Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: gwillen 28 February 2015 08:43:42PM 4 points [-]

Some pieces that maybe got put together over in the Reddit thread: We've SEEN Harry transfigure carbon nanotubes before.

Comment author: LauralH 03 March 2015 05:07:58AM 0 points [-]

I'm pretty sure that was Hermione.

Comment author: ChristianKl 25 February 2015 08:04:33PM 1 point [-]

Given that Hermoine is the toe ring, what's up with the glaces?

Comment author: LauralH 27 February 2015 02:27:15AM 0 points [-]

Red herring.

Comment author: westward 26 February 2015 07:32:40AM 3 points [-]

Even after re-reading the horcrux stuff a couple times, I'm still confused.

There are two types of horcuxes, v1 and v2. v1 only captures your mindstate as it was at the time of creation. v2 updates all horcruxes to the current mindstate. v1s were hidden in the canonical places (diadem, slytherian's locket, etc), v2 in the hard to reach ones (mariana trench, pioneer probe).

After 10/31/1981, Tom's mindstate bounced around the v2 horcruxes. In 1992, Quirrell found a v1 horcrux ("one of my earliest"). How does that work? How can a v1, which hasn't updated, give rise to the current Voldemort?

He wouldn't have Slytherin's monster's power, or knowledge of anything after the horcrux's creation.

Also, how are those current v2 backups handling two Toms? Which mindstate is getting backed up? Probably the QQ one, but how does V know the system even works??

And isn't it suspicious that Quirrell finds this horcrux just a few months before Harry is to attend Hogwarts?

Upon rereading 108, it's ambiguous if QMort is telling the full truth about horcruxes. His Parseltongue confirmation comes later, after his horcrux explication.

Comment author: LauralH 27 February 2015 02:05:54AM 1 point [-]

I thought it was that ALL of the horcruxes were updated to 2.0.

Comment author: Jost 26 February 2015 12:44:12AM 5 points [-]

Transform a grain of sand into a human being, make transformation permanent with Philosopher’s Stone, bring them to life with a defibrillator (which should be sufficient to “create” a muggle, if I understand chapter 111 correctly), kill them to create a horcrux. Sure, from what we know, that should work.

The ethics of creating living humans in order to kill them seconds late are … well, debatable, to put it mildly.

Comment author: LauralH 27 February 2015 01:56:12AM *  1 point [-]

From the description of HPMOR's horcrux spell, it won't work unless a witch/wizard is killed.

Edit: didn't see Nornagest's post.

Comment author: Izeinwinter 26 February 2015 10:25:04PM *  -1 points [-]

He is the hogwarts headmaster. I figure they defied him in that capacity quite sufficiently. Heck, possibly even in his capacity as head honcho of the Ootp

The theory is that the prophecy was always about him - or at least that it was always a possible read on it, in the same way as Neville could have been the prophecied child. That is why it was spoken in his presence, not in Voldemorts. It isn't cheating, it is settling the open question. And well, he told people it was about Voldemort because letting it be known that you suspect you are a dark lord with prophecies about you is not very politically helpful.

Because it doesn't let him actually possess people? Being permanently intangible and voiceless makes him rather less of a threat. Or the darn thing is a monstrously powerhungry magic sink and his tests have used up dozens and dozens of horcruxes.. if it's a trap, there is a lot of things it could be doing.

And the mirror is easy, it can be programmed to let people go who believe themselves safe from it, regardless of if they are.

Heck, it occurs to me that they could be the true artefacts, just cursed - the point is that Voldemort was told about them quite deliberately, and so his use of them cannot possibly be to his benefit.

Comment author: LauralH 27 February 2015 01:02:38AM 0 points [-]

The prophecy was only heard by Severus and Minerva.

Comment author: Astazha 27 February 2015 12:46:32AM 11 points [-]

Ch. 108

"What did you do with Bellatrix once she was out?"

"Ssent her to a peaceful place to recover sstrength," Professor Quirrell said. A cold smile. "I had a use remaining for her, or rather a certain portion of her, and on my future plans I shall not answer questions."

Ch. 112

For a second Harry's mind couldn't process what he was seeing, and then he saw that Voldemort was holding a human arm, severed near the shoulder; it seemed too thin, that arm.

