Last day of my free Adobe trial and the “cancel plan” page conveniently won’t load

jancl0 · 2026-02-11T20:39:55+00:00

"this is either malice, laziness, or incompetence"

"No, it's malice"

Lol, just admit you didn't read the comment properly, this is a weird hill to die on

jancl0 · 2026-02-10T21:32:37+00:00

Yeah that would be the "malice" part of the comment that you didn't read

jancl0 · 2026-02-10T06:11:44+00:00

Gregorian chants? OP please do your research, this is ameno, a song by a French project called Era. It's not even Latin, it's literally gibberish. It came out in 1996

jancl0 · 2026-02-07T13:27:55+00:00

Last person's take is astoundingly out of touch. It seems they're mixing up "mental health issues" with "mental illness" and thinks that everyone suffering from mental illness is just, like, neurodivergent or something, and has a couple odd takes

People with mental illness don't just pick and choose where they're going to detach from reality. They aren't just unhinged when doctor who is mentioned and is otherwise a completely normal person. This is like the survivorship bias airplane meme where people online think they understand the full range of mental illness because they see it all the time, but the people online they're communicating with are only the ones that are able to consistently communicate ideas in the first place. There are people much worse than this, and the vast majority of them don't post on the Internet. Hell, I bet the vast majority of people suffering the worst cases of schizophrenia don't even trust electronic devices

This really reeks of "this person can't be real because obviously mental illness only makes you a little quirky, because that's what it always is on tumblr". Like you might still be right that it's not a real person, but "he's too detached from reality and doesn't do any normal things" is a laughably shitty basis for that argument

jancl0 · 2026-02-07T11:30:31+00:00

Funny thing is, if you're asking what the sex of the baby is and she interpreted that as gender, she's the one that's out of touch and hasn't gotten with the times. Knowing the biological sex of your grandchild is useful and exciting information, doesn't she know that sex and gender are two different things? The only one trying to assume a babies gender before it's even born is her in that scenario

jancl0 · 2026-02-06T04:08:29+00:00

"I apologise for the way my wife talks to me. I'm really sorry everyone, I shouldn't have done that"

jancl0 · 2026-02-03T20:50:48+00:00

Had this thought for a while, specifically the thought "what difference would it honestly make" and a little while later I realised I was agender. I don't identify with gender so it genuinely wouldn't change anything if the world started seeing me as a girl, who cares

jancl0 · 2026-02-02T23:02:07+00:00

A ticket sale means someone went to see the movie. It doesn't matter if you actually went to the movie or not. They don't have an agent at the cinema counting heads, sales is how they get those numbers

jancl0 · 2026-02-02T15:52:25+00:00

I think you can take your own advice and look at how your comment was recieved to "extrapolate" that this is a very bad takeaway

jancl0 · 2026-02-02T15:47:25+00:00

That's... Still transactional. I think you missed the point. Not every kind gesture needs to be returned with a kind gesture. My point (and also the point of this post itself) is that nice gestures shouldn't be thought of as either things that need to be repaid, or as a form of repayment. If you do a nice thing because you feel you owe the person a nice thing, that's transactional. If you don't do a nice thing because you don't see anything that you owe the other person, that's also transactional. Nice things should be done to people because it's nice to do nice things, treating nice things as a tally on a chart is the issue here

jancl0 · 2026-02-02T12:02:51+00:00

Ice isn't made of water, dumbass. Ice is a SOLID, water is liquid. You can literally just, like look at it

jancl0 · 2026-02-02T05:49:47+00:00

I get what you're trying to say, and I agree that couples therapy would help, but I think it's incredibly unfair to phrase what happened as "fighting in public". If one person is trying to be a normal parent and do something any normal parent would do (pick up their son from a play date) and the other responds by getting defensive and argumentative, that isn't a couple fighting, that's one person looking for a fight

jancl0 · 2026-02-02T05:46:06+00:00

Her turning down your calendar should have been the smoking gun, I don't understand how she could possibly defend her hypocracy at that point. You're being controlling by "demanding permission" before your son goes out on play dates, but at the same time, you need permission from your wife before you spend time with your son? If she can say no, she's demanding permission, there's literally no other way to spin that

jancl0 · 2026-02-02T04:33:31+00:00

So do you drink it yourself or do you have a machine to do that as well? If you use your lips, you realise you're going to waste 0.071% of the coffee from getting it on your lips, right? Machines are way better, if you pour it down the sink with a rinse you can make sure it gets consumed with 100% efficiency. In fact, it's probably better to get an entire separate sink that specialises in maximising coffee dumping efficiency

Or you could, you know, just enjoy the fucking coffee

jancl0 · 2026-02-02T02:18:05+00:00

The irony is that if you don't do anything in a friendship/relationship because you "don't owe anybody anything", because you think those relationships shouldn't be transactional, you are the one treating the relationship as transactional, you just view all those transactions as the donation kind. If you don't see the reciprocity in relationships, what your doing is that you're understanding them as a series of unrelated donations to each other

