= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I assume you don't know of a way to get non-personalized autocomplete results?
Proxy server and a clean browser? I recommend TOR.
Rocket broomstick is epic. I wonder what happens when the Transfiguration wears off in however long it does? Very small hail over Azkaban?
Mm, good question. Will it be ice or water that falls from the sky? To put it another way, to what extend do thermodynamic changes whilst an object is Transfigured persist after the spell wears off? We know that the 2nd Law can be violated, for example, but we don't know if it is as a matter of course.
Can you give a few examples of MoR's more blatant Americanisms? As a non-native speaker, asides from the spelling issues ("realis/ze", "toward/s") and the most iconic terms ("bloody" vs. "doggone"), it's hard to notice and remember which side of the Atlantic any given phrase comes from.
raises hand
Hey, I'm originally of British origin. I can indeed confirm that the language Harry uses has made me wince a little. This hasn't happened in the last few chapters, since we've been hearing from harry!Mort rather than Harry, and mind-dumps don't respect style, but
"I'm in Mary's Place, Professor, in Diagon Alley. Going to the restroom actually. What's wrong?"
-contains the word "restroom", which no speaker of British English would <i>ever</i> use in that context, and the question "What's wrong?" is a little aggressive. I would suggest something like
"I'm in Mary's Place, Professor, in Diagon Alley. Ah, I'm actually just going to the bathroom - is there something wrong?"
Woah, you're kidding, right? I've never not played with a "no talking outside of Point of Order" rule. How would it even work if you can say things all the time, and thereby avoid learning when you're actually required to say them?
Oh, and I get a card for saying P of O during P of O, and another for talking about the rules.
It's usually clear when one says something intended to interact with the mechanics of the game (e.g. saying "That's the badger" on the Two of Clubs).
End P of O.
grin
In-game chatter! Penalties all around.
Not that we ever actually played that variant, too obnoxious
This is precisely what I was going to suggest; I had a very nice game of it just last night.
Indeed (says AstroCJ, going on to discuss strategy, but not rules of the game), I think... hmm. This might actually be worth a top-level post. Since I'm going to dispense with all pretence of obeying "the rules", I'll rot13 the rest of this post. We never played the no talking variant either.
Fb, yrg hf fcbvy gur zlfgrel nf dhvpxyl nf cbffvoyr:
Znb vf n tnzr va juvpu gurer vf na rnfl (vfu) zrpunavfz sbe rnpu crefba gb zbqvsl gur ehyrf bs gur tnzr. V'yy qrfpevor n fnzcyr tnzr dhvpxyl.
Cernzoyr/Ehyrf:
Gurer ner n ahzore bs cynlref naq gurl rnpu gnxr n ahzore bs pneqf. Gurl gura cynl gurfr pneqf nppbeqvat gb n onfr frg bs ehyrf; zl snibherq inevnag vf bar jurer gur bayl onfr ehyrf ner "sbyybj ahzore be fhvg", ohg zl tebhc bs sevraqf abeznyyl cersref n fyvtugyl zber pbzcyvpngrq frg. Oernxvat n ehyr vaphef n zvabe cranygl, fhpu nf qenjvat n pneq.
Jura lbh trg evq bs lbhe pneqf, lbh ner tvira bar-fubg cbjre gb zbqrengryl nygre gur tnzr, naq znl nqq, zbqvsl be erzbir n ehyr. Lbh gura erwbva gur tnzr naq ortva rasbepvat vg. Ab-bar vf gbyq jung guvf ehyr vf; rkcynvavat nal bs gur ehyrf vf ntnvafg gur fcvevg bs gur tnzr naq vaphef n zvabe cranygl.
Qvfphffvba:
Znb, nf qrfpevorq, qbrf abg fbhaq yvxr vg zhfg or sha. Guvf vf ragveryl gehr. V'yy nggrzcg gb tvir n yvfg bs gur ernfbaf oruvaq cynlvat gur tnzr:
*Bar rawblf fbyivat chmmyrf. *Bar rawblf frggvat chmmyrf. *Bar rawblf tvivat uvagf gb chmmyrf. *Bar rawblf frrvat bar'f sevraqf ynl gur Dhrra bs Urnegf naq fdhrny, "va gur znaare bs n qehax cvt", na vpr pernz synibhe bs gurve pubvpr[1].
