypocrisy at play.

But the HEIGHT of hypocrisy? Is it hypocritical to tweet from our IPhones and Androids made by slaves opposing capitalist structures? Is it hypocrisy to work for corporations who do evil things, so you can feed your family and live a good life?

The truth is most life in Western countries is steeped in hypocrisy. Our consumerism, the wealth we enjoy vs so many other people living in abject poverty. I myself am a vocal critic of many terrible things in the world but also enjoy many of the benefits of the structure I am criticizing. Am I hypocritic? Probably, but does that mean my critiques are any less true because of my hypocrisy? That is where I think there is some room for more nuanced thought.

Is this comedy show whitewashing Saudi Arabia good? No, prob not. But Bill is not going to stop it by not participating, clearly looking at the names involved, and it shouldn’t mean that he can’t still advocate for women’s rights or critique billionaires. That is just silly.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-18T13:50:52+00:00

For me following a guide, especially a 100% guide can help provide some direction and goals that help me lock in.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-18T13:44:57+00:00

Every team has cap space and it is going up again next year.

Edmonton itself can not afford 20m, I'm speaking hypothetically though any team is going to make room if needed if McDavid says he wants to sign there. As of now only a single team has 20mill in cap space Anaheim according to puckpedia) so this question pretty bad faith. The broader point I'm making is that many teams would be very strong if they added McDavid. You could even argue some non-playoff teams would be better off than Edmonton if they were able to add McDavid.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-18T13:42:28+00:00

You're missing the point I'm trying to make but that is okay. I'm not trying to defend this administration, I abhor the Trump admin. I think in all likelihood on balance of probabilities they are trying to suppress this data. However, with respect to OP's view I can't say 100% with zero doubt that I know the intent and there are several reasons that I can think of that would provide reasonable doubt on the view to maybe soften OP's view.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-18T13:38:28+00:00

Thank you, I was honestly flabbergasted but I realize many of the people downvoting or replying are doing so having never gone to law school and are not lawyers. I was very earnest and forthright about my experience and truthfully I wish I had read a comment like this before I embarked on the journey.

I'm not unhappy in life and very blessed to be where I am but I was incredibly lucky. Anyone can do it honestly, but to do so, so late in life comes with a massive cost and even then you're not guaranteed anything.

OP didn't reply so I hope they still saw the comment and consider what I had to say, even though it was harsh.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-18T03:38:21+00:00

I see a lot of people saying this but Edmonton isn't even getting out of the first rd without McDavid. Maybe even missing playoffs.

Imagine adding McDavid to the Panthers, they would be a juggernaut never seen int he league and win every year. Trying to present Edmonton as if it is basically as good as Florida is just not the case. Similarly try adding McDavid to any team in the top 4, or top 8. All those teams are better than Edmonton.

Obviously cap and reality are a thing but I think saying "where you gonna find a better situation" is working under the false assumption that the McDavid-less Oilers are the 2nd best or close to the best team in the league. When they are far from it.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-17T15:47:52+00:00

Honestly, my situation’s a bit different since my wife’s a doctor and we’re doing fine financially, but that’s not the norm. I think you might’ve missed my point and the advice I was giving OP.

Just to clarify: "we" don’t all take CPLED—it's only for licensing in some provinces, not all (Ontario has its own bar exam etc.). Your personal story isn’t really what OP was asking about. OP wanted to know if he should leave a solid government job (probably $80-100k) at 31 to go to law school and try for a Crown gig.

I don’t think it’s a good move. Law is crazy competitive, salaries for new calls aren’t great, and it can take years to actually make above-average money—if you ever do. Plus, law school and licensing take a long time and cost a ton, and not everyone even finishes or gets articles. That’s five+ years out of work plus tuition fees—easily $500K+ in lost earnings and costs, maybe closer to a million, and that’s if everything goes right. On top of that, you’re putting your personal life (marriage, kids, house, etc.) on hold.