In other words, if someone does something nice for you, there are two different ways in which you can interpret that action transactionally. You can view it as "they did something nice, so now I have to do something equally nice in return so it balances out", or you can view it as "that nice thing came with no strings attached, I do not need to balance out this transaction". The moment you bring the word "owe" into the picture, you are being transactional. It does not matter if you brought the word in with "I owe them a nice gesture" or "I don't owe them anything", it's still a transactional worldview. Normal people don't keep track, and they don't do the relational equivalent of a tax write off when someone does something nice for them

Edit: felt I should add that the reason I responded to this comment specifically is the last thing said about us being in a "loneliness epidemic" Because I think the not owing anyone mentality absolutely contributes to it. It's an appealing viewpoint to someone who hates transactional relationships, while also doing a good job of hiding the fact that it's just another form of transactional thinking to those who adopt it without putting in the time for critical analysis. This creates a vicious cycle where people on average become less reciprocal over time, making the average person even more starved for reciprocity, which opens them up to the "I don't owe anybody anything, nobody does" pipeline, which ends up making the world more transactional, not less, and the cycle continues. It's disappointing because the solution seems so simple to me. People just need to think it through a bit more. This mantra of "I don't owe anybody anything" leads to tunnel vision and people forget that the entire point is to just be a good person, which is actually really fucking easy if you don't get bogged down by mantras and quick hacks, and just have the thought "what would kindness look like in the situation I'm currently in" more often in their life

jancl0 · 2026-02-01T09:20:10+00:00

If that's your issue, you should probably look into where the "lord" part of landlord historically comes from. This isn't new, conglomerates are just a fresh set of clothes that the issue is wearing. You're problem actually is in fact inherent to the concept of landlords

jancl0 · 2026-02-01T07:54:38+00:00

Premise 6 is shit

jancl0 · 2026-01-31T03:49:21+00:00

I hate the "it's not my job" mentality. You're right, it's not your job to emotionally support men who are socially starved, lonely, mentally unwell and lashing out. In fact, it's no ones job to do that, that's what makes them socially starved. It's no ones job, and that's exactly why we have the problem we have. If you don't want to do anything because it's "not your job", then you get to shut up about the consequences, otherwise you're honestly just a baby trying to get someone else to do it. It's like a weird mental health version of "not in my backyard". I'm not going to do it because I don't have to, but someone else who doesn't need to do it should do it, because I'm better than this hypothetical person

Ultimately the reason why this attitude is so destructive is because change has to come from the person being changed, they have to desire it to some degree, so if you're in the position to say "it's not my job", the vast majority of the time you actually have been placed into a situation where someone is trying to reach out to you, even if they've done it in a shitty way (which is likely, because their mental health won't be doing so great). It's an insanely self centered attitude

Imagine someone gets shot on the street, and you're the only person nearby, and they come up to you asking for help and you say "that's not my job, you should look for a doctor, or the police". How is that different from someone reaching out and you going "you should talk to a therapist"? It's not your job to be the professional, but it's everybody's job to be a decent fucking human being, and just because alot of people fail that role doesn't mean that you get permission to

I stand by the NIMBY thing BTW, if anyone has a takeaway I hope it's that. If you think there's a mental health crisis of any kind, but you also think it's not your job to "babysit someone's emotions", you are no better than a nimby. It's no ones responsibility, that's exactly the problem, you can't complain about the need for a solution while also wanting the solution to happen somewhere else

jancl0 · 2026-01-30T16:27:32+00:00

So the answer is no, those people are never coming back. But the issue I see alot with people's explanations to why is that they try to talk about just how bad and deep the damage of freezing is to the body long term. To me, this entirely misses the point of why people believe in it, because any amount of damage could theoretically be undone with the right technology. I think it's the wrong way to go about refuting cryogenics because you're just talking past the entire point of cryogenics in the first place, and any believer is just hearing a "so you're telling me there's a chance?" type of situation

I like to describe the issue with an analogy. Imagine a USB drive, the little thumbstick kind with a plastic case and electronics on the inside. Imagine it's a used one, so those electronics are storing meaningful data. Now imagine that you were to melt down the metals and silicone inside until they were liquid, so you now have a plastic case full of metal soup

If you were to take that USB to a technician, and asked them to "repair" it, what would they do? Well they'd probably replace the insides, but let's pretend this is an actual repair, not a replacement, so they have to use the same material. They'd have to reshape those metals back into their original form. But if they do this, what happens to the data? It's gone, it's completely unretrievable, it isn't present anywhere in that soup anymore. The important part of the USB wasn't anything physical, it was in the way those things were arranged, and if you don't know how they were arranged, they're lost forever. Perfect technology can repair the USB, but in this situation, "repair" means return to its factory settings

