I've thought of this advice to keep identity small as installing a new executive-level program, "Monitor group affiliations with potentially mind-killing emotional attachments". Since I've done that, it seems like all my attachments have become a lot more gooey.

The case for thinking seriously about Partial Transfiguration:

1) Partial transfiguration is wordless, but wanded.

2) it's a power Riddle doesn't know as per the prophecy.

3) Harry still holding his wand is a Chekov's Gun for a wanded spell such as transfiguration.

4) Yes, that does seems too obvious, but I don't think Eliezer wants to end the story here so he wouldn't want an extremely subtle puzzle.

5) The only evidence against is that Quirrell might have ripped it from Hermione's mind...but he wouldn't know what to look for, would he? And Dumbledore may well have obliviated it away.

Constraints

1) Only very small amounts of matter can be transfigured

2) The want must not be raised, so Harry must transfigure the ground he's pointing at. No transfiguring people's bodies or anything fancy. The air can also be transfigured.

3) Outright explosives will kill Harry as well, so you can't just make a small patch of antimatter or airborne lethal toxin unless you can find a way to shield Harry.

So, guys - any ideas as to what thimbleful of tiny molecules, placed in the earth a few feet away from Harry, can save him?

EDIT: The case against partial transfiguration as a solution

1) Too obvious

2) Harry holding the wand not Chekov's gun. Riddle is aware that he aught to have disarmed Harry. Not disarming Harry means that somehow Riddle has contingency plans or even actively wants Harry to use the wand.

3) Any combat oriented action almost certainly involves death, regardless of head starts and discreteness, even if we manage to take down Riddle's current body.

I've found The Art of Charm Podcast valuable in helping me overcome mild social anxiety and in being more confident generally. The podcast has its roots in the pickup community (which is particularly evident in its early episodes), but has morphed into more of a "men's lifestyle" show.

I decided then that there was enough evidence specifically for the Resurrection of Jesus to believe in it.

Do you have written something that explain that evidence in more detail?

Regina Spektor, I've been discovering her stuff over the last few months and I've reached the point where I know roughly all of it. As I think is expected in this thread, all I can really offer here is possibility that blog-reading choices vaguely correlate with musical preferences. Her lyrics are pretty non-inane, especially upon repeated listening. Her variance of musical style is pleasing to me, makes it fun to play and listen to. Nothing especially Less Wrong-y, but I might be forgetting something. Though I don't think I know any composer at all who's (consistently) Less Wrong-y. She has a wild imagination and has written songs about being robots. She's one of those artists whose discography is a tapestry of varied and wonderful worlds that I can never really appreciate unless I'm in the process of listening to it, always a process of both rediscovery and familiarity. (She often writes in the first-person as non-Regina people, from fiction, the bible, or anonymous people; more than half of her songs are probably from the perspective of a different person). There are also lots of moments in her various songs that strike me in the right way, that capture some complex emotion I had never put into words, which gives her songs a sense of salience and intelligence. Some especially enjoyable songs: Us very uplifting, makes you think; Call Them Brothers the man singing is her husband, I like the eeriness; The Party, uplifting, pretty; All the Rowboats, she makes cute noises, quite fast. Back of a Truck, from her unusually jazzy first album.

Disclosure: I play and especially like piano so appear to be skewed towards liking such artists.

P(our universe is a simulation within a "top level" universe) < P(ours is the "top level" universe), given no further evidence of simulation.

I thought the argument was that since there will almost certainly be more simulated universes than the one real one, we are more likely to be in a simulation? Note that I don't have a strong opinion either way, I don't see, despite Robin's essay, that it makes any real difference.

This should be on main.

Here is another, just as plausible hypothesis: given that intelligence is determined largely by the amount of grey matter of the neocortex, which is a relatively small part of a mammalian brain, the absolute increase in the grey matter volume would allow for much larger absolute reduction in the brain size without reducing intelligence.

There is nothing inherently "default" about either hypothesis, both require experimental testing just the same. If you privilege one of them, you are committing a cognitive fallacy.

Thank you for producing a perfect example of what I called the "incomplete chain of thought"! What I called "subjective space" and "physical space", you have called "map" and "territory". This thing you call a "map", conscious experience, is part of the "territory" - part of reality - which itself is supposed to be coextensive with physics. So locating colors on the map doesn't get them off the territory. If everything real is made of physics, you still must either explain how certain patterns of neuronal excitations are actually green, or you must assert that nothing is actually green at any level of reality.