Comment author: Benquo 21 June 2011 02:05:30AM *  0 points [-]

Yet another good reason to do intermittent fasting. It's comparatively easy to execute skipping 2 of your 3 meals by default once you get used to it, and then you only need conscious self-control for one meal a day.

Or 1 day out of every 2, if you do it that way.

In response to comment by Benquo on Action and habit
Comment author: Osuniev 12 March 2013 04:37:00PM 1 point [-]

That sounds like a rather bad idea to me. Not eating means being hungrier next meal, and will probably lead to... overeating. What's more, it seems having many small meals is better than having a few big meals (your glucose level is more stable, and your insuline regulation will be less likely to make you overweight).

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 February 2009 08:52:59PM -2 points [-]

Nesov, fixed.

John, that would be an interesting middle ground of sorts - the trouble being that from a social perspective, you probably do want as much wealth generated as possible, if it's any sort of wealth that can be reinvested.

Reeves, if both players play (C, C) and then divide up the points evenly at the end, isn't that sort of... well... communism?

Comment author: Osuniev 08 March 2013 09:18:06AM 3 points [-]

/ Reeves, if both players play (C, C) and then divide up the points evenly at the end, isn't that sort of... well... communism?

Is this wrong for other reason than cached thoughts though ? (Probably yes, but you didn't explain it).

Comment author: simplicio 01 September 2010 11:19:37PM 3 points [-]

A minor pedantry; this was a wonderful post:

Sometimes corr(X,Y) means X=>Y...

corr(X,Y) is a number between -1 and 1, and without specifying its value it's hard to see how it could imply anything. Perhaps it would be better stated as something like

Sometimes corr(X,Y) > 0 means that X=>Y...

Comment author: Osuniev 07 March 2013 02:46:45PM 0 points [-]

Well since he starts the sentence with SOMETIMES,wether it's negative or positive his sentence is correct. I guess you could nitpick on insisting that corr(X,Y) != 0 ...

Comment author: Hawisher 01 October 2012 03:49:25PM 7 points [-]

I would argue that one's religion or lack thereof is typically determined before one chooses a profession. I, personally, am religious, but I still think this guy is being ridiculous. I think that God made a bunch of awesome things, and one of the awesome things He made is a world that works without us having to take it apart, look under every rock, and go "LOOOK!!!! GODDDDDD!!!!! HEATHENS! I WAS RIIIIIIIIIGHT!"

Science is awesome. Rationality is awesome. Evolution is as close to fact as science can give us. You do your religion a grave disservice, Jacob.

Comment author: Osuniev 25 February 2013 11:44:24PM 3 points [-]

upvoted for not taking argument as soldiers.

Comment author: AgentTeapot 19 September 2012 05:58:11PM -2 points [-]

Reagan took office in 1981.

Comment author: Osuniev 16 February 2013 10:03:53PM 0 points [-]

Just in case : "1984" was written in 1947. The original title of the book was to be "1948", the editor asked Orwell to change it so he reversed the numbers.Or so I have heard, I can't seem to find the confirmation, if anyone could confirm or infirm ?

Comment author: Eneasz 02 April 2012 09:35:13PM 1 point [-]

With Eliezer's comments about how plots are better when they aren't needlessly complicated and the point isn't to trick the reader into wildly off-base or over-the-top-speculation, I've increased my probability of Harry being placed into Slytherin by the actual Sorting Hat up to 50%. If we assume that it was Dumbledore that veto'd the Hat's choice, why didn't he place Harry into Gryffindor? He would have been much closer to MacGonagal, Dumbledore's most loyal agent. Was he trying to keep him close to Hermione? Can anyone recall support for that in the text?

Comment author: Osuniev 02 January 2013 11:22:44AM 1 point [-]

HPMOR!Harry's wand signalled itself to him by BLUE and BRONZE sparks, while Canon!Harry's one made red and gold. (IMO as a reference to the Phoenix, not Griffindor).

I'd take it as a strong hint from EY that Ravenclaw IS Harry true House.

Comment author: gwern 27 December 2012 10:35:31PM 0 points [-]

The Tale of the Three Brothers specifically says : "..."And then he [the third brother Ignotus, owner of the Cloak] greeted Death as an old friend, and went with him gladly, and, as equals, they departed this life." Harry having the Cloak works, as such. Alternatively, Harry "killing" Dementors make Death and he litteraly equals, in that they can destroy each other.

