= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
So, this is the single change that makes this story an AU?
I was thinking along those lines as well, but at that point in time Voldemort was already significantly different from canon.
In response to
comment
by
on
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 119
In response to
comment
by
on
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 119
As is Tom Riddle. I imagine the point of divergence is in Tom Riddle's childhood somewhere, which pushed Albus into consulting the maze of the future, which...
In response to
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 119
Alastor Moody went to Minerva's right and sat down.
…
Amelia Bones sat down in a chair, taking Minerva's right. Mad-Eye Moody took the chair to her own right.
Oops!
I had always modeled part of the appeal of workout/gym is that one doesn't need to coordinate with other people.
In response to
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 117
Timing note: While this update was at 12pm Pacific, this is no longer the same as 8pm UTC, due to daylight savings time beginning in the US. I'm assuming tomorrow will be the same (at 19:00/7pm UTC)?
In response to
Plane crashes
Your question is: after an airliner accident, how often do any of the next n flights following the same route also have an accident?
Guessing (2/3 confidence) lower than the base rate.
In response to
comment
by
on
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 116
Also, Nicholas Flamel would like to have a word with Harry, as he (she?) kept the Stone for herself specifically to stop a cheap proliferation of its powers.
In response to
comment
by
on
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, March 2015, chapter 116
Nicholas Flamel is dead, at least according to Dumbledore. (Or tucked away for later secret extraction?)
Haven't faintest idea what they really mean, frankly. Usually too fuzzy, vague; using technical terms in odd ways. "Post-scarcity" and "economics" or "economy" should occupy same sentence in only same way that "inorganic" and "biology" should.
Posit a world where sustenance, shelter, and well-being are magically provided - nobody actually needs to do anything to continue existing. This would be an instance of what is colloquially, and perhaps to an economist incorrectly, termed a post-scarcity society.
I'm less certain about this phrasing, I'm not yet comfortable with the semantics of the economic definition of scarce, but one could try: An society where only time and some luxuries are (economically) scarce.
In response to
What Scarcity Is and Isn't
This is why I don't take promises of a post-scarcity society very seriously. They seem to think in terms of leaps in production technology, as if the key to ending scarcity is producing lots and lots of stuff.
Is this simply a matter of people using the word scarcity differently?
When someone talks about a post-scarcity future, I doubt that they are thinking about a future without choice between alternatives, but indeed a future without unmet needs of one sort or another. Indeed, such futures tend to have a bewildering amount of choice and alternative uses of time.
In response to
[Link] Algorithm aversion
I wonder if this (distrusting imperfect algorithms more than imperfect people) holds for programmers and mathematicians. Indeed, the popular perception seems to be that such folks overly trust algorithms...
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
The zip file has some extra Apple metadata files included. Nothing too revealing, just dropbox bits.