Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: kilobug 20 March 2015 02:33:00PM 1 point [-]

Interesting idea, thanks for doing it, but saddly many questions are very US-centric. It would be nice to have some "tags" on the questions, and let the users select which kind of questions he wants (for example the non-US people could remove the US-specific ones).

Comment author: lwmdw45 16 March 2015 07:18:16PM *  1 point [-]

Isn't it a little out of character for Harry to blithely assume that Hermione can't possibly die in her dementor mission? He doesn't even know how Horcrux 2.0 works--is there any good reason to think that the Horcrux will preserve your life if you deliberately fuel your magic with your life to kill dementors? (It's basically just a body-hopping spell, not a life-preservation spell.) Would a horcrux restore to Harry the life and magic he used to revive Hermione?

It just seems suspiciously out of character that Harry has now suddenly turned into an optimist with regard to Hermione's survival. He even says to himself he would never let her risk the mission if he thought it was actually dangerous, which means that he apparently actually fully buys into her immortality.

It will be tragic for Harry if she is dead again, for real, next week. Not because death is tragic per se, but because it will utterly blindside him.

Comment author: kilobug 16 March 2015 09:00:49PM -1 points [-]

Yes, it is a bit suspicious - but then Azkaban and Dementors are so terrible that it's worth the risk, IMHO.

And I don't think Harry is counting just on the Horcrux, I think he's counting on Horcrux as last failback, counting on the unicorn blood and the "she knows death can be defeated because she did went back from death", and maybe even Hermione calling a Phoenix.

Comment author: kilobug 15 March 2015 11:20:23PM 6 points [-]

The chapter 122 in itself was good, I liked it, but I feel a bit disappointed that it's the end of the whole hpmor.

Not to be unfairly critical, it's still a very great story and many thanks to Eliezer for writing it, but... there are way too many remaining unanswered questions, unfinished business, ... to be the complete end. It feels more like "end of season 1, see season 2 for the next" than "and now it's over".

First, I would really have liked a "something to protect" about Harry's parents.

But mostly, there are lots of unanswered questions : how does magic work ? What destroyed Atlantis ? Where do the Deadly Hallows and the Stone come from ? What is the thing threatening to destroy the world ? What exactly are the effects of all the transformations on Hermione ?

And many plots arcs not finished : will Hermione managed to destroy the dementors, and with which consequences ? How will the political landscape reshape, but in UK and worldwide ? How will Harry manage to find a safe way to save the muggles too ? How will Hogwarts evolved ? How will Harry manage the Elder Wand ?

Comment author: somervta 15 March 2015 12:17:16AM 5 points [-]

Eliezer said this would just have been Harry antimatter-suiciding and Hermione waking up in a flaming crater.

Comment author: kilobug 15 March 2015 11:21:27AM 2 points [-]

I don't really see the point in antimatter suiciding. It'll not kill Voldermort due to the Horcrux network, so it'll just kill the Death Eaters but letting Voldemort in power, and Voldemort would be so pissed of he would do the worst he can to Harry's family and friends... how is that any better than letting Voldemort kill Harry and manage to save a couple of people by telling him a few secrets ?

Comment author: wobster109 10 March 2015 09:00:58PM 4 points [-]

There's a limit on a person going back, but I don't know about things. So maybe a bunch of people with time-turners could hand off the stone.

Comment author: kilobug 10 March 2015 10:59:53PM 0 points [-]

If I remember well, it's not just "person", but information. I can't use a Time Turner to go 6 hours back to the past, give a piece of paper to someone (or an information to that person), and have that person goes back for 6 more hours.

So while it is an interesting hypothesis, it would require no information to be carried... and isn't the fact that the Stone still exists and works an information in itself ? Or that's nitpicking ?

Comment author: falenas108 10 March 2015 08:29:48PM 3 points [-]

"In that extremity, I went into the Department of Mysteries and I invoked a password which had never been spoken in the history of the Line of Merlin Unbroken, did a thing forbidden and yet not utterly forbidden."

So, this is the single change that makes this story an AU?

Comment author: kilobug 10 March 2015 09:50:43PM 6 points [-]

There seem to be much more changes, even that is probably the most important one.

Time Turners don't work the same (in canon, there is no hard limit on 6 hours, it just becomes exponentially dangerous if you try that), the Sirius Black/Pettigrew thing doesn't turn out the same at all, the Free Transfiguration stuff doesn't seem to work the same, ...

And as others mentioned, Voldemort is much more competent.

Comment author: kilobug 10 March 2015 07:46:35PM 12 points [-]

Hum, did Harry suddenly forget about Time-Turners ? Or is he afraid what will happen if people "abuses" from them with the Stone ?