I only count one defiance there. Or did you mean the brothers plural accounted for three defiances? But the other two brothers just die horribly after making ill-chosen requests.

Comment author: Osuniev 02 January 2013 10:33:57AM 0 points [-]

Well, each of them successively defied Death by asking a gift from it. Still far-fetched, I admit.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 December 2012 07:42:13AM 1 point [-]

Consider the possibility that you are not experiencing everything that humans do.

How is this relevant? My point is that I'm experiencing what I'm experiencing.

Comment author: Osuniev 23 December 2012 02:36:59AM *  0 points [-]

"How is this relevant?"

It is relevant because i you cannot find any experimental differences betweenn you and a you NOT experiencing, then maybe there is no such difference.

Comment author: Osuniev 23 December 2012 02:28:05AM *  4 points [-]

re-reading chapter 76 made me realise the prophecy could not be about Voldemort at all :

Let's look at this prophecy in detail :

"The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches,"

Vanquish, as Snape said, is a strange word to describe a baby accidentally toasting Voldemort, especially since we have evidence that this might not be what really happened. "Dark Lord" is used by EY quite loosely, and not as something specifically relating to Voldemort. Indeed, Dumbledore seems to worry that he could be this Dark Lord. Now, if we step outside of what we think we know about the prophecy...

Who is Harry trying to "vanquish" ? Who is it which Harry has "the power to Vanquish" ?

Dementors ? Death in general ? Dementors as an incarnation of Death ?

Could Death be considered as the Dark Lord ? I admit this is stretching the use of the word Dark Lord, but it does sounds interesting and more appropriate to Vanquish. Now, bear with me a moment and let's look at the rest of the prophecy : Born to those who have thrice defied him,

Now, while Lily and James have defied death 3 times, there's a million person in the same case on the planet. But WHO has defied Death three times in the Universe ?

The Peverell Brother. Harry's ancestors through the Potter Family.

Born as the seventh month dies, And the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal,

The Tale of the Three Brothers specifically says : "..."And then he [the third brother Ignotus, owner of the Cloak] greeted Death as an old friend, and went with him gladly, and, as equals, they departed this life." Harry having the Cloak works, as such. Alternatively, Harry "killing" Dementors make Death and he litteraly equals, in that they can destroy each other.

But he will have power the Dark Lord knows not,

The only unique powers Harry has are Dementor 2.0 and partial transfiguration Dementor 2.0 seems rather good.

And either must destroy all but a remnant of the other, For those two different spirits cannot exist in the same world.

I find really interesting that nowhere it is said that the dark lord "lives". "Destroy all but a remnant" could mean Dementing Harry, or Destroying all dementors except one, or giving Philosopher's Stones to everyone but without the death rate falling to zero (because accidental Death would still happen buit would not be an inevitability.

Note that this theory (still improbable, if I had to bet on it I wouldn't assign more than a 15 % chance for Death to be the "Dark Lord" of the prophecy) is still compatible with Dumbledore trying to trick Voldemort in a Dark ritual, or both of them interpreting the prophecy as in canon.

Comment author: Osuniev 23 December 2012 01:59:27AM 0 points [-]

For all those wandering WHY wizards don't use their powers to get money from the Muggle economy...

Canon!Lucius does, according to Rowling (from her website Pottermore):

" The Malfoy name comes from old French and translates as 'bad faith'. Like many other progenitors of noble English families, the wizard Armand Malfoy arrived in Britain with William the Conqueror as part of the invading Norman army. Having rendered unknown, shady (and almost certainly magical) services to King William I, Malfoy was given a prime piece of land in Wiltshire, seized from local landowners, upon which his descendants have lived for ten consecutive centuries.

Their wily ancestor Armand encapsulated many of the qualities that have distinguished the Malfoy family to the present day. The Malfoys have always had the reputation, hinted at by their not altogether complimentary surname, of being a slippery bunch, to be found courting power and riches wherever they might be found. In spite of their espousal of pure-blood values and their undoubtedly genuine belief in wizards' superiority over Muggles, the Malfoys have never been above ingratiating themselves with the non-magical community when it suits them. The result is that they are one of the richest wizarding families in Britain, and [b]it has been rumoured for many years (though never proven) that over the centuries the family has dabbled successfully in Muggle currency and assets. Over hundreds of years, they have managed to add to their lands in Wiltshire by annexing those of neighbouring Muggles, and the favour they curried with royalty added Muggle treasures and works of art to an ever-expanding collection. "

View more: Prev | Next