Comment author: TobyBartels 31 August 2013 11:23:33PM 0 points [-]

Well, it's -1 now, since I often upvote comments with negative totals that I think don't deserve them. Sorry that I can't help you more!

Comment author: loserthree 01 September 2013 04:16:20PM 1 point [-]

Less worried about downvotes I've received, more interested in the things that lead to me getting them.

Thanks, though.

Comment author: loserthree 30 August 2013 03:17:14AM 3 points [-]

Thanks.

That pulls a bit of the rug out from under that unsteady pile of pattern-matching.

Comment author: loserthree 31 August 2013 02:41:03PM 2 points [-]

Thanks.

That pulls a bit of the rug out from under that unsteady pile of pattern-matching.

This got downvoted to -2. If anyone would like to see fewer postings like the above, they can improve the odds that they'll see the change they'd like by explaining what it is about the above post that was disliked.

Thank you, in advance for your help with this.

Comment author: MarkusRamikin 30 August 2013 05:06:54PM *  7 points [-]

Oh, sure, I'm not saying the kids aren't capable of performing the actions they did. What I'm wondering about is why the rest of the world is playing along. Even if these children - 11 year olds if I have that right - are the sanest people in Hogwarts, does the Hogwarts faculty recognize this, and the Auror office, and the Board of Governors, and their own parents? Or are all these people magically aware of the story theme that you mentioned, and the title of the last few chapters.

Susan Bones is giving the Aurors orders because it is her Aunt that runs the Auror office.

I don't think that's how police forces generally work...

Comment author: loserthree 31 August 2013 02:30:23AM 0 points [-]

11 year olds if I have that right

By this point in the year most if not all of them are probably 12.

The difference between 11 and 12 might only matter to an 11- or 12-year-old, but you probably didn't have that right, for whatever that's worth.

Comment author: kilobug 29 August 2013 05:32:21PM *  3 points [-]

I'm still unconvinced about "Avada Kedavra and the Patronus Charm (2.0) cancel each other out". My interpretation of it in Azkaban is more "Harry and Quirrel magic cancel each other when they interact" than anything related specifically for those spells.

For the rest, there is a significant difference which, while it doesn't matter much in absolute, matters a lot of HPMOR, is that 11 yo can't cast Avada Kedavra, while they can cast Patronus. So you can have 1st years in Hogwarts who are "Silver Slytherin" because they can cast Patronus, but you can't have "Green Slytherin" that can cast AK in 1st year, because it's too advanced magic for them.

Comment author: loserthree 30 August 2013 03:17:14AM 3 points [-]

Thanks.

That pulls a bit of the rug out from under that unsteady pile of pattern-matching.

Comment author: loserthree 29 August 2013 01:11:55PM *  5 points [-]

Is Theodore Nott wearing his scary face because he learned it was a good idea to do so in Chaos, or because there is also a conspiracy of Green Slytherin: those who can cast Avada Kedavra, the green spell?

Harry courted the company of both Draco and Hermione. He adjusted his presentation to meet their expectations, as he understood them. Draco could be doing the same because why have one secret power base when you could have two?

I don't consider this terribly likely. It came up in that pattern-matching way, but feels like it's needlessly complicated.

Hopefully someone else can undermine it more decisively or support it better.

Comment author: gwern 03 July 2013 03:16:00AM 5 points [-]

I didn't notice it either. But Eliezer posted this comment on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/HPMOR/comments/1hh5ph/ch90_salvaging_gender_bias_in_hpmor/cauafkt He may've felt the need to bring it to wider attention.

Comment author: loserthree 03 July 2013 01:01:28PM 2 points [-]

ye shall also know that any events occurring there were also of my own impulse and not a halfhearted sop to feminists

Why would we think that? We would think that if he unfridged Hermione.

That is pretty strong evidence that Hermione will be resurrected sooner, rather than later. So I guess the ending where Harry resurrects everyone ever maybe won't seem more likely when this arc is complete.

Unless this is the end.

Comment author: William_Quixote 03 July 2013 03:00:22AM 2 points [-]

Chapter 90 now ends with a note that says:

There are no Author's Notes for this chapter. I will quickly remark that this chapter (and further ones up to Ch. 96) were written in advance and did not change in response to any reader speculations.

I did not notice this note when I first looked at the chapter. Does anyone know if this went up with the first posting or was edited in later? If it was edited in later, maybe we should take the random speculations more seriously. If it went up with the first post, then the same point may hold, but with regards to 88-89.