The Dark Lord pressed his wand to the flesh above the severed arm's elbow, and the fingers twitched, twitched like they were alive; by dim moonlight Harry saw a darker mark appear on that flesh, just above the elbow.

Is everyone else making this interpretation?

Comment author: LauralH 27 February 2015 12:56:59AM 0 points [-]

Yours isn't the first I've seen guessing that ; it makes more sense than it being any OTHER Death Eater's arm.

In response to Failed Utopia #4-2
Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 January 2009 12:47:19AM 13 points [-]

I wonder if the converse story, Failed Utopia #2-4 of Helen and the boreana, would get the same proportion of comments from women on how that was a perfectly fine world.

I wonder how bad I would actually have to make a Utopia before people stopped trying to defend it.

The number of people who think this scenario seems "good enough" or an "amazing improvement", makes me wonder what would happen if I tried showing off what I consider to be an actual shot at Applied Fun Theory. My suspicion is that people would turn around and criticize it - that what we're really seeing here is contrarianism. But if not - if this world indeed ranks lower in my preference ordering, just because I have better scenarios to compare it to - then what happens if I write the Successful Utopia story?

Comment author: LauralH 24 February 2015 09:30:40AM 0 points [-]

Of course women would be smarter about sexual "utopias" than men. I mean no offense, biologically women have to be less impulsive about that sort of thing.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 February 2015 12:53:55PM 1 point [-]

Sure. 'Lovers' isn't contemporary English at all, is it? But if a semantic shift / euphemistically-useful pattern of meaning is found in one place, that means it can occur elsewhere.

(Which reminds me: I've heard that 'dating' meaning 'in a relationship with' is a recent development, and that in the '50s or so, 'in a relationship with' would have been 'going steady' and 'dating' wasn't committed or exclusive. Is that true?)

Comment author: LauralH 24 February 2015 09:03:11AM *  0 points [-]

Hell, it wasn't even considered committed in the 80s. Although I suppose different regions may have changed faster, in the South in the late 80s/early 90s, "going out" was what we said for "going steady", while "dating" implied a more casual relationship. (And the actual term 'dating' was rarely used - I remember being asked, "you guys messin'?" after a couple dates with a boy.)

So yes, true.

Comment author: UnclGhost 21 February 2015 02:33:46AM 1 point [-]

I wonder if he's just getting a new name for arbitrary reasons (like HPJEV, Bellatrix, etc.), for just this sort of anagram fun, or for some story-related significance to his mother naming him after her brother instead of her father?

Comment author: LauralH 24 February 2015 09:00:09AM 0 points [-]

Her maiden canon name is Black, not completely arbitrary.

Comment author: Astazha 23 February 2015 07:56:39PM 0 points [-]

That could explain the anger. There's still a lot of detail about the bedroom, though you could assume that Quirrel used legilemens on Flamel to find the truth about the stone. That seems really direct and dangerous, but Perenelle may not be an occlumens at all, and from Ch. 86:

"And I'll warn you of this but once. Voldie isn't like any other Legilimens in recorded history. He doesn't need to look you in the eyes, and if your shields are that rusty he'd creep in so softly you'd never notice a thing."

As DavidAgain pointed out above, there seems to be a parseltongue statement against tricking the map as well.

Something is still off about this, though. Suddenly Quirrel is spinning a romance narrative? Also, here is a clever, ambition student, who in her 6th year outwitted the most powerful dark sorceress we know of and obtained for herself an ancient immortality-granting artifact. She sought immortality while still in school, as Tom Riddle did, and with greater success. She leveraged her advantage over greater wizards than herself to obtain more power still. She has shown so many traits that Quirrel would admire, and what adjectives does he use to describe her? Covetous. Black-hearted. If the betrayal were personal, I can make sense of that, otherwise it seems really off.

The Quirrel I know would mostly stick to the facts, perhaps stopping to note the stupidity of Baba Yaga and the cunning of Perenelle.

Maybe his negative view of Perenelle is just because she helped Dumbledore. Maybe I'm reading too much into too little. I'm in love with the theory though; I hope it works out.

Comment author: LauralH 24 February 2015 08:54:25AM 0 points [-]

My head canon is that Riddle seduced his own DADA professor when he was a 6th year, so when he investigated Baba Yaga's death that narrative rang true to him.

View more: Next