u/CollegePlane7528

So I am going for a BA in economics. I suck at math especially trig (somehow I literally just don’t know or don’t remember any trig basics beyond soh cah Toa and they didn’t come up in calc or precalc). By some miracle of God I managed a 670 on the math on SAT (I genuinely think that I just got lucky on a bunch of guesses), but that got me out of taking a TSI test (that I knew I would fail) at my local community college. But the SAT score served as a prerequisite for taking precalc for business (which I got an A in) and calc for business (which I also got an A in) as dual credit at my community college. The actual classes aren’t too hard for me, but when I hit an exam on stuff I learned sophomore year I just don’t remember any of it.

So I am going to be an economics major, BA. The only math classes I need are MATH 140 and MATH 142. I already took and passed and got As in equivalent classes. Does the bad MPE score negate the fact that I already have As in math 140 and 142 equivalents? I want to avoid these math classes if possible, especially since I’m trying to get out in 3 years after working my butt off to get 42 dual credits, but having to take all these math classes will really set me back.

Will I have to take college algebra/precal/calculus again, even though I’ve already taken equivalent classes to 140 and 142? And yes, I’ve checked and they do transfer over.

i have a couple of examples that I am having a hard time with as i grow into my, admittedly young, faith.

1. The conquest of Canaan. Specifically note Deuteronomy 20, where God commands the Israelites to take women and children of conquered nations as slaves. These passages seem a bit conflicting with the rest of scripture.

2. Chattel slavery. Yes, the Bible endorses chattel slavery, and I'm really tired of people tiptoeing around it. Does the endorsement of chattel slavery make slavery amoral? I just don't get it.

3. Life at conception. if life really does begin at conception (as many people believe this based on Jeremiah 1:5), wouldn't it be a little bit cruel to force a mother to carry the baby of a rapist? or if the mother's life is in danger? or does life not begin at conception? I know this one is a little bit more political, but i'd love to hear people's thoughts.

4. recounting of historical events. Most secular archeological evidence contradicts many old testament stories (for example, there's a screaming lack of evidence for Moses's existence outside of biblical texts, which the ones we have are all dated long after Moses's death. Another example is that Jericho is dated to have collapsed long before the Israelites supposedly got there). There's a lot of other examples too, such as recounting of Judas's death, the order at which Jesus appeared to people following the resurrection, etc.

5. God's repentance in exodus 32:14. This one baffles me. Why does God repent of something? Why does the Bible say God planned to do evil?

I grew up in a Christian homeschool household where I was taught young earth creationism.

I’m about to graduate high school, and I’ve been homeschooled my whole life. I love homeschooling and my parents are great, but something I’ve been trying to do is pursue truth through evidence rather than what I’ve been taught. One of these has been accepting that evolution is true. (Just so yall know, my parents are totally fine with that. They don’t think I’m a bad person or anything and they’re glad that I’m pursuing truth. I am also still a Christian, and I don’t think evolution and the Bible contradict each other at all. I just want to clear that up so I don’t get any ‘report your parents for abuse’ comments).

While I am starting to put the pieces together to my new belief, I do have a hard time explaining it to some of my friends who are also young earth creationists. I’m trying to research, but I think I’m missing some fundamentals that are considered common knowledge because some of the stuff I’ve been reading has seemed to skip over some things.

For example, my friend objects to something like “how does it make sense for a dinosaur to evolve from a bird when it doesn’t make sense for a dinosaur to grow wings because that doenst line up with natural selection” and I just have a hard time answering that.

To be honest, I just want to get some fundamentals starting points and I can continue my research from there on my own. Please don’t judge and please refrain from saying things like “your parents are abusive” because that’s not true.

My whole life, it's always been about something.

I have always loved piano, but i've never done it because i loved it. I did it to impress college admission officers. It's always been about performing in this recital so i can have something to get that scholarship. I love piano, but playing piano has never been because of that. That was just icing.

My mom would get me into these piano "festivals" (essentially just a private adjudication where if you did good enough for the judge you'd get to play in the public recital afterwards). I would be forced to learn a particular piece for months in advance, forced into practicing 7+ times a week (mind you, i'd still practice 4-6 times a week if my parents weren't making me). The pieces I would learn would all be out of the curriculum my teacher used.

Only in the last year have I been allowed to choose the piece I wanted to learn, which gave me a second wind. But that's gone now.

I also would have to prepare for months for biannual recitals that my private teacher put on for all of her students (she teaches exclusively ages 5-18).