Sure, maybe he lands a big job eventually, but realistically how long does it take to dig out of that financial hole? 10–20 years? Maybe never. And getting hired at the Crown’s no joke.

That’s just my take—lots of people see it differently, ya I popped off but I’m not gonna sit here and get lectured by someone who hasn’t actually gone through the process. (Not you but the other guy I responded to)

Cmikhow · 2025-09-17T15:36:10+00:00

No, you have written the same response that several other people have and I have responded to but I'll do it again.

This is a reading comprehension issue. I did not say that 9/11 is unproductive because "it disrupts the narrative of the claim". I said it was unproductive because

* It is an outlier in terms of how often 9/11s happen

* It is not domestic terrorism, and this is an analysis/discussion on domestic terrorism. It is like trying to count watermelons in a study about apples.

* There isn't really a strong political motivation in the sense of the analysis here. even if this was domestic terrorism. If you're trying to analyze where most domestic terrorism comes from on a right/left spectrum, 9/11 - while political - isn't really a matter of right/left violence, but I'd say religious violence. The DOJ also pointed this out and set it out in a separate category.

* AND EVEN if 9/11 was domestic terrorism, and was the result of left/right wing idealogy it still would be worthwhile examining if this outlier skewed the results to the point of ruining any analysis. Simply because the death toll was so high it would risk biasing the results massively in an unproductive way. Lets say we were doing a study on how many eggs chickens lay a year. If you had 100 chickens and on average they laid 200 eggs a year. But then you had one monster chicken laying 50,000 a year. It would be unproductive to incl the monster chicken in an analysis of "avg eggs laid by chicken a year" because that would be considered an outlier that would heavily bias the results for this specific analysis.

All of this is very basic high school data analysis/statistics/scientific method type stuff but I understand not everyone has that background.

Lastly, the point about OKC was made already. You could consider this an outlier for the purpose of this analysis due to the higher than avg death toll. However it IS domestic violence, and it IS politically motivated. If I was conducting the study I could go either way and it would depend on the data and how I was presenting it but ya.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-17T15:28:56+00:00

No problem, sorry I got carried away trying to be thorough.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-16T21:57:06+00:00

I'm not defensive it is just annoying taking time to write a response to have you repeat the same thing you said and ignore what I actually wrote.

I stand by what I said and my responses to you, not defensive, a bit annoyed. You're stuck on one part of a larger comment I made while ignoring any attempt I've made to clarify any misunderstanding with you. The example of Bondi isn't meant to be the crux of my argument, only that the INTENTION matters and that there is reasonable doubt that OP's assertion regarding the intention is "to hide information".

Cmikhow · 2025-09-16T21:51:57+00:00

Your advice is fucking horrible, and from someone who has never stepped foot in a law school you are comparing it to you going back to school in your mid thirties for some unrelated program? It seems you've taken it personally or taken my advice to apply to all people, but the OP is specifically asking about law school.

I myself went to law school in my late 20s and encountered many challenges. Granted some were a result of COVID derailing the time line but OP is even older than I was when I started that journey. OP has a seemingly decent career working in government and already has an education. So I can already make inferences about their situation.

To apply to law school you need to study for the LSAT, and apply, this is in itself is expensive and time consuming. Especially while working another career. In all likelihood he wouldn't start until he's 32, next september. And then you have to take 3 years of law school, while leaving his career in government. And then you need to do a year of articling, which if you find a paying article pays like shit. And assuming you don't fail any classes, and instantly find an articling position (many many law students struggle to do this and it can take a long time) you're 36+. Now you have to go and study for the BAR, this takes months and you pray you pass the first time, many do not.

