The deities don't want me to use PCs

Does anyone believe in curses? Bad mojo? Poor luck? Not the type of curse or poor luck like "You will die in x years?" or always getting the least convenient number on the dice, but a curse for something very specific, for example like always getting in traffic jams on a road that is usually empty, always saying bad things on accident when discussing a certain thing with other people, cats seeing you as their archnemesis in important situations etc. In my case, I am cursed with always getting dumb, unresolvable problems on desktop and laptop PCs. No problems with smartphones or apple computers, only PCs. I'll keep it as short as possible because I don't want to flood the OP with a wall of text, but basically after having trivial unsolvable issues on 4 different computers with hackintosh, linux and windows, I've finally had my main and backup PC (one haswell i7 one 2010 AMD APU) die within 24 hours of each. I have been flooded with various unexplainable issues for the last couple of months (like compilers not working, fonts becoming garbled, network dying, important data corrupting on different drives etc, unmountable disks etc.), but this has finally hit me in my achilles heel and lost my only two usable computers with loads of important data. I'm not asking for tech support, every tech literate person I've ever asked to help has confirmed that my issues are of a metaphysical nature, and usually the only way to deal with these problems is by using the most obscure and/or least practical method, but even this has been failing me as of recently. So I'm asking to prove I haven't gone mad, is anyone cursed for some very specific task? I am considering giving up computers altogether and going for a carreer that involves as little computer work as possible.

>tech literate person >confirmed that my issues are of a metaphysical nature Pick one. The essence of technical aptitude is a deep faith that all gremlins can be killed.

Yeah you're not alone OP. But it's best not to speak of it ever as you can see from the previous response which you could've predicted had you thought about it a little. It is between you and your 'deities'. I would wager to never trust any 'deities', they are in your head after all and your interpretation of what they are is always subject to your own mortal imperfections. If you look hard within yourself you'll find the power to spin such things any way you want, so ultimately the decision and the responsibility is on you. Our existence is fake, a story we tell ourselves, so it is not unreasonable such things can happen but they're of very little use to speak about.

>>16482 To add: they might not be of much use to anyone else but they can be of crucial use to oneself in forming your story because after all are we here as lab rats in someones experiment or will we take the liberty to draw our own story. You could take it as motivation to do something else than computing, or you could take it as the memory that really starts your computer obsession or you could let it pass as if nothing at all. Like I said, it goes any way YOU want it to go. ... though of course there is no real you in control as the cascade that causes your behavior is immensely complex and there is no single cause to it all that you could call yourself, it could be eg. that you are unconsciously not wanting to get sucked in into computing and sabotaged yourself and this could be caused by you projecting opinions of others who you imagine not wanting you to be all immersed in computers thus in a way others sabotaging your efforts. It can go any way... but ultimately it just goes one way, words will never capture the truth they will always be twisted any way as they are immaterial but you are material and you will feel your one way with your body.

>>16481 I disagree. The essence of technical aptitude is a refusal to accept the fact that many computer problems are unfixable.

>>16484 Did you mean 'willingness to accept'? That sentence is pretty confusing otherwise. Either way, it's not about whether problems can practically be fixed, it's about believing the state of the machine has a cause within the context of the machine. To me anything less is almost disrespectful to it; like ascribing someone's actions to stereotypes or outside forces, when they specifically meant to do what they did and have their own personal reasons for it which are being ignored in service of a worldview that denies them all agency. If someone doesn't have a mindset that respects the existence of the machines they work with as distinct systems, that person is inevitably going to be unable to think effectively about them.

>>16487 no, refusal to accept. I think technical aptitude comes mostly from stubborn denial of reality.

>>16488 In that case I'm not sure in what way you disagree with my statement, since yours seems pretty similar to what I was saying.

If this was an album I'd buy it. Well I'd download it anyhow.