Comment author: higurashimerlin 24 February 2015 03:35:28PM -1 points [-]

The one Quirrel found was probably a version 2 horcrux. After all you don't hide the version 1 horcruxes because people need to touch them to be overwritten. Tom thought he had fixed that with the version two and started hiding them.

Comment author: Tenoke 24 February 2015 03:46:14PM *  1 point [-]

As with the original horcrux spell, I would only be able to enter a victim who contacted the physical horcrux... and I had hidden my unnumbered horcruxes in places where nobody would ever find them.

"My remaining hope was the horcruxes I had hidden in the hopeless idiocy of my youth. Imbuing them into ancient lockets, instead of anonymous pebbles; guarding them beneath wells of poison in the center of a lake of Inferi, instead of portkeying them into the sea. If someone found one of those, and penetrated their ridiculous protections... but that seemed like a distant hope.

The text suggests that Riddle was stupider at a younger age, which is when he made v1 horcruxes, and used story-like hidding places like those mentioned above. Then later on when he was porbably at least 'twice [harry's] age' he grew wizer, made the horcrux v2, and started hiding them well. Then he dies, and finds out that his only hope is the horcruxes from his youth, which weren't hidden well, and it is suggested that Quirrel found one of those, so likely a v1 horcrux.

At any rate, even if we just focus on the 'one of my earliest horcruxes' part, that still heavily implies a v1 horcrux.

Comment author: Tenoke 24 February 2015 01:53:42PM 1 point [-]

The thought of making a better horcrux, of not being content with the spell I had already learned... this thought did not come to me until I had grasped the stupidity of ordinary people, and realised which follies of theirs I had imitated.

This apparently happened significantly later in his life. However

"Nine years and four months after that night, a wandering adventurer named Quirinus Quirrell won past the protections guarding one of my earliest horcruxes.

Doesn't this suggest that Quirrell stumbled upon a horcrux v1, given that it was one of the earliest horcruxes, and that it was 'hidden' by the less wise Riddle?

I suspect Eliezer just didn't notice this, or that the explanation is that after inventing v2, Riddle went back and upgraded all his old horcruxes or something. The alternative explanation is that all v1 horcruxes upgraded automatically when he went for the v2, however we know that Harry is also a v1 horcrux, so that wouldnt make sense.

Comment author: gjm 19 February 2015 01:00:04AM 1 point [-]

This seems a bit improbable as Q most likely already has the Resurrection Stone (in chapter 40, Harry relays to Q Dumbledore's description of the Resurrection Stone, and Q immediately realises that there are things he urgently has to do -- the obvious interpretation being that he has in fact seen the Stone before, not knowing what it is, and is off to get hold of it).

Though, now I think about it, perhaps that obvious interpretation is a bit too obvious and we should conclude only that Q wanted Harry to think he knew where to find the Resurrection Stone. (But there's no indication that Harry drew any such conclusion.)

Comment author: Tenoke 19 February 2015 02:10:01AM 2 points [-]

I thought it is at least reasonable to suspect that the stone from Chapter 96 might actually be the resurrection stone.

Neither of them noticed the tall stone worn as though from a thousand years of age, upon it a line within a circle within a triangle glowing ever so faintly silver, like the light which had shone from Harry's wand

Comment author: Vaniver 17 February 2015 02:12:27PM 5 points [-]

We have a bunch of Parseltongue statements from earlier in the fic. Who wants to go back and see if any of them were lies?

Comment author: Tenoke 17 February 2015 05:02:12PM 6 points [-]

Fwiw, I am not convinced that Quirrel is definitely telling the truth there. For one, "Sslytherin not sstupid. Ssnake Animaguss not ssame as Parsselmouth. Would be huge flaw in sscheme."

Comment author: SimonW 15 January 2015 01:26:38PM 0 points [-]

I thought Bitcoins were a proof of work thing, with a limited total number, so the rate of mining changes over time and in response to the price, or has that changed?

When I lasted looked mining on your own electricity bill was madness, but botnets were being used to mine, and had sufficient benefits in being easy to convert that the botnet operators were preferring bitcoin mining over riskier endeavours.

Comment author: Tenoke 15 January 2015 02:09:15PM *  -1 points [-]

The rewards of mining half every 4 years or so, and this can be sped up some if the total network hashrate doubles up a lot, but that's about it.

Comment author: William_Quixote 14 January 2015 12:27:00PM 3 points [-]

It's worth noting that efficient markets are a modeling assumption to make certain economic problems computationally tractable and easy to model. It's not a law of nature confirmed by observation. On the contrary a lot of times markets are observed to be inefficient (eg the housing market mid 2000s or at a higher level of sophistication the mortgage backed securities market in the same period).

Even very liquid markets like the FX market with technically sophiscated arbitrage free pricing models still have had long running well known ineffiencies like the forward rate bias.

Comment author: Tenoke 14 January 2015 12:41:56PM 1 point [-]

Sure, but they are still a useful heuristic.

Comment author: Salemicus 14 January 2015 09:09:06AM 4 points [-]

Possibly stupid questions:

  1. Why do you assume that the price of Bitcoin, and its uptake are tightly connected? Why couldn't it be possible for the price to stay around $200 from now on, even while Bitcoin becomes massively used all over the world? The price of the dollar is not continuously rising (indeed it falls over time) but it is nevertheless widely used.

  2. There is an asymmetry regarding Bitcoin price. If the price of Bitcoins is higher than the cost of mining them, that will cause more investment in Bitcoin miners, leading to more Bitcoins created and hence a lower price. But if the price of Bitcoins is lower than the cost of mining them, this does not cause Bitcoins to be destroyed. Indeed the "sunk cost" hardware keeps running, so the supply keeps going up. Yes, the supply goes up by less than it otherwise would, but it still goes up. Surely we should say that the price of Bitcoins should be capped by the cost of mining them, not set by it?

Comment author: Tenoke 14 January 2015 12:37:39PM 3 points [-]

Bitcoins are created at the same pace no matter what, so

  1. If there is a lot of demand for bitcoin, the price will necessarily increase since we can't mine at a faster rate.

  2. Miners don't affect the rate of bitcoin creation,

Comment author: Tenoke 13 January 2015 08:57:13PM 17 points [-]

I used to believe that bitcoin is under-priced before, but there are so many agents involved in it now (including Wall Street), that I can't really convince myself that I know better than them - the market is too efficient for me.

Additionally, I'd be especially wary about buying based on arguments regarding the future price based on such obvious metrics, that many agents pay attention to.

Comment author: Tenoke 13 January 2015 02:27:20PM *  1 point [-]

*There is a universal standard for beauty.

*Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Just putting this out there - beauty is in fact completely subjective, and there is no universal standard nor can there be one, HOWEVER, it seems to us like beauty is objective because humans are really genetically (and socially) similar to each other. This gives rise to preferences that are shared by large groups, and the illusion that the things which many people consider attractive are objectively beautiful.

Comment author: Tenoke 08 January 2015 06:22:32PM 1 point [-]

Statistics seems to satisfy all/almost all of those.

View more: Prev | Next