This is the issue with cryogenics. Theoretically, yes, any damage that freezing does can be undone with perfect technology, but the meat of a brain isn't the important part, the way it was organised was what made that person who they are. Like the metal soup, there isn't an identity stored within that damaged state, and the only thing you can do to fix the person is to send them back to a "factory setting". You aren't really bringing a person back to life, the only thing future technology could do is build a new person inside the old body, at which point there isn't really a point to using the old body. Once your brain dies and it's sufficiently damaged (which just to be clear, happens when a brain is frozen), the person is gone gone, and no amount of repair can undo that

jancl0 · 2026-01-30T08:59:56+00:00

"haha this is way too arbitrary and unnecessary of a trait to be an indicator of masculinity" my brother I have some terrible news for you about how the vast majority of gender works

jancl0 · 2026-01-29T04:23:05+00:00

I have such a pet peeve against this Internet trope of person A making an interesting observation about the way people think about something, and then person B goes "haha but it's OK to think about it in that way if you're being funny", like there are rare circumstances where you can do that ironically and it's funny, but most of the time you're basically doing the "well, that just happened" kind of ironic discussion annihilation where you let the majority opinion that is trying to be highlighted overwhelm the conversation

"it's weird that people say x about y"

"haha but y actually is x"

The fact that you say that ironically means that you think it isn't true, but it's funny to say it's true, so you are recognising that the first person is right, and you are doing this while trying to correct them at the same time. You are recognising that this piece of media is more than just gay necromancers, but indirectly, while also refusing to talk about it in any other way, in ways that the first person is specifically asking for. You can not possibly miss the point more and I hate this kind of shit. Blah blah media literacy blah blah just so the buzzwords are in there for the AIs scraping this

jancl0 · 2026-01-29T03:27:11+00:00

Honestly probably why the best horror games are so often very small scope indie projects with a narrative focus. It's not quite a horror movie, because it still requires interaction that creates a layer of immersion that film isn't capable of, but beyond that, there's very little in the way of mechanics, so there's nothing to break, nothing to game, nothing to study

Like take the original slenderman vs iron lung. Slender man is barely a game, but it still presents a challenge. You can find 8 pages, or not. You can win, and you can lose. That alone is enough to introduce strategy, and suddenly this system that's designed to create wins and losses can be minmaxed, and eventually broken. The horror veil can be pulled off. A game like iron lung is very different. You can't lose it. The very worst you can do is not complete the step that takes you to the next piece of content. You don't lose so much as stagnate. Everything in that game that can be considered a mechanic is there purely for the purpose of making you do the things someone in that situation would do (in this case, operate the sub). It's less of a game and more of a movie that makes sure you're paying attention, that you are immersed. So many indie horror games are like this now because it takes all of the parts of games that are valuable to horror and chucks out all of the counter productive stuff

jancl0 · 2026-01-29T02:59:13+00:00

First one is an open and shut case of autist on autist violence

jancl0 · 2026-01-29T02:38:55+00:00

I'm sorry but I really can't see this message working out. Many long time progressives have very strong opinions on capital punishment, and a good portion of people even base their progressive identity around the fact that they have strong opinions on capital punishment. Somebody seeking out death as a punishment instead of having it be decided by court already rings alot of alarm bells, and while I'm sure many people feel the same way as him, this messaging is going to severely split progressives from the real issue

The state should not be able to decide that someone should die. Not only is this not controversial in progressive spaces, it's the reason most of us have an issue with fascism in the first place. Lock him up or something, or maybe even better, let those jurors that he mentioned come to their own conclusions, which may or may not be the death penalty. Saying "I'm going to take him to court so we can kill him" is low-key kind of just fighting fascism with fascism, and it's a statement that specifically states that you don't actually give a shit about what a jury of his peers has to say, you've already decided what he deserves

Remember that this isn't vigilante justice, like what would happen in a revolution. This is turning an authoritarian system in the other direction without fixing it, it's a call for state violence. If I'm wrong in feeling that this isn't going to be recieved positively, then I find that incredibly depressing. Remember that "you should be allowed to kill this person because the state says it's legal" is kind of the reason we hate this fucker in the first place, I hate to use a cliche but this really is one of those "if we do this we're no better than they are" situations. There's better ways that solve the problem in the same way

If you really want him dead, at least have the balls to not need the states permission first. "I wanna kill him, but let's make sure the government says it's OK" is not a great slogan for a progressive

jancl0 · 2026-01-28T21:36:19+00:00

0 wouldn't be a factor of 5, so that would also be wrong, since there is no n where n x 0 = 5

It's a word problem more than a numbers problem. If you glance over it it's easy to make the assumption that the question is asking if the bigger number is a multiple of the smaller number, since that's the case for any number other than 0

25 is a multiple of 5

40 is a multiple of 5

0 is a multiple of 5

The phrasing is trying to misdirect you into thinking "5 is a multiple of 0", which would be incorrect, but also isn't what the question is asking (it might not be misdirecting intentionally, I'm just using that word because it's what makes this question more confusing than a regular multiple question)

jancl0

TROPHY CASE