It loses much of the impact when you intentionally seek it out, I think. The lullaby loop midi I found to be more annoying than the errors.
Still, thanks for posting that - it's certainly interesting.
It loses much of the impact when you intentionally seek it out, I think. The lullaby loop midi I found to be more annoying than the errors.
Still, thanks for posting that - it's certainly interesting.
It loses much of the impact when you intentionally seek it out, I think.
Listening to something is not at all the same as listening to something for seven hours.
Related to the discussion about the Defense Professor's talk with Hermione, but more generalized:
We've had Word of God (can't find the specific comment quickly) to the effect that parts of the text that are "too obvious" to readers are in fact meant to be that obvious, not meant as red herrings. Have we had any pronouncement about the truthfulness of things that the characters find "too obvious"? (As, for example, Hermione's realisation that Quirrell was apparently trying to get her to leave.)
Dumbledore tried to push Hermione away from heroism specifically to push her towards it. Maybe Quirrell thinks the same tool work work on her. He doesn't even have to know that Dumbledore thought that would work or used that tool on Hermione. He could just observe in her the same vulnerability to that method.
This creates tension. I'm about .6 confident that tension is intentional.
You're suggesting a strategy of tension?
To be honest, I've always assumed that there exist a variety of more LW-spinoff private forums where the folks who have more specialized/advanced groundings get to interact without being bothered by the rest of us.
Aw. And they didn't invite nyan_sandwich. That's so sad.
He or she should get together with other people who haven't been invited to Even Less Wrong and form their own. Then one day they can get together with Even Less Wrong like some NFL/AFL merger, only with more power to save the world.
There would have to be a semaphore or something, somewhere. So these secret groups can let each other know they exist without tipping off the newbs.
There's probably no need for the groups to signal each other's existence.
When a new Secret Even Less Wrong is formed, members are previously formed Secret Even Less Wrongs who are still participating in Less Wrong are likely to receive secret invites to the new Secret Even Less Wrong.
Nyan_sandwich might set up his secret Google Group or whatever, invite the people he feels are worthy and willing to form the core of his own Secret Even Less Wrong, and receive in reply an invite to an existing Secret Even Less Wrong.
That might have already happened!
I think the freemasons have this one solved for us: instead of a passwords, we use interview systems, where people of the level above have to agree that you are ready before you are invited to the next level. Likewise, we make it known that helpful input on the lower levels is one of the prerequisites to gaining a higher level- we incentivise constructive input on the lower tiers, and effectively gate access to the higher tiers.
You're not proposing a different system, you're just proposing additional qualifiers.
My $0.02 (apologies if it's already been said; I haven't read all the comments): wanting to do Internet-based outreach and get new people participating is kind of at odds with wanting to create an specialized advanced-topics forum where we're not constantly rehashing introductory topics. They're both fine goals, but trying to do both at once doesn't work well.
LW as it is currently set up seems better optimized for outreach than for being an advanced-topics forum. At the same time, LW doesn't want to devolve to the least common denominator of the Internet. This creates tension. I'm about .6 confident that tension is intentional.
Of course, nothing stops any of us from creating invitation-only fora to which only the folks whose contributions we enjoy are invited. To be honest, I've always assumed that there exist a variety of more LW-spinoff private forums where the folks who have more specialized/advanced groundings get to interact without being bothered by the rest of us.
Somewhat relatedly, one feature I miss from the bad old usenet days is kill files. I suspect that I would value LW more if I had the ability to conceal-by-default comments by certain users here. Concealing sufficiently downvoted comments is similar in principle, but not reliable in practice.
This creates tension. I'm about .6 confident that tension is intentional.
You're suggesting a strategy of tension?
To be honest, I've always assumed that there exist a variety of more LW-spinoff private forums where the folks who have more specialized/advanced groundings get to interact without being bothered by the rest of us.
Aw. And they didn't invite nyan_sandwich. That's so sad.
He or she should get together with other people who haven't been invited to Even Less Wrong and form their own. Then one day they can get together with Even Less Wrong like some NFL/AFL merger, only with more power to save the world.
There would have to be a semaphore or something, somewhere. So these secret groups can let each other know they exist without tipping off the newbs.
I've lurked here for over a year and just started posting in the fan fic threads a month ago. I have read a handful of posts from the sequences and I believe that some of those are changing my life. Sometimes when I start a sequence post I find it uninteresting and I stop. Posts early in the recommended order do this, and that gets in the way every time I try to go through in order. I just can't be bothered because I'm here for leisure and reading uninteresting things isn't leisurely.
I am noise and I am part of the doom of your community. You have my sympathy, and also my unsolicited commentary:
Presently your community is doomed because you don't filter.
Noise will keep increasing until the community you value splinters, scatters, or relocates itself as a whole. A different community will replace it, resembling the community you value just enough to mock you.
If you intentionally segregate based on qualifications your community is doomed anyway.
