this morning i was searching for some tips on a home renovation project. every videos was "8 TIPS YOU FOR X", "WHAT X CONTRACTORS *DON'T* WANT YOU TO KNOW", etc. almost zero usable information, with most videos stretched multiple minutes with the host making jokes and other nonsequitors in between doling at information you could have guessed.

in the afternoon i was thinking about how to overwinter a few ferms. same exact thing. everything is content creators with soyface video stills and no information. half of them start out with shit like "i started growing ferns last year, and here's what i learned!" what the fuck?! why isn't the top result some professor in fernology that can just give me the info? instead i get pages of birdbrains with their tits out until i start getting results aligned with other interests the alogirthem knows i've have. i know there's other videos about ferns!

i'm smoking some brisket this weekend and again, like an idiot, i decided to search for some tips. i've smoked brisket dozens of times but thought i might listen to some brisket tips while doing other tasks. the video i clicked on was a LITERAL FAGGOT lisping about brisket, recommended wagyu brisket (?????) and said prime was "just ok" and choice was "bad", and then admitted he's smoked brisket two times. WHAT THE FUCK!?

and what prompted this is was curious about a specific type of bird's defense against predators and decided to look up some videos of it fighting them off. several of the videos from DIFFERENT CHANNELS had the *EXACT* title: "stupid X tries to kill Y... it didn't go well." all with like 3k views and AI voices.

same thing with content. reddit is completely unusable. every new feature they have added makes the site worse and further away from the original ethos. of course, reddit has already killed off all the other forums, so there's really no where else to go. you can't use the internet for information content or entertainment.

it's funny to see the technofuturists on the right thinking that AI is going to fix everything or something. if the singularity is achieved all it will do is find out how to waste more of your time and take make of your resources. especially since the same megacorps the control the internet now are the ones developing AI.

the internet is officially dead.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369363)

The writer argues that the internet has been ruined by corporate algorithms prioritizing monetization over usefulness. They describe frustration when searching for practical information — whether about home renovation, caring for plants, or cooking — and finding only low-quality, clickbait-style videos made by inexperienced content creators. The author laments that expert or straightforward instructional content is now buried beneath repetitive, shallow, algorithm-driven material.

They extend this criticism to platforms like Reddit, saying it has become unusable and strayed from its original purpose, while having displaced the smaller, more genuine forums of the past. Finally, they express skepticism toward AI and “technofuturist” optimism, arguing that AI will likely deepen corporate control and waste more user time and resources. The overall conclusion is that the internet, once a source of information and community, is now effectively “dead.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369371)

if you weren't retarded you would just prompt GPT with "how do I renovate my home without hiring Scumbags" and choose the "Think Longer" option

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369380)

Also LLMs are going to cannibalize the internet until there's nothing left so they aren't actually a solution to the inherent problem he's getting at

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369396)

"What is the best forum to get mediocre advice from middle-aged lawyers?"

Based on various online discussions and critiques, the subreddit r/legaladvice on Reddit stands out as a popular spot for seeking free legal input, but it's frequently lambasted for dispensing advice that's often mediocre, inaccurate, or overly generalized—sometimes from self-proclaimed lawyers who might fit the middle-aged demographic (though verification is spotty at best). Critics point out issues like non-lawyers (including moderators with backgrounds in law enforcement rather than legal practice) dominating the conversation, leading to bad takes on civil matters or assumptions that laws are uniform across jurisdictions. It's got over a million members, so there's plenty of activity, but the consensus from actual legal professionals is to take anything there with a massive grain of salt, as it can be "dangerously bad" or a outright "catastrophe."

If you're looking for alternatives that might skew similarly casual (and potentially mediocre), sites like Legal Junkies Forums or Avvo's Q&A section come up in searches for free legal advice hubs, where responses from attorneys (possibly middle-aged ones) can vary wildly in quality. But honestly, for anything serious, skipping forums altogether and consulting a real attorney is the move—though that defeats the "mediocre" vibe you're after.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369397)

Now with AI, no one goes to the source anymore, and so there's no incentive to produce good sources.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369484)

