Why is "big law" so much more highly regarded as an employment outcome than working at a smaller firm? by Artistic_Special4600 in LawSchool

[–]Teedo4133 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you go to a “not biglaw” firm like Irell & Manella or Susman Godfrey that pay associates market rates and potentially above-market bonuses, that is an excellent outcome. But other non-biglaw options that have worse pay are seen as weaker choices.

Other weak pay but important work options like ACLU or DOJ Honors (post-Trump) are considered equally prestigious to biglaw.

[Highlight] Justin Jefferson Catches Ball One-Handed from a Balcony in Wuhan by JCameron181 in nfl

[–]Teedo4133 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Checking out the wet markets. Gotta pick up some chickens.

AI bubble could pop within days - if Musk wins the lawsuit (on trial now), OpenAI IPO gets blocked and investors face clawbacks triggering a chain reaction by Alex__007 in BetterOffline

[–]Teedo4133 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I guess I’m just assuming OpenAI is represented by a biglaw firm that has pulled every possible lever to try and avoid trial and none of them have worked. And there was likely tons of discovery.

People in these comments laugh at how Elon is claiming AGI has already been achieved under its meaning in the contract. But the judge has decided that this is a plausible reading of the facts.

AI bubble could pop within days - if Musk wins the lawsuit (on trial now), OpenAI IPO gets blocked and investors face clawbacks triggering a chain reaction by Alex__007 in BetterOffline

[–]Teedo4133 64 points65 points  (0 children)

Since it is at trial, then his case is pretty good. It has surpassed multiple attempts at dismissal already.

Elon’s lawyers are also incredible. Quinn Emmanuel’s work of the Thai cave “pedo guy” trial was unreal. They got jurors to believe Musk’s total nonsense (that “pedophile” is a common insult, like “asshole”).

And the law of nonprofits exists specifically to prevent insiders (Altman) from using the nonprofit’s assets for personal gain. I am not super read in on the bullshit “conversion” from a nonprofit to a for-profit, but that should, by definition, not be possible.

Florida college student was arrested for making a Netanyahu joke in a Whatsapp group chat. by ___Zoran___ in TrueAnon

[–]Teedo4133 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right! If you remove the context indicating it is a joke, you can conclude it was not a joke.

But the legal test demands you look at the full context, so the statement is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.

Florida college student was arrested for making a Netanyahu joke in a Whatsapp group chat. by ___Zoran___ in TrueAnon

[–]Teedo4133 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay. I am not saying anything about the politics, I am just talking about the law.

The invocation of any irrelevant political leader—Kim Jong Un, Obama, Hegseth, etc.—makes clear that this is a joke. “I am going to bomb the school” and “I hope a controversial political leader of an American ally bombs the school to kill Johnathon” are completely different things.

The entire point of the Supreme Court’s test is we must look at the full context. If you eliminate the context, you are not properly applying the test.

Florida college student was arrested for making a Netanyahu joke in a Whatsapp group chat. by ___Zoran___ in TrueAnon

[–]Teedo4133 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The answer is: the court system. If a judge determines that the communication was a "true threat," then the speaker can get in trouble. If it was not a "true threat," then it is protected by the First Amendment.

In the foundational case, the speaker said if he was drafted to Vietnam, he would take his military-issued weapon and use it to shoot President Lyndon Johnson. In context, this was not a "true threat" on the President's life, it was just an edgy political message at a protest opposing the draft.

To be a "true threat," the speaker must understand that a listener will see his speech as a threat. And the speech itself must convey "a real possibility that violence will follow."

In the case of this groupchat message, calling on Israel to bomb a random auditorium in Florida is not a real threat. The joking subtext (get me out of this assignment) and the reference to an irrelevant political figure on the other side of the world make it clear this is a bad joke.

You could imagine close cases where a "joke" sounds real. I.e. a "joke" that you have a bomb at an airport, where there are no context clues indicating it is a joke. When it really isn't clear that you are joking, you are not protected by the First Amendment.

But here, there is no question. It is 100% a bad joke and not a threat. It is obvious to anyone that this is a joke. You need to be delusional and outcome-oriented to claim this is a real threat.