The qualified will stop contributing to the unqualified sectors, will stop commending potential qualifiers as they approach qualification, and will stop driving out never qualifiers with disapproval. Noise will win as soon as something drives a surge of new interest and the freshest of the freshmen overwhelm the unqualified but initiated.
Within the fortress of qualification things will be okay. They might never feel as good as you think you remember, but when you look through that same lens from further ahead you might recognize a second Golden Age of Whatever. Over time less new blood will be introduced, especially after the shanty town outside the fortress burns to the ground a couple times. People will leave for the reasons people leave. The people left will become more insular and self referential. That will further drive down new blood intake.
Doomed.
What are you going to do about it?
The best steps to take to sustain the community you value in this instance may be different than the best steps to take to build a better instance of the community.
Who doesn't have plots in this book? I hardly think that's a test for evil in this book - more like a test for intelligence.
And we don't know that he tried to get Hermione fed to the Dementors. When I try to read his mind on that point, I think his main goal was to get Harry to turn against the government of magical Britain - and it seemed like a fine success in those terms, at least in the moment.
See previous comment http://lesswrong.com/lw/bfo/harry_potter_and_the_methods_of_rationality/68tv
Assuming that it was all a Quirrell plot - which I do at this point - he could also have redeemed Hermione at the last minute with some evidence after she was condemned, and his point with magical Britain had been made. And he could get some Good Guy points with Harry for saving Hermione. Maybe not too, but it's hardly certain he would have allowed her to die.
Who doesn't have plots in this book? I hardly think that's a test for evil in this book - more like a test for intelligence.
Not the best test. Ron is intelligent. Ron does not appear to plot, only form and employ strategy.
Assuming that it was all a Quirrell plot - which I do at this point - he could also have redeemed Hermione at the last minute with some evidence after she was condemned, and his point with magical Britain had been made.
Like he did with Harry against the Dementor.
Like he claimed he intended to do with the auror he threw an AK at.
Like he did in the Draco the Drop Lord Theatre incident. We should be suspicious of that one, as well.
Like he did as Voldemort when he set his Forces of Evil up to self destruct after he left the game, thereby sparing the rest of the world.
Either he or someone he strongly influences has administrator access to the site and can change any comment at any time. You either have to trust him or assume that all comments have an asterisk.
No, I don't - there is no such dichotomy. I really could (and do) expect Eliezer to not edit other people's comments without it being apparent to anyone but at the same time to edit his own comments without leaving an asterisk - because he just did. So instead of taking a small amount of information from the convenience of an asterisk on a given comment I take zero information.
Is there supposed to be something especially secure about this place?
No. If I really (really) wanted to I could hack it myself I expect. I already live in Melbourne (where the Trike developers who work on lesswrong reside). Even discounting my actual computer security knowledge all I'd need is a gun and a ninja outfit. But the expected cost/expected benefit ratio suggests I'm not likely to do that. I similarly don't expect Eliezer to go around editing other people's comments behind our backs. Not because he couldn't if he really wanted to - just because it doesn't seem likely that he'd bother. (He has done so at least once - changed a post title while he was promoting it. He did it without thinking and with good intentions but realized later that it was a total brain fart. A lapse into naivety, not a corruption of power.)
No, I don't - there is no such dichotomy.
Right, sorry. You either have to trust him to some degree or assume that any content may be compromised.
I don't understand all the interest in this. Is there a section of the site where unedited comments carry special weight?
Wait. Wait just one minute.
Can Eliezer edit his posts without leaving an asterisk?
Yes. Yes he can. Must be an administrator thing.
Do you mean he both can and has done so at least once in the past? That is in poor taste if he has. (And I think I recall the comment in question having the wrong name order the first time I read it.)
Note to self (and others): Assume all Eliezer comments have an asterisk.
(If it is the case that Eliezer can't leave an asterisk even if he chooses to then the fault is of course not his and it should be filed as a bug and change request.)
Wait. Wait just one minute.
Can Eliezer edit his posts without leaving an asterisk?
Yes. Yes he can. Must be an administrator thing.
Do you mean he both can and has done so at least once in the past?
Yes. I am positive that I pasted that line and did not rearrange it.
Note to self (and others): Assume all Eliezer comments have an asterisk.
Either he or someone he strongly influences has administrator access to the site and can change any comment at any time. You either have to trust him or assume that all comments have an asterisk.
Is there supposed to be something especially secure about this place?
View more: Next
Okay, can someone answer in what way it would look different if Quirrel did try to get Hermione away and just honestly failed? As opposed to this supposedly not-real attempt?
Because I think too many people in this thread suffer from thinking that Quirrel is literally infallible in regards to anything he tries.
I have thought the same in conversations about other puzzles for that character, so I should heartily agree. The evidence shows no reason for him to want her to stay.
I update to believing that Quirrell tried and failed to drive Hermione away p>0.6. His groundhog day attack equipped him to expertly apply pressure to her but she still persevered, even barely, because she is heroic. (He was using reverse psychology to drive her toward Harry p<0.15. Something I do not understand was happening p>0.25.)
Thank you for the reality check.