Fb, gurfr frrz yvxr npprcgnoyr guvatf gb rawbl juvpu ner pregnvayl cerfrag va Znb. Fb, jul nz V jevgvat guvf sbe yrffjebat va fhpu qrgnvy? Jryy, V guvax gung vg sbeprf bar gb:
Haqrefgnaq jura lbhe sevraqf ner abg univat sha (v.r. lbh'ir abg qbar bar bs gur sbyybjvat, naq guvatf unir tbar jebat.) *Abg sbez ulcbgurfvf gbb dhvpxyl naq grfg ntnvafg gurz rkunhfgviryl engure guna ybbxvat ng gur rivqrapr. *Abg frg chmmyrf gung ner gbb uneq sbe fbzrbar ryfr gb haqrefgnaq (Uz. "Pbzzhavpngr nccebcevngryl"?). *Abg nggrzcg gb pbageby gur fvghngvba orlbaq jung bar *pna qb (r.t. n ehyr gung vf bs gur sbez "Vs {Gur ahzrevpny inyhr bs gur ynfg guerr pneqf ynvq rnpu funer bar cevzr snpgbe jvgu rnpu bs gur bguref, ohg unir ab cevzr snpgbe pbzzba gb nyy guerr, cebivqrq gurl ner nyy "oynpx"} Gura {Gur fhvgf plpyr nebhaq nycunorgvpnyyl, gnxvat jvgu gurz gur dhnyvgl bs orvat "oynpx" be "erq" - guvf nssrpgf nyy bgure ehyrf onfrq ba "fhvg" be "pbybhe"}") fubhyq ABG or ranpgrq. Lbh unir yvzvgngvbaf! [2] * Lbhe ehyrf znl vagrenpg jvgu bgure crbcyr'f ehyrf va fhecevfvat jnlf[3] - bar bhtug abg guvax gung bar znl cerqvpg gur shgher be eryl ba jung bgure crbcyr'f npgvbaf ner, fb vagragvbanyyl erylvat ba fbzrguvat gung lbh qba'g xabj vf sbbyvfu, naq vagragvbanyyl vagresrevat jvgu fbzrguvat lbh qba'g haqrefgnaq rira zber fb[4].
Va fhzznel, vs lbh jnag n tnzr va juvpu lbh ner pbafgnagyl univat gb gnxr va rivqrapr naq haqrefgnaq jung'f tbvat ba, Znb vf gur tnzr sbe lbh. Vg'f nyfb n terng tnzr sbe haqrefgnaqvat jung pbafgvghgrf orvat n qvpx.
[1] Abj n zrzbel vaqryvoyl nffbpvngrq jvgu gung sevraq. [oynaxrq] [2] Lrf, V unir cynlrq n tnzr bs Znb va juvpu guvf sbez bs ehyr jnf hfrq. [3] Pna or onq naq pbashfvat, be ryrtnag naq qryvpvbhf! [4] R.t. gur tnzr jurer gurer jrer GJB ehyrf gung plpyrq fhvgf, jurer OBGU eryvrq ba gur fhvg bs gur pneq ynfg cynlrq. Qb lbh rinyhngr gurz obgu ng bapr? Bar nsgre gur bgure? Gur bgure nsgre bar? Arvgure? V guvax "Arvgure".
Ah, medium to strong disagree. I'm not far into my scientific career in $_DISCIPLINE, but any paper introducing a new "standard code" (i.e. one that you intend to use more than once) has an extensive section explaining how their code has accurately reproduced analytic results or agreed with previous simulations in a simpler case (simpler than the one currently being analysed). Most codes seem also to be open-source, since it's good for your cred if people are writing papers saying "Using x's y code, we analyse..." which means they need to be clearly written and commented - not a guarantee against pernicious bugs, but certainly a help. This error-checking setup is also convenient for those people generating analytic solutions, since they can find something pretty and say "Oh, people can use this to test their code.".
Of course, this isn't infallible, but sometimes you have to do 10 bad simulations before you can do 1 good one.
Except for those damned lazy biologists, of course.