The Stone takes 234 seconds. That's 86400/234 = 369 people/day if you have "normal" 24 hours a day. But if you have 30 hours a day, as you do with a Time-Turner, it's actually 461 people you can heal each day.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 10 March 2015 03:15:19AM *  8 points [-]

... ... ... someone else at the school knows that Quirrel was doing something weird, and called him lord.

Mind magic, or their own will? Obliviation, but was the entire inception of that loyalty during that six hours or does she remember anything?

Comment author: kilobug 10 March 2015 09:10:38AM 2 points [-]

Some usage of the Imperius curse seems most likely to me. Or a Death Eaters using polyjuice. There are so many ways for LV to manage such things that it doesn't really matter how exactly he did it. ;)

Comment author: DanArmak 09 March 2015 12:42:19PM 0 points [-]

From the genes pov, your children are your greatest asset, since what matters is not having children, but having children who reach adulthood. There has been some evidence that the value we unconsciously assign to children growth with their age (with the resources we spent ensuring they grow healthy) until they reach puberty, that's consistent with that explanation.

The second point is important: it means young adults are more valuable than young children, yet in practice morals sway the other way, with little children being the most valued now that childhood mortality is low. More specifically, a young parent who expects to have at least one more child if this one dies should be more valuable than the child.

children have a higher remaining life expectancy

Then we should assign lower value to people the older they get. Yet it's typically considered worse to murder a very old person than a young adult. Do you disagree?

children didn't have as much time to enjoy life, so killing a child is unfair

That is a good point which I didn't consider.

children are more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves

Everyone is equally unable to defend themselves against a gun, or a Death Eater with a wand. This may be relevant when you're talking about hitting someone, but not for murder. Anyway, once you've murdered someone, why should it matter morally that you might have failed because he defended himself?

childhood is a part of life that is more full of joy and wonder than adulthood

I think this needs evidence. FWIW it wasn't true in my own life, and I don't think I'm that atypical. It also predicts a weak effect of valuing 20 year olds more than 50 year olds.

it's very rare to kill someone suddenly without any pain

This is a plausible argument against hurting children. But do you, or others, really think that a few minutes or even hours of pain are comparable with loss of life, to the same degree that people consider killing a child to be worse than killing an adult?

Comment author: kilobug 09 March 2015 01:46:42PM 0 points [-]

Then we should assign lower value to people the older they get. Yet it's typically considered worse to murder a very old person than a young adult. Do you disagree?

Personally I don't consider it really worse. In society in general, the murder of an eldery is usually considered worse because the eldery is weaker, but the accidental or "natural" (ie, disease) death of an eldery is considered much less bad than the same death of a young adult.

Everyone is equally unable to defend themselves against a gun, or a Death Eater with a wand. This may be relevant when you're talking about hitting someone, but not for murder.

It is not relevant for the murder itself, but it is relevant overall when considering how society protects people. Large-scale effects are often delt with broad heuristics (like deontology and virtues), and children being defenseless means a deontological injunction "doing harm to children is very very bad" being justified, and that injunction will apply to murder too, even if it's less justified there. Trying to exclude murder from the injunction will weaken it, make it much less of Schelling point, so overall I don't think it's something society should do.

Comment author: DanArmak 08 March 2015 08:37:59PM 4 points [-]

Why do people think children have greater moral value than adults, and it's worse to kill a child than a similarly defenseless, innocent adult?

Comment author: kilobug 09 March 2015 10:27:15AM -1 points [-]

I see several reasons for that, which fall broadly in two different categories (different meaning of "why").

The first set of reasons is grounded into evolutionary psychology, "why" being taken in "why people happen to do it, whatever it's right or wrong". From the genes pov, your children are your greatest asset, since what matters is not having children, but having children who reach adulthood. There has been some evidence that the value we unconsciously assign to children growth with their age (with the resources we spent ensuring they grow healthy) until they reach puberty, that's consistent with that explanation.

The other set of reasons answer to "why should we consider killing children to be worse ?" and to that I've several answers :

  • children have a higher remaining life expectancy, so killing a 10 years old mean destroying 70 years of life expectancy, while killing a 50 years old mean destroying 30 years (well, not exactly, but not far) ;

  • children didn't have as much time to enjoy life, so killing a child is unfair (some people do value fairness as a terminal value, and I'm among them) - everything else being equal, if you've two people and together they can live 60 years, it's better to have 30 years each than one living 50 years and the other 10 years ;

  • children are more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves, and therefore deserve more protection from society ;

  • many people consider (and I think it holds true to a point, even if I'm not sure how much) that childhood is a part of life that is more full of joy and wonder than adulthood, so depriving someone of his childhood does more harm than depriving someone of the same amount of adult life years ;

  • children are more psychologically vulnerable and less able to deal with their fear/pain, it's very rare to kill someone suddenly without any pain, so the fear/pain that precedes death is actually worse for a child.

View more: Next