Comment author: Kindly 25 July 2013 03:02:35PM *  4 points [-]

It's a fairly literal translation. I think the most likely option is that the Potter motto was first taken from the Bible in Latin, and at some point after the completion of the King James Bible (in the 1600s) the motto was updated to English.

The Peverells were, after all, contemporaries of Godric Gryffindor (at least in the HPMoR universe), so they would've been all over the Latin mottoes.

Comment author: thomblake 25 July 2013 03:35:48PM 0 points [-]

think the most likely option is that the Potter motto was first taken from the Bible in Latin, and at some point after the completion of the King James Bible (in the 1600s) the motto was updated to English.

The motto is in Old English in the story, presumably dating from the time of the Peverells. It may have been taken from the bible verse, but then your own argument raises the question, why didn't they write their motto in Latin?

Comment author: Petruchio 25 July 2013 03:11:50PM 3 points [-]

I am confused.

The particular Bible passage was written in Greek a solid millennia before Hogwarts was built, it was available in Latin at least since the 4th century (Latin being the language of the educated post-Roman Empire, and the language which magic seems to be based off of), and, according to a quick Wikipedia search, translated into Old English by the Venerable Bede in the 7th century.

Comment author: thomblake 25 July 2013 03:34:27PM 3 points [-]

according to a quick Wikipedia search, translated into Old English by the Venerable Bede in the 7th century.

You may be thinking of the Gospel of John, which Bede translated shortly before his death. As far as I can tell, there was never an Old English translation of 1 Corinthians, and if there was it was not well-known.

Comment author: William_Quixote 25 July 2013 02:08:56PM 50 points [-]

Three shall be Peverell's sons and three their devices by which Death shall be defeated. - chapter 96

The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches, born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month - - chapter 86

There has previously been some speculation that the dark lord in Harry's birth prophesy is death rather than Voldemort. I think this interpretation just got a lot stronger.

James and Lilly had defied Voldemort but not death. The new lines back an interpretation that the Peverells thrice defied death with the three deathly hollows and Harry is born to the Peverell line.

This is, in some ways, a more natural interpretation of that clause since James and Lilly were in the Order and were defying Voldemort on a daily basis not just 3 times. The line of the Peverells makes the number three make sense rather than being arbitrary.

Comment author: thomblake 25 July 2013 02:36:17PM 0 points [-]

Nice connection

Comment author: Petruchio 25 July 2013 01:22:03PM 2 points [-]

It strikes me as strange taking the words "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" as a family motto and manifesto, considering that it orginates from 1 Corinthians 15:26, concerning the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ's second coming and the abolishment of death. While it is similiar to Harry's goal, it certainly opposes it by way of means. Harry seeking the abolishment of death through mortal, albeit supernatural and magical, means opposes the divine plan of God. That Harry took this as a mission pasted down the Potter line generation to generation seems a lot more unlikely than it being a suitable epitaph on a gravestone.

Comment author: thomblake 25 July 2013 02:35:11PM 7 points [-]

Given the timing, it seems more likely in-universe that the particular English translation of that bible passage was lifted from the wizard motto.

Comment author: Allison_Smith 24 July 2013 05:13:50PM 6 points [-]

I am not Alicorn, but I also like talking about delicious food and I do not eat eggs and dairy. Unfortunately, there is no general solution to the egg/dairy substitution problem, especially for the eggs end of it.

There are some things I just don't try to adapt: meringue, pastry cream, and whipped cream fall more-or-less into this category. I have had delicious dairy-free versions of whipped cream that seem to have been based on the fatty part of coconut milk, but I haven't made any myself.

There are some substitutions that are easy and consistent. In baking cakes, cookies, and similar things, you can usually use any unsweetened soy or nut milk 1:1 for milk, and use margarine in place of butter, or mild flavored vegetable oil in place of melted butter. It is easiest to get good results if your recipe is for spice or chocolate cake, or is otherwise meant to taste like something other than butter, as even the best non-dairy butter substitutes do not taste quite like the real thing. Eggs are a slightly harder thing to substitute for, so for a really easy experience, go for a recipe that does not use them; sometimes these are "light" cakes or recipes written when food was expensive or rationed.

Eggs, even in baking where they are non-obvious in the final product, can be tricky to substitute for because they do so many things. If the eggs are mainly adjusting the consistency of the batter or dough, you can substitute for 1 egg with 1/4 cup of soft silken tofu , applesauce, or soy yogurt, or anything of a similar texture that you think would taste good. If I expect the egg to actually do some work on helping the rising process, I use 1/4 cup of the liquid from the recipe or of soy milk, plus 1 Tbsp ground flaxseed or 1 tsp ground psyllium husk. If there are more than 1 or 2 eggs called for, I re-evaluate whether I want to use this recipe (things that are supposed to get flavor from eggs, or that use eggs in complicated ways, like with yolks and whites separated, are beyond my skill level to adapt), and if I still want to, I use some combination of the substitutions available to me, to avoid the food tasting heavily of flax or applesauce when I didn't intend that.

