= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Rationalist Fiction - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (189)
I've heard that complaint a lot, and I agree in the case of Sherlock Holmes, but death note seemed somehow plausible.
If you can remember it at all, do you think you could tell me specifically which parts you thought were "lucky guesses"? I like to keep those sorts of things in mind when re-reading.
NO... SPOILERS.
I really hope that we all think that developing better techniques for rationality is more important than sparing people spoilers in their fiction.
Just rot13 the spoilers.
If you don't spare people the spoilers, they don't read your website. (That was my family tradition, anyway.)
We can do both, though. Does the benefit of including a spoiler in a discussion outweigh the harm of imposing a spoiler on someone?
I agree until the last paragraph, I seem to remember thinking that there was a way it could have been done better, and that I could excuse his error because he wasn't overcoming an impossibility.
Unfortunately, I dont remember how I thought to fix it.