I dunno about yours, but my lampshades don’t usually spin, particularly not with a “vroop”.
Cakoluchiam
Karma: 137
On second thought, I have an alternative solution to what it is lampshading, that is the broken suspension of disbelief that after stating that the terms of Quirrell’s contract prevented him and others from investigating Quirrell’s identity, Albus would leave the room, allowing his conspirators to investigate Quirrell’s identity.
This theory sounds incredibly plausible from the perspective of the author wanting to use the lampshade trope, but from the perspective of the reader, that action was completely in-character for Dumbledore and doesn’t actually break suspension of disbelief.
You can’t say it’s obvious unless you can point to something it is specifically lampshading. The best answers I’ve seen so far in this thread are that it’s lampshading itself, in which case there’s no reason for it to have been in the story. Traditionally when you hang a lampshade on something, it’s something that the author needs as a plot device but actually wouldn’t make very much sense if the story were playing out realistically, that is, it threatens suspension of disbelief. I don’t think any of us would disbelieve that Dumbledore would have a strange vroopy thingy in his office, so lampshading itself doesn’t make any sense (which I suppose would make it a meta-lampshade, which breaks the suspension of disbelief I have that the author is trying to use a trope in its proper context, and such abstractions could recurse infinitely).
The vrooping thing sounds like a centrifuge to me, though the pulsing light isn’t something I’m familiar with in such apparatus.
If it is indeed a centrifuge, it would make sense that it was only mentioned -after- Dumbledore left the room. If they had somehow obtained a sample of Quirrell’s blood, they might be separating it to do a DNA comparison against any candidates for his identity, which if I were HJPEV would have been one of my first (dozen) solutions to the problem of identification.
It’s a reference to an episode of The Simpsons, wherein Lisa’s boyfriend states: “I’m a level 5 vegan. I won’t eat anything that casts a shadow.”
Edit2: Primary source found.
Fair point, though that also removes the point of evidence that casting requirements are removed with practice.
“It takes a cracked soul to cast.” and “Murder tears the soul.” just says that if you’ve gotten to the point where you could cast it once, that particular pre-requisite is already accomplished, so the work to crack your soul is already put in. It doesn’t say anything about removing the requirement of wanting someone dead.
Though, so long as we’re looking at evidence, if we take Quirrell at his word, then his ability to cast the spell despite not wanting his opponent dead is pretty strong evidence that the requirement is in fact removed. In fact, we already know that some “requirements” to cast spells are not set in stone: from that same scene, Harry cast the true patronus without the carefully practiced stance and wand twitches, instead merely “one desperate wish that an innocent man should not die—”—but the constant requirement in this case seems to be the thought that accompanies the casting of the spell, which is why I’m hesitant to believe the wish of death is removed from AK’s casting requirement.
In canon, Moody used the unforgivables on a spider, and given the prevalence of ostensibly non-sentient things-to-fear in the magical world (e.g. boggarts), it’s conceivable that they could have found a particular magical creature that even the most PETA-supporting student would have no trouble excising from the world. Also, as far as I can tell, there’s nothing in canon to contradict that curses’ targets are limited to Kingdom Animalia (see also: Harry’s existential crisis about sentient plants), and I seriously doubt there are any 7th level vegans at Hogwarts.
I interpreted the ease of casting the spell as a specific application of scope insensitivity rather than a change in the requirement to cast it. That is, while casting it the second time might be just as difficult (i.e. take as much mental/magical/spiritual energy) as the first, the third and fourth time would together be only as strenuous as the first, as would the collective fifth through eighth time, etc. It is already established in-universe that some form of personal mana depletion exists, and my idea of this difficulty reduction is an extension of that form of energy to the spiritual energy (established in canon w.r.t. horcruxes, dementors, etc.).
I’m a little surprised that HJPEV didn’t immediately update his probabilities regarding Quirrell’s motives in Azkaban with the new knowledge from Moody that “You’ve got to mean it. You’ve got to want someone dead, and not for the greater good, either.”, which would seem to discredit the Defense Professor’s excuse that “a curse which cannot be blocked and must be dodged is an indispensable tactic.”
Either way, should we or shouldn’t we have trusted the rest of their answers to be statistically reliable?
What, the myriad prophets of revealed religions and cults aren’t enough of a hint for you?
If this were anywhere but a site dedicated to rationality, I would expect trolls to self-report their karma scores much higher on a survey than they actually are, but that data is pretty staggering. I accept the rejection of the hypothesis, and withdraw my opinion insofar as it applies to this site.
Hell, if the mathematical universe hypothesis is correct, then somewhere out there in the universe there is, with no intelligent priors, a collection of particles in the form of a computer, simulating a universe containing intelligent entities.
Would someone who created a computer that created the universe count as a god? I can easily write computer games with more complex behavior than I feel capable of fully comprehending, but I would not consider that computer program an intelligent entity. I can imagine that someone more educated and with a higher mental capacity than I could similarly write a computer program that is capable of creating and maintaining in simulation a universe with the global constants and initial conditions necessary to produce intelligent life without the program actually qualifying as intelligent itself.
My personal belief is that if there is a “god”, he is quite probably much like a video game programmer, who can set up a universe like an MMO and let it run “infinitely” in “real-time”, but, being constrained to a similar time-scale as the “players”, is unable to make a large number of fine-grained adjustments to local variables at the immediate behest of said players (i.e. “answering prayers”). Someday we may get a version 2.0 release which allows third-party plugins so players can hack the universe to answer their own prayers, but I don’t place a high conditional probability on that happening within my projected lifetime.
TROLL TOLL POLICY: Disapprove: 194, 16.4% Approve: 178, 15%
So more people are against than for. Not exactly a mandate for its use.
Hypothesis: those directly affected by the troll policy (trolls) are more likely to have strong disapproval than those unaffected by the troll policy are to have strong approval.
In my opinion, a strong moderation policy should require a plurality vote in the negative (over approval and abstention) to fail a motion to increase security, rather than a direct comparison to the approval. (withdrawn as it applies to LW, whose trolls are apparently less trolly than other sites I’m used to)
I don’t agree that the first doesn’t count. The Relationship Style question was about preferred style, not current active situation. It could be that 2⁄3 of the polyamorous people just can’t get a date (lord knows I’ve been there). (ETA:) Or, in the case of not looking, don’t want a date right now (somewhere I’ve also been).
It was stated that they should give the obvious answer and that surveys that didn’t follow the rules would be thrown out… but maybe 50% isn’t as obvious as 99.99% of the population thinks it is.
Is there any reason the prompt for the question shouldn’t have explicitly stated “(The obvious answer is the correctly formatted value equivalent to p=0.5 or 50%)”?
Any results for the calibration IQ?
A free full-cast Audiobook of Planecrash is currently in production at https://shows.acast.com/project-lawful-aka-planecrash, using AI-generated voices. It is quite excellent, albeit missing a few of the glowfic-specific elements such as character portraits and reaction tags (posts with no text, only character portraits). I highly recommend it for anyone.
There is a parallel analysis podcast and book club hosted by myself and members of The Bayesian Conspiracy’s discord channel, formerly It Makes Sense If You Understand Decision Theory, now We Want Headbands (in homage to We’ve Got Worm). As we go, I’m sectioning it into shorter Books and Chapters, with somewhat-descriptive titles. The podcast-aligned table of contents and links to the podcasts are available at http://www.imsiyudt.com/