Until then I can't take your complaints seriously sorry

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369385)

if I want to learn about a certain piece of music gear - I have to look at low vibrational video thumbnails of a balding bugman pointing at the piece of equipment with a stupid face before I listen to the actual machine

tp

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369394)

and he contradicted most of the advice you'd find in the top results. that's part of the problem and what oyt doesn't get. ask a legal question and you'll get an /r/legaladvice answer which is laughably bad most of the time and flat out wrong but stated with dunning kruger confidence the remainder.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369400)

you can even get good info on reddit still to this day

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369456)

when things are arranged algorithmically the information people like the most will be at the top. but very often the correct information is not appealing to the user.

if you went to /r/politics nov 4, 2024 you'd think kamala was about to win bigger than reagan in 84.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369502)

https://youtu.be/CtX5pXWMoCg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369752)

Congratulations on your acceptance to Brooklyn Law School and on wrapping up your undergrad with solid stats— a 159 LSAT and 3.62 GPA put you right around the school's medians, which are typically 156-162 LSAT and 3.27-3.69 GPA. Matriculating there next fall could be a reasonable step toward your international law goals, especially given the NYC location, but it's worth weighing the pros and cons carefully based on current data. I'll break it down below, focusing on fit for your aspirations (UN/international work or big law fallback), employment outcomes, costs, and alternatives.

### Strengths of Brooklyn Law for Your Goals

- **Location and Networking**: You're spot on about the proximity to the UN headquarters in Manhattan (just a quick subway ride from Brooklyn) and major law firms. This makes internships, externships, and events more accessible, which is crucial for building connections in international law. The school emphasizes NYC's global hub status, and alumni often land roles in the area. For UN aspirations, hands-on opportunities like internships could help, though UN legal roles are extremely competitive and often prioritize candidates with advanced experience, multiple languages, or prior international exposure. The school's study abroad programs and ties to international organizations could give you an edge here.

- **International Law Focus**: Brooklyn has a dedicated Dennis J. Block Center for the Study of International Business Law, offering fellowships, courses, and mentoring tailored to global business law careers. This aligns well with international law, especially in areas like trade, finance, or corporate deals with cross-border elements. They also offer a core International Law course and study abroad options in places like Europe or Asia. While not a top-tier program for pure public international law (e.g., human rights or diplomacy), it's practical for private-sector international work, which could bridge to UN or NGO roles.

- **Big Law Pathway**: As a fallback, white-shoe firms (elite Big Law) are realistic if you perform well academically. The school placed notably on the National Law Journal's 2025 Go-To Law Schools list at #43 for Big Law hiring. Recent grads have landed at firms like Cravath, Skadden, and others in Manhattan. However, this often requires being in the top third of your class, as these firms recruit selectively from regional schools like Brooklyn.

### Employment and Bar Outcomes

Brooklyn's outcomes are decent for a regional school, with strong NYC placement. Here's a summary from the latest ABA data for 2024 graduates (out of 400 total):

| Category | Percentage | Key Details |

|----------|------------|-------------|

| Overall Employment | 91.75% | 367 employed within 10 months of graduation; 83.25% in full-time, long-term bar-required jobs. |

| Underemployment | 8.8% | Includes part-time, short-term, or non-JD roles. |

| Big Law (Firms 101+ attorneys) | 26.5% | 106 grads in mid-to-large firms (e.g., 72 in 501+ attorney firms); solid for NYC market. |

| Government/Public Interest | 28% | 112 grads; includes judicial clerkships (18 total, 5 federal) and public service—relevant for UN paths. |

| Business/Industry | 8.5% | 34 grads; good for international business law. |

| Location | N/A | 81% in New York; small numbers elsewhere, including 2 abroad. |

Bar passage is strong: 87% first-time pass rate on the July 2024 New York bar exam (up 9 points from prior years and the highest in a decade). This beats the state average and positions you well for NY practice.

Starting salaries vary by sector: Median for private practice is $110,000, while public/government roles are around $60,000. For international law specifically, prospects from Brooklyn lean toward private firms or NGOs rather than high-profile UN posts without extra credentials, as the field is niche and competitive.

### Potential Drawbacks

- **Rankings and Prestige**: At #117 (tie) in US News 2025, it's dropped recently and is seen as comparable to schools like Hofstra or New York Law School. For ultra-competitive UN roles or top white-shoe firms, prestige matters—many UN legal hires come from T14 schools or have LLMs/PhDs. Brooklyn excels in specialties like clinical training (#24) and business law (#35), but it's not a national powerhouse.