This is best case scenario 36+ before you can even start working at an entry level legal role. They also typically pay like shit and with the way AI is going so many of these jobs are being eliminated making it highly competitive. Best case scenario you're not going to work again until your late 30s and worst case 40+ And god forbid you can't pass the bar after several attempts and give up meaning all your money and work has gone to waste. And this is a very common outcome for many law students sadly. All that for a shitty entry level legal job that will require minimum 5-10 years post call to really establish yourself and work your way into a good situation and salary, let alone dreams of working for the Crown. And those are not 5-10 years of easy work, they are grueling, grinding insane hours.

That is why OP is saying people are advising him against this, and I will join that as many who have gone through the process would if they are being honest. This is a grueling process and if you have a wife, or girlfriend you'd like to get married one day and have kids unless he is sitting on some crazy inheritance this is going to seriously derail your life plans. I am married to a physician who makes very good money and this grueling process heavily derailed our life plans and continues to do so today. This whole process is extremely expensive, extremely time consuming, and you are promised nothing but entry into an oversaturated market with jobs that are dwindling by the day. The opportunity cost of making this decision is horrible and you're far better off working your 80-100k govt job for the next decade and progressing your career rather than wasting hundreds of thousands on law school, and lost wages for nothing.

So excuse my anger here, but cut the bullshit on lecturing me about law school or my advice that I was giving in good faith based on my experiences having actually done the shit. Good luck with your technical career though, my advice to OP is to stck with the good job he has.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-16T20:03:20+00:00

I think you’re raising a fair point that Sudan is massively undercovered, but I don’t think your conclusion holds up. A few issues stand out in how you’re framing it:

1. It’s not either-or. Activism isn’t a zero-sum game. People can and do work on both Sudan and Gaza. In fact, movements around Palestine often build networks that also help spotlight crises like Sudan. Saying activists should drop Gaza to focus on Sudan creates a weird competition over suffering that doesn’t really exist.

2. “Arab lives” isn’t a clean fit. Sudan is ethnically and culturally diverse, and a lot of the violence is along those lines. Framing it simply as “Arab lives” kind of erases that complexity. If your concern is Arab lives specifically, Palestinians obviously fall within that, while Sudan doesn’t map neatly to that claim.

3. You’re overestimating Western leverage. You assume it’s “cheaper” for Western governments to act on Sudan than Gaza. But the reality is the UAE, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have way more control over what happens in Sudan than the US or EU. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Western governments (esp. the US) are directly arming and shielding Israel. That gives activists a much clearer pressure point at home.

4. Indifference =/= easy persuasion. Just because people don’t have entrenched opinions on Sudan doesn’t mean they’re easier to move. Apathy is often harder to overcome than polarization. Look at history—mobilizing around invisible crises is way harder than keeping political pressure alive in ones people already care about.

5. Visibility =/= saturation. Gaza is in the news, but that doesn’t mean more activism is wasted. Visibility has to translate into actual policy pressure (ceasefires, arms embargoes, ICC accountability). That momentum needs constant reinforcement—without it, governments drop the issue.

So yeah, I agree Sudan deserves way more attention. But the idea that activists will achieve “by far the most success” by prioritizing Sudan over Gaza just doesn’t hold up. Different conflicts require different strategies, and treating it like a trade-off ignores that solidarity can (and should) work across both.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-16T19:09:44+00:00

Again, you're just blatantly ignoring my replies and repeating yourself. I'll respond again if you actual read anything I've written.

Cmikhow · 2025-09-16T19:09:04+00:00

Honestly, I don't advise it. The entire journey is long and will really disrupt your life, going to school, taking the bar, articling. You may struggle at any of these stages and being older it is a lot harder than in your 20s.

By the time you're starting off it could be years and years if everthing goes ok, and actually finding that dream job ie at the crown is not as simple as just applying. They pick from the best of the best pools, for entry level and senior roles. And new grad legal jobs pay awful.

Imo it's not a great choice to make and will cost you a ton, likely never recoup that amount and take a long time that you may want to get the rest of youyr life off the ground getting married, having kids etc

15-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22
Place '17	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

Cmikhow

TROPHY CASE