plan iss for you to rule country, obvioussly This one sounds important now that we know it is definitely true (or at least was at the time).
What does "you" mean, though? Tom Riddle? In which case Quirrell could just as well be speaking of himself. The physical body others designate "Harry"? In which case Quirrell could just permanently transfigure himself into Harry's body using the stone, shoot Harry and vanish the body and claim "Quirrell" had urgent business elsewhere.
If Voldemort (or whatever created both Voldemort and Harry) consideres Potter the same person as himself, then "I do not intend to raisse my hand or magic againsst you in future, sso long ass you do not raisse your hand or magic againsst me." is a tautology and always true.
Ancedotal Evidence suggests that the first, most important skill, is being able to admit you are wrong. Taken to far though, and it results in an useless humble platitudes. Paired with being able to look at the universe around you to find what is right, I think it is enough enough to recreate everything. I would go so far as to say that Bayes' Theorem is just a mathematical formalization of those two ideas.
Thank you for that link, it was interesting.
Did they take into account that Utah is an outlier within the US in the Religion aspect? Not that I expect that to be influential in the slightest.
So then suicides are a strong indicator of personal unhappiness but a potential indicator of overall social happiness. That is very interesting.
I know a decent portion of people on Less Wrong are utilitarians/consequentialists what are the implications of the results of this study from that perspective?
My first thought was that if everyone with a low happiness level had already committed suicide it would bump up the average happiness. I mean, the dead don't answer those polls.
Killing the unhappy to make sure everyone is happy is an amoral solution, is my conclusion from a utilitarian perspective. Yep. Don't do that. Engineering peeps with higher happiness set points seems the moral counterpart, but we can't do that yet.
There are a number of web sites that present such implicit and procedural knowledge. such as: http://www.ehow.com/ http://www.wikihow.com/Main-Page http://www.howcast.com/ http://www.howtodothings.com/
I might be useful to somehow select the most generally useful ones of these in one place.
Have you ever considered studying Facial Action Coding System?
Thanks for the link. I have been reading peoples faces for awhile, but there's a second or so of lag, and I can miss things.
It seems it is ensuring at each link no one has motivation to report wrongly, rather than noone would mess up.
Figuring out the particular heuristic seems more interesting than useful - "don't trust immediate answers" is a good rule
Well, except for all those times where second-guessing makes you worse off.
That's like saying people are being too rational. Get better at second guessing. Get better at being rational.
I meant it seriously, though I'll probably regret the strong language and it makes me kinda sad that skeptics are so good at inadvertently trolling me. (ETA: Yup, regretted it. Edited comment to be less in-your-face.)
And what I meant with my chess comment, without the funny business, is that I'm aware of the Randi prize, aware that no one has claimed it, and still assign a decent amount of probability mass (aghhhh that doesn't actually work, probability isn't fundamental like that, but whatever) to the magick hypothesis. So I guess maybe I was annoyed at the implication that I hadn't thought these things through carefully already. I apologize for being brusque.
Inadvertent trolling is impossible, trolling is in intent. If your own reaction is similar to being trolled, it is a the genuine emotions trolls try to create through dishonest means... also it makes it seem like you are trying to paint yourself the victim which would make a real troll happy but a non-troll sad. Well, it would also make someone who dislikes you happy, and someone who wants two way communication without signaling that you are wounded and deserve special reprimands sad. I don't want to make you angry, I want to have a conversation.
The magick hypothesis can be tested, can't it? I mean, at this point it seems to me either magick is false, or there is a conspiracy to prevent it from being proven true, like all the White Wolf World of Darkness games have. Some settings have several competing conspiracies to keep the masses ignorant of the nature of reality, some have a big monolithic one. It affects the availability of that hypothesis, for me, at least.
If bits of magic were already discovered and incorporated into science, would that count for the skeptics or magicks? The way herbalism and alchemy have been eaten up by chemistry, skeptics kept pace with the abilities traditionally handled by wise old people and shared the knowledge for many. If, say, life auras were found, skeptics would want to use the knowledge of that too. If auras do not respond to machines we can build, we'll train animals, like aura sniffing dogs as well as gunpowder and drug sniffing ones we already have. The fact that it looks like we are using familiars to find poisons does not deter us now.
What, exactly, is it that makes skeptics so infuriating? Is it mostly the way to point out a link to someone saying something snarky and then walk away, instead of conversing? I know I find that infuriating when someone says something snarky and acts like the conversation is over. I can't sit through creationism movies sometimes without wanting to punch through the internet when they make a joke about apes having human chests and leaving the subject implying because it's funny then it is not a valid point that humans and apes are related lets move on. rage rage rage...
Hello welcome to less wrong please don't mind if we obsess and fail to notice you're upset like aspies it is the culture here. :P
Quantum phenomena do not occur in a Hilbert space. They occur in a laboratory.
--Asher Peres
So is this to differentiate the n-dimensional calculus used to model quantum phenomena from the reality of a laboratory?
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
I decided to collect the stuff about these recent updates that confuse me, and when added together two were in the shape of a theory!
Even Quirrell is confused! Wow!
So... Dumbledore did know all along, just like cannon, and sent the map to the twins for plausible deniability. He can get away with that because he doesn't mind when people think him a fool. And he really needs Querrellmort to think of him as ignorant so he will play the role perfectly... well Voldemort said he could play chess.
In the last thread roystgnr wrote
That is totally something I wouldn't have figured out on my own. Well, the first part. I had just put that up to Harry not wanting to see ill of his friend, but magical obfuscation makes sense too. Oh, but someone else had the knowledge if the first theory is right. Someone who used Legilimancy on Harry in chapter 19 and that's just when Harry found out about it!