In 9 hours, I will have completed my last recital.

I am overjoyed that it is over. I hate piano now. I will probably never touch it again after tomorrow. I've never been more burnt out of anything in my entire life.

All piano is to me now is a reminder of how many times I failed, how many times I was forced into doing something I didn't want to do, how many times I was yelled at for forgetting to practice, and all of the other negative things.

But in 9 hours, it will be over. I will never have to touch a piano again in my life. Nor do I plan to.

My whole life, it's always been about something.

I have always loved piano, but i've never done it because i loved it. I did it to impress college admission officers. It's always been about performing in this recital so i can have something to get that scholarship.

My mom would get me into these piano "festivals" (essentially just a private adjudication where if you did good enough for the judge you'd get to play in the public recital afterwards). I would be forced to learn a particular piece for months in advance, forced into practicing 7+ times a week (mind you, i'd still practice 4-6 times a week if my parents weren't making me).

I also would have to prepare for months for biannual recitals that my private teacher put on for all of her students (she teaches exclusively ages 5-18).

In 9 hours, I will have completed my last recital.

I am overjoyed that it is over. I hate piano now. I will probably never touch it again after tomorrow. I've never been more burnt out of anything in my entire life.

I see people say that they spend 45 mins warming up just to play one comp game.

I think that's kinda silly.

i was hardstuck ifor so long. i didn't play consistently, but when i did i couldnt get past bronze 1. i would play a whole bunch of DM too. sometimes i'd hop on and play an hour of DM and then get off. There's definitely something to be said for that.

But in the latest act, i climbed 300rr. Its because i played 115 matches in one act. I actually didn't notice any meaningful improvement in my stats either. I just got more RR because more games=more wins.

You should always work on your mechanics in Deathmatch and the range and aimlabs.

but also? You might just need to play more comp if you want to climb. if you're only playing 25 comps games per act, you can only gain so much rr.

Try to grind 60+ games in one act and see where you get.

Obviously Jeremiah Smith is the clear answer here, so no need to comment his name. I'm looking for non-QBs to watch that genuinely have a shot. Here's some names i spun up off the top of my dome:

Kewan Lacy: A bit hard considering he's on the same team as Chambliss, but he had 1600 yards and 24 TDs last year. The production is insane and if Chambliss misses 4-5 games he could really shine

Mario Craver: Another one that's hard because Marcel Reed would get it ahead of him, but he has the skill level to put up 140+ yards per game and get into the conversation

Malachi Toney: Just another elite receiver that can get there given the amount of touches he'll get

Jordan Marshall: You can't tell me this guy doesn't have a shot. Averaged 6.2 yards per carry last year. IMO Michigan needs to make him the focal point of the offense.

Danny Scudero: Given the recognition Colorado gets, the receiving leader from 2025 should probably have more biletnikoff buzz, but heisman is probably not in the cards

Lee really struggles against receivers that are bigger/stronger than him (which there aren't a lot of those) because they can overpower his biggest strength, which is his physicality. His physicality made him a really good corner against any average or smaller receivers, as well as a wiry one he can physically dominate. He is stellar at the catch point but struggles against burners because of his lack of top end speed. I don't think he's going to be a great NFL corner, but he is a very similar player to Mike Jackson (big, physical, slow corner). He is very good at using the sideline to his advantage, he tends to try to shrink the window the QB has to throw and harass the receiver rather than being a ballhawk, and he's very effective at what he does. He's very good at disrupting the timing of releases into routes, so he didn't get a lot of targets in college (especially considering other A&M corners during his tenure left something to be desired).

He's not strong enough to challenge elite big body receivers (think Mike Evans) but he's too slow to keep up with faster guys in the slot, which makes him a big of an enigma.

Receivers that had elite change of direction, separators, stop/start guys, that's definitely not Will Lee's ideal matchup.

Lee can match up well with one dimensional receivers, especially ones that often try to leverage their length to create separation because Lee negates that (think the George Pickens/Nico Collins/Drake London archetype).

You never know how much NFL coaching can change a player though, and Canales' staff through two years has had excellent DB coaching and development. If he can lean into the physical, press coverage, bully ball type of player he could be a diet Richard Sherman (if we're talking absolute developmental ceiling here). The ceiling is ridiculously high with him, which is honestly what you want in the fourth round. Personally, i don't see him becoming more than a serviceable starter but you never know.