In response to
Error detection bias in research
After admittedly very little experience with scientific research, my basic feeling is that the scientists don't particularly care whether or not their results are affected by a coding error, just whether or not they get published. It's not that they're unlikely to do deep error checking when the result is consistent with their expectations, but that they're unlikely to do it at all.
Though it's possible that papers with unexpected results are held to higher standards by reviewers before they can get published. Which is another level of confirmation bias.
Ah, medium to strong disagree. I'm not far into my scientific career in $_DISCIPLINE, but any paper introducing a new "standard code" (i.e. one that you intend to use more than once) has an extensive section explaining how their code has accurately reproduced analytic results or agreed with previous simulations in a simpler case (simpler than the one currently being analysed). Most codes seem also to be open-source, since it's good for your cred if people are writing papers saying "Using x's y code, we analyse..." which means they need to be clearly written and commented - not a guarantee against pernicious bugs, but certainly a help. This error-checking setup is also convenient for those people generating analytic solutions, since they can find something pretty and say "Oh, people can use this to test their code.".
Of course, this isn't infallible, but sometimes you have to do 10 bad simulations before you can do 1 good one.
On the contrary, he is assuming we do not; he assumes that it is quite impossible that a human being would actually do the necessary work. That's why he said that "Simone can't exist" in this situation.
So his argument is that "a human is not an appropriate tool to do this deterministic thing". So what? Neither is a log flume - but the fact that log flumes can't be used to simulate consciousness doesn't tell us anything about consciousness.
In response to
Consciousness of simulations & uploads: a reductio
This might be a case where flawed intuition is correct.
The chain of causality leading to the 'yes' is MUCH weaker in the pencil and paper version. You imagine squiggles as mere squiggles, not as signals that inexorably cause you to carry them through a zillion steps of calculation. No human as we know them would be so driven, so it looks like that Simone can't exist as a coherent, caused thing.
But it's very easy and correct to see a high voltage on a wire as a signal which will reliably cause a set of logic gates to carry it through a zillion steps. So that Simone can get to yes without her universe locking up first.
Disagree. If we allow humans to be deterministic then a "human as we know them" is driven solely by the physical laws of our universe; there is no sense in talking about our emotional motivations until we have decided that we have free will.
I think your argument does assume we have free will.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Strong agree and upvote, with some caveats.
I very much agree that politiking is a way to be more effective in any situation involving another person, and I think this post is a pretty nice defence of "Why should I bother to be polite?". I've several suggestions, and I've decided to try to explicitly bear in mind your bulleted advice rather than rely on my - usually pretty good - sense of what is polite.
I think you could extend the class of people of who could use this advice to be not just those who aren't interested in politeness, but those who are and aren't good at it but assume that they are. I've certainly met a few nice people who simply aren't aware that they're rude - for example, the young man who accidentally pushed in line at a bar whilst making a sarcastic comment relevant to the previous conversation, and had no idea until we told him how close he'd been to getting punched by a man that he never even looked at. They are unlikely to read this post in its current form, since they will assume they already know how to be polite. How would you feel about restating this advice in a "humorous angry rant" or something similar?
I think I disagree with some of your examples, but in such a way that it doesn't affect the main point of your post. The first example - "wizened" - I had just skipped over when I first saw it, since it wasn't really relevant to the post. I further assumed that the poster wouldn't particularly mind this, and hadn't intended eir post to have a high signal/noise ratio. I get the sense that this website favours a very high signal/noise ratio even at the expense of niceties - for example, the very first line of this comment. This might make some people resistant to adding what they might view as "noise" - things like saying "Thanks" when they might consider "Thanks" to be implicit, given that they're bothering to comment at all.
The second post I think they already had applied something of what you're saying. If I take this
"FWIW, I think posts like this are more valuable the more they include real-world examples; it's kind of odd to read a post which says I had theory A of the world but now I hold theory B, without reading about the actual observations."
and rephrase it as a knee-jerk thought
"Why has this been posted without observations? It's idiotic to put up your beliefs without giving us a good reason to go along with them."
then we can ask if this knee-jerk example is a realistic example of something one might say. I think it is; I think that Poster #2 was genuinely being polite. Perhaps there's some different cultural context in the background? I read "odd" as being quite a gentle word to use to criticise someone.
(I've now thought of some examples for your previous post re threats; I'll post them soon. Thanks for reminding me to do so!)