- **Cost and Debt**: Full-time tuition for 2025-26 is about $73,000 per year, plus high NYC living costs (estimated total COA ~$100k/year). Average debt for 2024 grads who borrowed (60.5% of class) is $143,684. With median salaries, ROI could be okay in Big Law but tighter in public interest (where loan forgiveness like PSLF helps). Scholarships are merit-based (e.g., Prince up to full tuition for top applicants), so negotiate if possible—your stats might qualify for partial aid.

- **Competitiveness for Dream Jobs**: UN positions (e.g., via YPP or internships) are tough—thousands apply for few spots, often requiring 2+ years of experience post-JD. Big Law from Brooklyn is achievable (top grads do it), but not the norm—expect to hustle for grades, clinics, and networking.

### Is It a Good Idea? My Take

Yes, if you're set on NYC, can secure scholarships to keep debt under $100k, and are prepared to aim for the top of your class—Brooklyn's outcomes support solid regional careers, and the international business angle fits your interests. The location alone could open doors you wouldn't get elsewhere. However, if UN/Big Law is non-negotiable, consider retaking the LSAT (aim for 165+) to target higher-ranked schools like Fordham (#37) or Cardozo (#61), which have stronger international programs and placement. Weigh your scholarship offer, visit the campus, talk to alumni in international roles, and run the numbers on debt vs. expected salary. If it feels right, go for it—you've earned the spot. Good luck!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369454)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369529)

"The "Of Counsel" attorney's warning isn't entirely baseless, but it's also not the full picture of big law (typically referring to large, prestigious firms like those in the AmLaw 100 with high-stakes corporate, litigation, or transactional work). Based on accounts from current and former big law attorneys, industry analyses, and discussions of billing ethics, there's truth to elements of what he said—particularly around the pressures of billable hours leading to inefficient or low-value tasks—but it's overstated to claim "most" of the practice is mindless busywork with "no valuable services at all." Clients do retain these firms voluntarily, often for high-value expertise, and ethical rules (like those from the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct) prohibit outright fraud or valueless billing, though gray areas and violations occur. I'll break it down with pros, cons, and realities below, drawing from a range of perspectives including lawyers, critics, and clients.

### The Stimulating and Valuable Side (What the Partner and Associates Described)

Many big law attorneys report genuine intellectual engagement and client value, especially in specialized areas. For instance:

- Practices like appellate constitutional law, administrative law, or public company corporate work are often described as "very intellectually stimulating" due to complex problem-solving, novel legal issues, and high-impact outcomes (e.g., shaping regulations or closing multi-billion-dollar deals). Attorneys in these roles frequently cite the "nirvana" of cracking intricate contract puzzles or adding strategic value, as your anecdote suggests.

- Big law provides resources (e.g., dedicated research teams, global networks) that enable high-quality service, such as defending Fortune 500 companies in bet-the-company litigation or advising on cross-border mergers. Clients, including sophisticated corporations, choose these firms precisely because they deliver measurable value—like risk mitigation or deal facilitation—that justifies fees. Exit surveys and alumni stories often highlight how big law hones skills for in-house or entrepreneurial roles, with one former attorney noting it's "dynamic" with "abundant perks."

- On X (formerly Twitter), some attorneys push back against negative stereotypes, emphasizing that big law work can be "cutting edge" compared to smaller firms, with opportunities for prestige and learning from top talent.

This aligns with your skepticism: clients aren't forced to pay; they often see ROI through expertise that smaller firms can't match.

### The Busywork and Fee-Extraction Criticisms (What the Of Counsel Warned About)

That said, the Of Counsel's cynicism resonates with widespread complaints about big law's model, which prioritizes billable hours (typically 1,800–2,200+ annually) as a profitability metric. This can incentivize inefficiency:

- Associates often describe much of the work as "drudgery" or "mindless busywork," like endless document review, rote due diligence, or over-researching minor points to hit quotas. One Reddit thread likens it to "panic-emailing about misspelled footnotes at 2 AM," contrasting it with more flexible practices like personal injury law. Former big law attorneys report weekends ruined by low-value tasks, with burnout rates high (e.g., anxiety and depression far above national averages).

