In Ch 45, Harry thinks:

I comprehend your nature, you symbolize Death, through some law of magic you are a shadow that Death casts into the world.

If this is true, it's possible that as long as death exists (for wizards, anyway), it will continue to cast its shadows, and so the dementors can never be all destroyed. Maybe they'll just respawn or something. In fact, maybe when Harry destroyed that one in Ch 45, a dementor respawned back at Azkaban without anyone noticing. Do the guards keep a count of dementors?

One thing I noticed about Harry's language - increasing talk in computer terms. PC, SYSTEM ERROR, Internal Consistency Checker.

His Dark Side is tremendously efficient at information recall and causal inference. Interesting that Quirrell remarked on the value of memory recall to a wizard. I've wondered if the Dark Side was just an interface to a computing system, but it's clear that's not all that it is.

It seems like the Dark Side is two things, an efficient computation engine, and the dark emotions related to Death: the terror and hatred. Why are those linked? Why does a computation and recall engine have to be linked to emotions at all, and if it's going to be emotions, why not positive Mr. Glowy Person feelings?

The Dementor's goal was to not die. You don't generally accomplish that by antagonizing the one guy who can kill you.

Unless they already plan to kill you, in which case antagonizing them can potentially reduce their threat.

I did send in an application to the Center for Modern Rationality but I haven't heard back

Please email me (elcenia@gmail.com) and tell me which types of work you wanted. There has been a spreadsheet-tracking issue, and I'm not sure who I have and haven't reached yet. (I'm considering just mass-mailing everybody on the list with "if you haven't heard from me before, please let me know and I can give you sample work". Thoughts on whether this would be more obnoxious than helpful?)

I haven't read Bolstad, but I think that grokking the first 3-ish chapters of Jaynes seems like a reasonable requirement for being able to explain why probability looks the way it does. The actual "methods" chapters after that aren't really useful/necessart for undergrads, except for the simple stuff like "given some data, what's the likelihood ratio for your hypothesis? How about the null hypothesis?" You could always jump into teaching without re-reading that, but iunno.

All of the really smart professors I know personally who have an opinion on the topic are Bayesians, Less Wrong as a community prefers Bayesianism, and I prefer it.

Is this how you would respond to a hypothetical student of yours asking why you're not a frequentist? Sorry for the snark, but you are considering a career choice where you would be a voice for Bayesianism to your students and fellow faculty. I think you owe it to those who want Bayesian methods to be treated seriously to acquaint yourself with de Finetti's theorem, Cox's theorem, the frequentist consistency (or lack thereof) of Bayesian procedures, etc.

Also, I'm pretty sure this is not the best way you could get paid to raise the sanity or rationality waterline, given your background. Think about the marginal effect of taking such a job. Best case, you'll either teach a Bayesian stats courses that otherwise wouldn't be taught due to lack of faculty or replace someone who would otherwise teach it (that person will probably be have better or equal academic credentials and might be less enthusiastic about Bayesianism). But students who would choose to take a Bayesian stats course will probably do fine anyways. Teaching intro (frequentist) stats well or doing private tutoring for students stuck in bad intro stats courses will be more likely to make a difference.

This paper consists of some vague simulations, followed by wild speculation. I'm pretty sure it's bunk (speaking as a computational/cell biologist). It would be pretty easy to test, as well, as disrupting microtubules AT ALL would completely destroy memories if he is correct.

PredictionBook registry - take one prediction a day to keep the hindsight bias away! - based on the speculation:

Harry's solution will be...

• nothing
• invoking Lucius's debt to whomever killed his supposed Imperiuser
• invoke the Imperius-debts of other Wizengamot members
• make Dumbledore turn himself in to Lucius in exchange for Hermione's freedom
• threaten to destroy Azkaban
• reveal the truth about Bellatrix's escape
• offer the Wizengamot Voldemort's true identity (Quirrel)
• accept Hermione's imprisonment but order the Dementors to leave her alone
• destroying one of the Dementors

• using the Time-turner

  • to alter Hermione's testimony to something easily falsifiable
  • to affect Lucius in some way
  • to smuggle Hermione out under the Cloak
• ask for a trial by combat
• have Quirrel make Bella confess to the crime
• confess to the attack
• demonstrate Hermione's wand did not cast the curse with Priori Incantatem

(These are not all mutually exclusive, and I didn't set down and make them all sum to 100%.)

If "A potion spends that which is invested in the creation of its ingredients." then what the heck goes into an Animagus potion? Something that's been transfigured a lot?

Edit: It doesn't seem like the method for becoming an Animagus is described in canon, so the potion aspect might be new to MoR.

Harry with the ability to invent potions would be powerful enough to wreck the story.

Harry with time travel would be enough to wreak the story. Harry with an invisibility cloak would be enough to wreak the story, Hell, harry with rationality would be enough to wreak the story.

That is, unless the other obstacles were ramped up to deal with it. Give Harry a time turner and enemies clever enough to know how to check on him. Give harry an invisibility cloak but add spells that can detect the presence of a deathly hallow. Give Harry mastery of potions but make creating them slow or just plain difficult.