Comment author: loserthree 03 July 2013 12:58:44PM 0 points [-]

So we know, for egotistical example, that he did not add "Dumbledore had looked down over the side of the terrace and made a gesture before returning" in response to my post that included risking transfiguration sickness on the list of things for which Harry could get in trouble.

Or, at least, we know that is what the author wishes us to believe. dun dun daaaaaaaah

Comment author: Intrism 03 July 2013 02:29:40AM *  16 points [-]

I decided to enumerate all the map errors I could think of.

Name errors: any error in which someone's name is persistently not what you'd expect.

  • Quirrell being named Defense Professor.
  • Anyone (probably Quirrell, maybe Harry) being named Tom Riddle.
  • Quirrell or Harry being named Heir of Slytherin.

Map errors: any error in which the map itself is drawn incorrectly, or in a way you wouldn't expect.

  • The Chamber of Secrets entrance being drawn on the map if/when Quirrell accesses it.
  • Quirrell being drawn inside a wall if/when Quirrell accesses the Chamber of Secrets.
  • If Quirrell can become a spirit, Quirrell being drawn inside a wall when he is in fact inside a wall.
  • Harry being drawn in strange and incorrect places when he's inside of his trunk.

Name persistence errors: any error in which someone changes names.

  • Harry changing names while using his "dark side."
  • Quirrell switching between Quirinus Quirrell and "Defense Professor," possibly when Quirrell "rests."
  • Quirrell being labeled Salazar Slytherin, particularly when he accesses wards.
  • Harry being labeled something more commonly associated with Professor Quirrell when he uses his Potterdar.

Multiple dot errors: any error in which one person is in multiple places.

  • If the Dark Lord can become disembodied (perhaps while Quirrell is "resting"), separate "Quirinus Quirrell" and "Defense Professor" dots in different locations.
  • Any student with a Time-Turner showing up twice on the map.
Comment author: loserthree 03 July 2013 12:51:31PM 4 points [-]

As someone suggested earlier, it's possible that Sirius Black is hiding out as the Weasley owl (the "measured and courteous hoot"). That would fit with Peter Pettigrew being the unfortunate in Azkaban chanting, "I'm not serious."

It's also possible that Pettigrew is hiding out somewhere, I suppose, but that doesn't seem smart.

This also raises the possibility that someone or multiple someones who weren't ever Marauders using small animagus forms to get around the castle, which could show up funny on the map.

Comment author: ygert 03 July 2013 10:17:10AM 2 points [-]

Eliezer specifically and publicly said that this will not happen. There will be no superintelligent AI in HPMOR. I see no reason to doubt Eliezer's word on the matter.

Comment author: loserthree 03 July 2013 12:42:59PM 3 points [-]

I'm pretty sure that what he said was that nothing was intended as an allegory -- or maybe a metaphor or something of the sort -- to an artificial super-intelligence.

Somebody has the link, I expect.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 03 July 2013 03:50:23AM 3 points [-]

Censorship is necessary.

That post was about deleting people who refuse to engage in rational argument, not deleting posts that use rational argument in ways that are "unmarketable" as you put it.

Let's put it this way, would you also suggest we delete all the posts critical of religion because it also puts of a lot of people?

Comment author: loserthree 03 July 2013 12:21:56PM *  -1 points [-]

That post was about deleting people who refuse to engage in rational argument, not deleting posts that use rational argument in ways that are "unmarketable" as you put it.

Let's put it this way, would you also suggest we delete all the posts critical of religion because it also puts of a lot of people?

the utility of censorship is not exclusive to the situations described in that post.

But in the end, no. This conversation didn't start when I issued a call to action, but when I expressed a difficult decision I had made for myself. I didn't know that people were reading it as a directive until someone pointed that out.

Anyway, it's far too late to change: that rape article is over two years old. "Better late than never" doesn't mean that late is always good enough. In this case, it's definitely not.

In a world with wishes -- but where I didn't immediately wish for a world without wishes -- maybe I'd wish that Less Wrong would be image conscious enough to distance itself from people who unapologetically marginalize the suffering of rape victims, maybe not. But the call I get to make is whether or not to facilitate the process by which my friends and the people with whom I would like to be friends forget that I have any contact with Less Wrong. It is not whether or not to facilitate the process by which Less Wrong rehabilitates its status as a haven for creeps, creep enablers, or creep apologists.

View more: Next

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit