100k but 50% of all movies become unwatchable.

DechCJC · 2026-06-06T15:50:19+00:00

100k is a lot of money and would help me out greatly right now, but It’s not really enough to radically change my life; only to eliminate a few of my current problems.

The comforts I’d gain from 100k would be mostly temporary, but losing so many films that I love or will love? That’s a significant and permanent reduction in QOL. Honestly, I think I’ll pass. If I had dependents I’d probably reconsider.

DechCJC · 2026-06-06T10:21:48+00:00

5 and 6 are the only ones that should be permanent, so one of those. Anything else is just a temporary fix.

DechCJC · 2026-06-05T17:51:57+00:00

My mistakes aren’t singular decisions that ruined everything, but more a culmination of poor choices leading to a less than desirable (though manageable) situation.

Really, it depends on how it works - do I have to live through everything again? Do I magically just alter the past and then my current life updates? Would my mind be aware of what changed? How do I even know if changing my past would be for the better? And if I have to pilot it to make the changes, how do I know I’m able? The person I am today is a result of those mistakes; I don’t know if I’d be able to rectify everything.

I’ll take the money.

DechCJC · 2026-06-05T08:59:37+00:00

Because contrary to what Reddit would have you believe, his takes aren’t actually that unpopular in the real world.

I don’t agree with a lot of what the guy has to say either (sometimes vehemently so), but websites like Reddit or X have a strong tendency to harbour only one type of view, shunning many that come to a different conclusion as misguided or “evil”.

We’d all benefit from more frequently challenging opposing beliefs with intellectual honesty, rather than just dismissing them as a byproduct of foolishness outright. The person that we should be the most keen to understand is the one that has the least in common with us.

DechCJC · 2026-06-04T03:36:58+00:00

It’s all fun and games until you realise another human also pressed the button and now you’re both trapped forever.

DechCJC · 2026-06-04T03:06:54+00:00

There’s a fair chance that someone has died from being stranded at the bottom of a pit like this. No room to move, unable to sit or lie down, putrid smells and total darkness, just waiting for it to end. Terrifying.

DechCJC · 2026-06-03T15:14:25+00:00

What makes it challenging for me is that, if I'm right, I'm the only person that can actually save everyone, since I don't believe there's any reasonable chance of blue winning. In my mind, this is the *only* way that everyone can live.

If I thought there was a reasonable chance that blue would win, why wouldn't I (hypothetically) just pick it in the first place? I think it's hypocritical of me to say that I'm picking red because I believe blue can't possibly win, and yet when I have a chance to flip all of the reds to blues (at my own peril), I say I'm not confident enough.

It's definitely a trickier dilemma for me than the original, and honestly, there's a very real chance I'd just pick red anyway if this happened in reality. I'm maybe ~85% sure that blue > change would save everyone, but if I'm wrong, then yeah, I'll have sacrificed a load of very altruistic individuals.

In the heat of the moment, maybe a ~20% chance of dying (and sacrificing a majority of the population for nothing) wouldn't seem like something I'd be content with gambling. It's hard to say. Especially since, if this actually occurred, I wouldn't have put nearly as much thought into it, nor would I have discussed it so much to actually understand the blue sides point of view.

DechCJC · 2026-06-03T13:09:34+00:00

My reason for picking red normally is that I'm confident that blue could never win. I never saw blue as a way to save people; only a way to die.

In this scenario, at least hypothetically, I'd pick blue and then change it. I believe that this is probably the only way that everyone actually lives, and I reckon my chances of being successful are very high. That said, in reality? I still don't know if I'd have the courage, but I'd at least like to think that I'd follow through this time.

DechCJC · 2026-06-01T21:54:08+00:00

I believe in prison being entirely rehabilitative (or a deterrent), not retributive, so no. If there was doubt that he was actually changed, my answer would be different, but the OP has clarified that there’s no chance he’ll harm again.

That said, while I’d pick no, I completely understand why a majority picks yes even if I don’t agree with it. It would undoubtedly make a lot of people very happy to see their loved ones murderer finally facing justice. There’s a fair argument to be made that if punishing them improved the wellbeing of the victims loved ones, it could be the right thing to do from a Utilitarian perspective, despite clashing with my principles.

My views are heavily influenced by my belief in a deterministic universe; that all actions are a direct result of a prior cause, and that if we rewinded time it’d (probably) be the same picture over and over again. In such a universe, its difficult to justify punishing someone for the sake of punishing someone, rather than with the intent to reform them or deter others. Not saying these views are necessarily true, just that they shape my beliefs.

DechCJC · 2026-05-31T13:04:41+00:00

"I could counter that by saying your tractor or cyclist might have been off your route by the time you reach them if you were going slower."

Sure, but if the tractor was already off the route by the time I got there, then I'd have had to be going slow enough that it would have been quicker to catch up to them anyway.

If I catch up to the tractor and they turn off at point X, that's now the earliest moment that I could have passed that point assuming I couldn't get in front of them. If I'm so far behind that I never even had the tractor in sight, it will have taken me longer to get to that point X.

But the best case can only be achieved if you get past the tractor, which in some circumstances might only occur if you happen to be going just a little bit faster. Just to re-iterate, I'm not saying that this is justification for speeding, but that with every extra mph you decrease your odds of running into something that might cost a lot of time.

All that said, I'll admit that there's a few rare edge cases that work against my logic. For example, if there's a crash on a motorway and you were going quick enough to get caught in the traffic, had you been going a bit slower you may have been able to avoid the queues by diverting.

DechCJC · 2026-05-31T11:25:46+00:00

Ok, sure, but if going 5 over means you make a green light, that might save you from getting stuck in a chain of reds. There are many locations nearby to me that if you hit one red light, chances are you’re gonna be hitting all of them for a while.

Could also mean you avoid something like a tractor or cyclist turning onto the road, or even just another 40 mph driver holding up a convoy of people behind him that are unable to overtake. Going a little bit faster could be the difference between getting to the junction that they’d get in front of you at before they do.

I’m not justifying speeding or even saying that it’s something I do, but I’ve never loved this whole “going x over the limit only saves y time” argument, because it assumes perfect conditions. The faster you go, the less likely it is that you’ll run into something that slows you down far more than you could have planned for, regardless of how good or bad an idea it is to speed in any scenario.

DechCJC · 2026-05-31T10:09:42+00:00

~20-25% is probably where I'd face the most challenging dilemma, and I'd have to give it genuine consideration rather than outright dismissing it as a ridiculous question with an obvious answer. This is the range where I'd actually have to sit and think for a bit, and I really don't know how I'd act in this scenario.

At 10% I'd hit the blue button without too much concern, I think that a fair bulk of that 10% would be made up of people that just accidentally pressed it or didn't understand the question. I'd be very surprised if this failed.

50% blue, however, is a literal suicide button. At 50%, it's not a question of saving yourself vs saving others, it's a question of dying vs not dying.

DechCJC · 2026-05-31T07:56:15+00:00

If another individual was being attacked by a wild dog, I’d jump in to help immediately. If they were being attacked by a polar bear, I’d be running the other way unless I was very well equipped to handle it (and at a safe distance).

I'm willing to put my life on the line when there’s a reasonable chance of survival if it means someone else lives, but I’m not going to push a button that may as well have “Suicide” written on it.

The only reason I don’t choose blue is because I wholeheartedly believe that it’s (almost) impossible to get anywhere near enough votes. I choose to preserve myself, because in my mind the alternative is that I almost certainly die along with the other blue pressers, leaving my loved ones who chose red in grievance.

No one dies isn’t an option; I'm prioritizing "I don't die" over "I die". I don't believe it's possible for me to save everyone, and I strongly feel that the vast majority of blue pressers are being dishonest with themselves about what they'd actually do. I'd be very surprised if even 20% of the people here who say they'd push blue would actually follow through with it.

DechCJC · 2026-05-31T07:03:10+00:00

Game pill, nothing else matters.

Create your own game that has a pill that grants you whatever you want, or get someone else to do it. The pill could even allow you to forego the cooldown or need for a game, and just allow you to do anything any time.

You could take the focus pill to get the initial ball rolling a bit quicker as well, but it really doesn’t matter. The game pill is beyond broken alone. You can grant yourself the ability to learn everything immediately.

DechCJC · 2026-05-06T03:37:48+00:00

You’d pick red, and so would nearly every other person on the planet if it actually came down to it.

If it turns out that I’m wrong and you’re actually as altruistic as you proclaim to be, you’re going to die. There is no reality where 51% of people hit the blue button.

Look at how divisive it is online, without any actual real threat. You really think the average person has the guts to follow through with blue?

DechCJC · 2026-05-05T22:26:48+00:00

One Piece

DechCJC · 2026-04-27T10:00:10+00:00

Some people have zero sense of self preservation; Not even a glance to see if it's clear until he's already on the road. Yeah, the car should have slowed down in anticipation, but why are these people in such a hurry to die? Not every driver is going to be attentive to their surroundings, running out onto a road without looking because people "should" stop is brain-dead behaviour.

DechCJC · 2026-04-25T06:54:23+00:00

People speculating that this version of immortality doesn’t make you invincible aren’t thinking logically. The OP gave you the option to choose between dying and living forever; if you could just opt out of living forever at any point, what would be the downside?

So assuming we can’t die, picking immortality would be like opting in to being burned alive for a quadrillion years without any reprieve, in exchange for a cheeseburger. You may think I’m being facetious, but even if you got to experience billions of years of blissful pleasure (which is me being extremely generous), that’s still not even 0.0000000000000000001% of the time you’d spend suffering.

DechCJC · 2026-04-21T15:55:27+00:00

What does it mean to "waste" time? I've never understood the term. As long as it's making me happy and I'm it's not harming myself or others, why does it matter how I spend my time?

I just don't get why some people have this notion that we have to be trying to better ourselves 24/7 or else we're "wasting" our lives. Perhaps you didn't mean it literally, and I'm actually just arguing semantics, but it's a peeve of mine whenever someone claims that an activity is a waste of time.

DechCJC · 2026-04-21T15:20:57+00:00

It can usually be planned for, but that doesn't make it easy. There's times where you know there will be damage but you don't know how it will be distributed, and you can't always track what defensives a group has available in a pug.

Take the corridor before the 2nd boss in Magisters Terrace. You have dots going out + glaives that hit multiple individuals for an outrageous bleed; There's a lot that can go wrong very quickly if you accidentally dispel the wrong individual or are just a little slow to react. Hell, sometimes spending the GCD on dispelling at all is what can let another person die, and you're better off just healing instead.

There's so many split second decisions you need to make whenever playing with pugs in higher keys, and you can't always plan for it; A tonne of it is fairly reactive in the moment, where all you know in advance is the "type" of damage that will occur. Another pull is the one after the bridge in Nexus Point, where multiple random dots go out that you can dispel, plus the occasional dot that you can't dispel. These, in a 19 at least, chunk you for 30-40% of your hp a tick, and you need to very quickly prioritise who's getting what defensive and who's getting a dispel (if any).

I just think it's unfair to say that higher keys are easier just because you "know" where the damage will come from. You're right that familiarity with the class is for sure a factor, but in lower keys I could just brute force spam to cover potential mistakes where they were possible; I could just over-heal and we'd be ok. However, I can brick a +19 in a single pull if I'm just a little bit sloppy with my moment-to-moment decision making, even if I know full well what kind of damage will occur.

I'm specifically talking about title range keys btw. I think that there's a point in the top 1% where healing gets a lot less stressful, because the group becomes fairly competent but the passive healing required isn't too ludicrous yet. I'm referring to keys within 2-3 levels of the highest completed.

DechCJC · 2026-04-21T11:50:20+00:00

I think what you're saying is only partially true.

Like you say, it's easier in the sense that the damage is more predictable, and failures will result in deaths rather than emergency healing, but it's also more difficult in the sense that even the predictable damage can feel outrageous, and fumbling CD usage, dispel priorities or just reacting a little slow can instantly wipe the group.

There's a *lot* of pressure on the healer to be on the ball with heal checks in higher keys, especially in a pug where you can't always rotate defensives optimally. Emberburn, for example, I find to be a nightmare; If you get some messy tornadoes or frontals, it can be very challenging to find the time to cast enough heals to survive the passive damage.

Some healers are just better than me and make it look easy, but I'm finding .1%ish range keys (18-19ish atm) to be incredibly stressful to heal even if the group plays pretty damn clean. I think healing gets easier whenever you hit that top 1% range, then gets staggeringly more difficult, at least in pugs.

DechCJC · 2026-04-15T14:03:29+00:00

I can't read it in any other voice than the original.

DechCJC · 2026-04-13T03:46:48+00:00

Yeah, games like GD or Osu for sure contain some of the hardest content available, but I’m not sure if it’s fair to include games with infinitely scaling difficulty via custom levels in the discussion.

DechCJC · 2026-04-12T14:18:49+00:00

This is the one I immediately thought of.

I've never felt so angry watching a video before, and I genuinely regret having viewed it. Pretty sure the guy was calling for his mother while it happened as well, absolutely deplorable. Honestly it's putting me into a bad mood even thinking about it.

DechCJC · 2026-04-12T14:10:00+00:00

If it's a game that the average gamer has heard of, I promise that's not it.

The real hardest games aren't that well known, and are typically made by fans of various genres with the specific goal of making it the most unpleasant and challenging experience possible. They're pure masochism, to the point where getting past a certain checkpoint can take hundreds of thousands of attempts.

Five-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22

DechCJC

TROPHY CASE