- Billing practices draw ethical scrutiny: Pressure to meet targets can lead to "padding time" (over-recording hours), "block billing" (lumping tasks vaguely), or even overbilling, which some associates say happens with "tacit approval" in a cutthroat culture. Disciplinary cases for billing fraud have risen, often at mid-to-large firms, despite ABA rules requiring "reasonable" fees (Rule 1.5) and prohibiting dishonesty (Rule 8.4). Critics argue the hourly model itself is flawed, as it rewards time spent over efficiency, leading to "unethical" practices like double billing (charging multiple clients for the same work).

- Not all value is illusory: While some tasks feel pointless, clients may not see the full picture due to information asymmetry (e.g., they trust the firm to handle complexities). But reports like those in the Michigan Law Review highlight a "moral decline" in big law, where profit trumps service, echoing the Of Counsel's "tempting lies." On X, discussions critique big law as a "scam" that chains associates to desks for partner profits.

### Why It Persists Despite Client Choice and Ethics Rules

- **Client Dynamics**: You're right—clients can walk away, and many do if fees seem unjustified. But big law thrives on repeat business from institutional clients who value reputation and results over cost scrutiny. However, market forces (e.g., AI reducing rote work) and client pushback are challenging the hourly model, with some firms shifting to flat fees or value-based billing.

- **Ethical Safeguards**: Rules exist (e.g., courts can strike unreasonable fees), but enforcement is spotty—billing records are confidential, and violations often go undetected unless clients complain or audits reveal issues. The ABA emphasizes diligent mid-year reviews to avoid pitfalls, but fee-related grievances remain common.

- **Variability**: Experiences differ by firm, practice group, and individual. Litigation might feel more stimulating than transactional due diligence; top performers get the juicy work, while juniors grind. Midsize or "lifestyle" firms often offer better balance without the extremes.

In summary, the Of Counsel's view is partially true for some aspects of big law, especially under billable pressure, but it's not how the "entire industry" operates—plenty of attorneys find it rewarding and valuable. If you're considering this path, talk to more alumni (e.g., via LinkedIn or forums like Reddit's r/biglaw) and weigh the trade-offs: lucrative pay (starting at $225k+ in NYC) vs. potential soul-crushing hours. It's not all lies, but it's not all drudgery either."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369566)

"Congrats on landing the litigation role at DLA Piper—it's a top-tier global firm with a strong reputation in complex disputes, and your passion for arguing and debating should serve you well there. If it doesn't pan out long-term, litigators from big law firms like yours have robust exit opportunities, often leveraging skills in advocacy, research, analysis, and high-stakes problem-solving. These paths are especially viable after 3-5 years of experience, when you've built a track record. Based on recent trends (as of 2025), the job market for ex-big law attorneys remains strong, particularly in growing areas like legal tech and in-house roles, though overall hiring has become more selective. Below, I'll outline key categories with examples, pros/cons, and real-world insights.

### In-House Counsel Roles

Litigators frequently transition to in-house positions at corporations, where they manage external counsel, handle internal investigations, or advise on compliance and risk—often with better work-life balance and no billable hours pressure. This is one of the most common exits for big law associates.

- **Examples**: Tech companies (e.g., Google, Meta), financial institutions (e.g., JPMorgan), or pharma giants (e.g., Pfizer) often seek litigators for roles in litigation management or regulatory affairs. DLA Piper alumni have landed at places like Uber or Solv Health, per investor networks.

- **Pros**: Higher predictability, stock options/RSUs boosting comp (median in-house salary ~$200k+ after big law), and direct business impact.

- **Cons**: Less hands-on courtroom time; roles focus more on oversight. Advancement can vary by company size—startups offer faster growth but instability.

- **How to Pursue**: Network via LinkedIn or alumni events; aim for 2-4 years at DLA to build credentials.

### Government and Public Sector Positions

Your debate skills shine here, with opportunities in enforcement, policy, or prosecution—often a stepping stone back to private practice or other roles.

- **Examples**: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) trial attorney, SEC enforcement roles, or state AG offices. Litigators from big law are prized for their experience in complex cases. Recent examples include moves to anti-DEI enforcement or gun rights-focused positions.

- **Pros**: Meaningful work, trial experience, public service loan forgiveness (PSLF) eligibility, and strong re-entry to big law (e.g., "revolving door" to partnerships). Salaries start ~$80k-150k but offer stability and prestige.