Comment author: thomblake 24 July 2013 05:40:01PM 0 points [-]

The last category you mention is basically "eggs used as an emulsifier" - so other emulsifiers should also work.

Comment author: Jiro 19 July 2013 06:03:09PM *  1 point [-]

People might not like my response, but I'd say that if you're in a situation where you believe something might be beneficial to you but it consumes a substantial portion of your resources, you should heavily lean towards not going. This applies as much to a rationality workshop attended by someone with a tiny budget as it applies to playing the stock market. Making large expenditures for an uncertain return is generally a bad bet even if the expected utility gain is positive, if failure has a very negative consequence. And human beings are notoriously bad at assessing the expected utility in such situations.

You also need to be very confident in your ability to evaluate arguments if you don't want to end up worse than before.

Obviously, this doesn't apply if you're absolutely certain that going gives you more benefit than you forego in money, time, and parental willingness to give in (which may, in fact, be in limited supply) so there is no risk of loss, but not too many people are really that certain.

Comment author: thomblake 19 July 2013 06:24:26PM 0 points [-]

But surely going to a rationality workshop is the best way to learn to evaluate whether to go to a rationality workshop. And whether it succeeds or not, you can be convinced it was a good idea!

Comment author: Vaniver 16 July 2013 08:36:59PM 2 points [-]

Surely advantages can also be comparative advantages.

The modifier "comparative" is used to highlight things that are, in isolation, disadvantages, but which are advantages when all things are taken into account. The classic example is a lawyer who can type much more quickly than her secretary, but who hires a secretary to type because of the relative price of lawyering and typing.

Comment author: thomblake 17 July 2013 12:28:29PM 3 points [-]

The modifier "comparative" is used to highlight things that are, in isolation, disadvantages,

That's just false. If A can make wool for $2 and coffee for $3, and B can make wool for $6 and coffee for $5, then B has a comparative advantage in coffee (which is in isolation a disadvantage) and A has a comparative advantage in wool (which in isolation is an advantage). Being a disadvantage just isn't necessary for a comparative advantage.

Comment author: Sophronius 15 July 2013 01:37:59PM *  7 points [-]

I hate to focus on the negative, but a couple of things in your post made me go "ugh". The first is talking about taking over the world: It's funny when Harry Potter says it, grating when people on Less Wrong do it. Don't talk about conquering the world unless you actually have realistic plans to conquer at least a small part of it, otherwise it just comes off to me as trying to look cool in an awkward way.

The second is your overuse and misuse of jargon. The concept of comparative advantage for instance describes how it may be efficient for you to do X even though you may be worse at X than others, yet you call "looking better than average" a comparative advantage, when it really is just an advantage. "I suppose I can leverage it into a comparative advantage for getting high-status men to pay attention to me long enough for me to explain the merits of an idea I have." This should be: "I can use this to my advantage".

Your post isn't bad but things like this make it harder for me to draw use from it.

Comment author: thomblake 16 July 2013 07:33:56PM 0 points [-]

Surely advantages can also be comparative advantages. If you're trading beauty for attention, then presumably you have a comparative advantage in beauty.

Comment author: malcolmocean 11 July 2013 06:33:29PM 0 points [-]

Sane unless one of the paths is actually substantially shorter, in which case it's a waste of time that feels efficient.

There are psychological aspects to all of this too. There are several routes from my bus stop to my house right now, and while they all have the same length (Manhattan distance = x+y, i.e. right angles) certain paths feel shorter... I think it's mostly number-of-turns. When I walk straight down the street I live on, it seems really long, but when I walk partway down the adjacent street, then a block sideways, then the rest of the way, it seems somewhat shorter.

Comment author: thomblake 12 July 2013 12:51:21PM 0 points [-]

Well, imagine a planning algorithm that has no memory - then a heuristic like that (maybe with some amount of randomness to avoid cycles and such) might be your best bet.

Comment author: Velorien 10 July 2013 09:20:40PM 0 points [-]

Don't summon Azathoth.

I'm not sure what you're implying here. Is this just a general rule of thumb for rationalists?

Comment author: thomblake 11 July 2013 01:32:11PM 4 points [-]

Just a general rule of thumb. The time loop is a powerful optimization process with outcomes that are not intuitive to humans. It's analogous to invoking evolution. If 'the world is destroyed by an asteroid' is the only stable outcome, then it seems that's what you're going to get.

View more: Prev | Next