Dunno about MarkusRamikin, but I'd sure be interested in hearing why you "think it is quite insane that we don't make more ethanol from corn".
Yep, me too.
As long as it's a god with a Big Divine Plan in which humans play a role, sure.
If the gods created the universe so they could watch the big shiny hydrogen balls, and don't care about the emergent properties of complex proteins on that one planet in that one galaxy, we wouldn't necessarily know about it.
I guess that when I thought "religion", I thought "system of worship", not "system of belief". To me the a religion would be "true" if it accurately responded to a demand for worship or obedience or such. If the creators of the Universe have no preferences over our actions, then at most you could have a, well, description of them, but not much of a religion thus defined. Discovering such beings would not make me a religious person.
Of course now that I thought of it explicitely, I realize this is a rather narrow definition.
The main things that I found had weight is that it's taking the numerous world religions and saying 'this one' without any great reason.
In fact, it's even worse than that. You're not selecting from the set of all existing religions in the world today, but rather from the set of all possible religions, even those that haven't been invented.
Wait, why? If God existed, I'd expect the true religion to be among actually existing ones.
For reasons, I suggest that Bayesian Judo doesn't make EY look good to people who aren't already cheering for his team, and maybe it wasn't wise to include it.
More generally, the book feels a bit... neutered. Things like, for example, changing "if you go ahead and mess around with Wulky's teenage daughter" to "if you go ahead and insult Wulky". The first is concrete, evocative, and therefore strong, while the latter is fuzzy and weak. Though my impression may be skewed just because I remember the original examples so well.
Fantastic article. The problem is that now I have a pet theory with which to dismiss anything said by a TV pundit with whom I disagree: I'd be better off guessing myself or at random than listening to them.
That's great, stop watching TV. TV pundits are an awful source of information.
stop watching TV
One of my past life decisions I consistently feel very happy about.
I'm not actually sure. "It's weird to see yourself", possibly? Though, in a world with stuff like Polyjuice Potion, I don't know how rare that sort of thing would actually be...
I'm guessing something vaguely along the lines of the "do not mess with time" warning. Except I can't imagine it specifically, how that might possibly go in the case of someone who's doing what Minerva says not to do.
If Quirrel killed Hermione to "improve [Harry's] position relative to Lucius", what was the point of trying to persuade her to leave Britain for France, in chapter 84?
To be sure: Fiendfyre, the black-red phoenix, and the "spell of cursed fire I shall not name" are all the same thing? I don't see Quirrel sacrificing a drop of blood in chapter 107...
Probably nothing, but it would require a series of improbable coincidences (every atom in future!Harry needs to be in the same position that past!Harry saw it in), significantly complicating the loop. Such complications would make it simpler for the loop to not happen at all, and so it probably wouldn't. A precommitment to interact with your future self as little as possible would then maximize the probability that the loop occurs in the first place.
Probably nothing
So what do you think McGonagall meant by disconcerting?
View more: Next
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Is this against spaced repetition as such, or against flash cards?
For me the value of Anki (or my own custom program that I wrote a while back) is as a review-scheduler, not as a quizzer.