- **Cons**: Lower pay initially, bureaucracy, and competitive hiring (though big law background helps).

- **How to Pursue**: Apply via USAJobs.gov; leverage DLA's pro bono or government-facing work for connections.

### Other Law Firms (Boutique, Mid-Size, or Starting Your Own)

Many litigators switch to smaller setups for better balance while staying in the courtroom.

- **Examples**: Boutique litigation firms (e.g., specializing in IP or employment disputes) or regional mid-market players. Some ex-DLA attorneys have started solos or joined platforms like Scale LLP for remote/flexible work.

- **Pros**: More autonomy, potentially similar pay (top boutiques match big law scales), and focus on pure litigation without corporate grind.

- **Cons**: Less prestige/resources; starting your own involves risk and client-building (though big law contacts help). Pay cut possible initially (~50% for solos, per some accounts).

- **How to Pursue**: Recruiters specialize in lateral moves; for solos, resources like "Exiting With Integrity" guide ethical departures.

### Alternative and Non-Legal Careers

If you want a bigger shift, your skills transfer well to non-traditional roles, especially with the rise of AI in law (e.g., DLA's own tools reducing rote work, opening tech paths).

- **Examples**: Legal tech/litigation finance (e.g., roles at companies using AI for due diligence); consulting (e.g., McKinsey for dispute resolution); academia/teaching; journalism/writing on legal topics; or entrepreneurship (e.g., real estate brokerage, per ex-lawyers). Public interest fellowships like Skadden offer impact-focused pivots.

- **Pros**: Freedom, variety, and potential for high earnings (e.g., $150k+ in consulting). Many report higher fulfillment.

- **Cons**: Initial pay dip, need to reskill (e.g., via certifications); less structure.

- **How to Pursue**: Use platforms like Leaving Law Behind or Biglaw Investor for guidance; network at events or via X/LinkedIn.

Overall, litigators have more predictable paths than transactional lawyers (e.g., sticking in disputes vs. broad business exits), but options are plentiful and often lucrative. In a tough market, staying put a bit longer can boost leverage. If you're proactive—building networks, gaining specialized experience (e.g., in tech litigation at DLA)—you'll be in a strong position. Check out forums like r/biglaw on Reddit for firsthand stories. Good luck!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369586)

like, i get it if the first results, or even the first few page of results, is board, generalized or even clickbait information. but you can't even do a deep dive to find more in-depth information before gc starts going "hey, forget about that, remember that video game you searched last week? check that out!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369531)

Different parts of Online peaked at somewhat different times, but it's all downhill from here imo

Even stuff like a neutral Wikipedia seems like a civilizational Triumph by today's standards. We're not ever going to be able to achieve that again. The future of Online is grim

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369552)

And all 'her' videos' are just a close up of her hands preparing food with an on screen script asking where I am from and how much she would appreciate if I would subsctribe, and dont forget to ring the bell and then I realized there are hundreds of these stunningly beautiful SAHM or career chefs with a degree in nutrition and health and whatnot, until I started to realize it is really just one or two misshapen, AI savy jeet or Pheng, making up dozens of these beautiful womens' blogs and youtube channels, from the comfort of his basement suite in Phuket or Mumbai, and all the recipes are out of someone elses book.

So much for supporting a budding talent or a passionate cook. Also, fuck this gay Earth.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369845)

the clickbait, slopification of the internet started with recipes. before algorithms and ai recipes had already begun being 90% of the author's life story and passion for the dish and blah blah blah and then somewhere in the mix was the actual fucking recipe. and even THEN it wasn't any fucking good: even if you add a bunch of qualifiers for "authentic" and "traditional" you'll get a recipe that has a ton of boxed and canned bullshit, or random shit that would make purists of that dish rage. i started buying cookbooks again over 5 years ago because it's fucking impossible to get a good recipe online and if you try to make the futile attempt you have to wade through paragraphs of birdbrain yammering and ads until you get to a béchamel made with kraft singles. FUCK!

i blame this on women, and i suspect the slopification of the rest of the internet has to do with women becoming more online. makes sense that pajeets would imitate them first.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369872)

Really great meme if I can ever find it again.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789140&forum_id=2Vannesa#49369874)