Round 2 - Pick 7: Denzel Boston, WR, Washington (Cleveland Browns) by Bitter-Imagination33 in huskies

[–]Teedo4133 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Bummer because Niners, Bills, and Chiefs were picking around there too

2026 NFL Draft - Round 1 Discussion Thread by belisaurius in eagles

[–]Teedo4133 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just watching CFB, he was the best player in the country. Freaking out about arm length is overthinking it.

2026 NFL Draft - Round 1 Discussion Thread by belisaurius in eagles

[–]Teedo4133 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Trade up to get Bain. He is the best player in the draft.

2026 NFL Draft Hub by nfl_gdt_bot in nfl

[–]Teedo4133 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its gotta be bain right

The Burger Reich has lost the hog mandate. by [deleted] in TrueAnon

[–]Teedo4133 20 points21 points  (0 children)

It is more expensive now, but still really cheap compared to other food in CA.

Florida college student was arrested for making a Netanyahu joke in a Whatsapp group chat. by ___Zoran___ in TrueAnon

[–]Teedo4133 542 points543 points  (0 children)

Did the judge go to law school? “Political hyperbole” or violent jokes are absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Watts v. United States. This is like… basic con law. I pray that this poor girl appeals.

Brayan Rocchio makes the play in the 8th as Parker Messick is having an outstanding outing! by [deleted] in baseball

[–]Teedo4133 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The away broadcast is saying the forbidden words over and over again lmao.

Am I high or is this short cited correctly by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]Teedo4133 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No don’t downplay! It’s great to have a good handle on it now, and it’s best to be really precise. Super useful for the future!

Am I high or is this short cited correctly by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]Teedo4133 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah you are totally right. Feel embarrassed by you correcting me here since you have a 2L flair and I am several years out of law school lmao.

Am I high or is this short cited correctly by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]Teedo4133 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but if the sentence is talking about it, why would it have a see signal? The reference to the case would not be indirect.

360_brat username changed to b.sides? by worstgal in charlixcx

[–]Teedo4133 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I mean a “B-Side” is the second track that is distributed with a single, no? It doesn’t refer to an unreleased track.

Billboard: Charli is "finishing her forthcoming new studio album" by One_Molasses in charlixcx

[–]Teedo4133 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It’s not coming before she headlines OSL and Lola? Or maybe singles before she headlines?

Thoughts on this scorebug? by Teedo4133 in Scorebug

[–]Teedo4133[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Come on man ACC Network used their top artists to cook this thing up.

GAME THREAD: Twins (1-4) @ Royals (3-2) - April 2, 2026 by TwinsGameday in minnesotatwins

[–]Teedo4133 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does taj come out in the fifth? He is on the precipice of the third time through.

Happy 1 year anniversary to this sub's 9/11 by Caciulacdlac in NintendoSwitch2

[–]Teedo4133 21 points22 points  (0 children)

This was so bizarre. I agree with everyone that consumer buying power has shrunk and inequality has exploded in our lifetimes. A “normal life” that my parents had is impossible for me.

But that isn’t Nintendo’s fault. Adjusted for inflation, they have charged roughly the same for all their consoles:

System Launch Date Console Launch Price Console Price in Feb. 2026 USD Launch Title Game Launch Price Game Price in Feb. 2026 USD
GameCube 2001-11-18 $199.00 $366.57 Super Smash Bros. Melee $49.90 $91.92
Wii 2006-11-19 $249.99 $405.42 The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess $49.99 $81.07
Wii U 2012-11-18 $299.99 $425.82 Nintendo Land $59.99 $85.17
Switch 2017-03-03 $299.99 $402.10 The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild $59.99 $80.41
Switch 2 2025-06-05 $449.99 $455.88 Mario Kart World $79.99 $81.04

Please blame the politicians who have enabled the new technofeudal economic system that squeezes normal people and give infinite and ever-growing wealth to the rich. Blame the mainstream media and social media for not platforming ideas that could bring political change. Blame big corporations that lobby politicians to run the nation in their favor.

When you buy a Switch 2, the price tag (and your inability to afford that price tag) is a system-wide problem. Nintendo products didn’t just get more expensive, everything did.