You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

thomblake comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: FAWS 11 April 2012 03:39AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1221)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: thomblake 13 April 2012 06:02:17PM 1 point [-]

I have butter on my face.

Even Urban Dictionary is no help with this one. What?

Comment author: loserthree 13 April 2012 06:15:00PM 2 points [-]

It was totally non sequitur. Also very old. Maybe obscure.

http://www.bash.org/?10739

I think it's still in the top 200 quotes on the site.

Comment author: thomblake 13 April 2012 06:18:27PM 0 points [-]

Oh, first google result if I hadn't used quotes. Duh.

Comment author: loserthree 13 April 2012 06:22:47PM 0 points [-]

Without confirmation bias, would that actually have helped? I'm certain I don't know what that would look to someone who didn't know what I was going for. But I have the Illusion of Transparency on my mind since I saw someone catch it while trying to help someone with it.

Comment author: thomblake 13 April 2012 06:27:14PM 0 points [-]

Yes - I'd suspect that the phrase as used in the top search result was the canonical version, then search for that instead, and find it had a lot more hits than the quoted original search and the first reference is repeated several times.

Comment author: loserthree 13 April 2012 06:33:44PM 0 points [-]

I meant, would that have told you what you originally meant to find out.

Did you only want to know where it came from?

Comment author: thomblake 13 April 2012 06:58:53PM 0 points [-]

No, I didn't only want to know where it came from.

Yes, it's clear from context in the link that it doesn't mean anything.