clgroft

• clgroft 5 Nov 2012 0:38 UTC

  29 points

  on: 2012 Less Wrong Cen­sus/​Survey

  Took the vast majority. The OCEAN test seemed mostly wrong, the IQ seemed low (big shock, right? Shouldn’t have raced through, I guess), and my Myers-Briggs was ENFJ, which is just bizarre.

  Also, I’ve commented a few times, never posted.

• clgroft 22 Aug 2012 3:08 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: JoshuaFox’s comment on: Who Wants To Start An Im­por­tant Startup?

  The actuarial industry has a system of advancement with ten exams.

  Perhaps this is the key. Instead of coming up with our own replacement certification system, maybe we need to make it easier for companies and industries to create their own. They’re the ones who know what matters for their own fields.

  As an entry point, one might create an online job application builder. Questionnaires are easy (and probably not worth a startup), but if the application could have “code this” questions, and the answers were checked on the server, that could be a killer feature for tech companies.

• clgroft 3 Apr 2012 3:21 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  That’s what made me think of it!

• clgroft 3 Apr 2012 3:17 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: bogdanb’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  While I’m no longer convinced of the Narcissa-was-a-Horcrux hypothesis, I don’t buy this argument. Even if Voldie thinks of it (which, okay, that part’s reasonable), it assumes that he needs an invincible army more than he needs to keep the idea of Horcruxes secret. This is wildly implausible. His non-invincible army was doing just fine.

  Also, ArisKatsaris’ comment.

• clgroft 3 Apr 2012 3:13 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  This is a very good point.

• clgroft 3 Apr 2012 3:09 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: bogdanb’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  Or he could just be tracking everything that happened to Draco. Q has admitted to casting alarm charms on him.

  In fact, it just occurred to me that Q could very well have been using Legilimency on Draco as well. Would the Aurors have checked for that? Would Lucius?

• clgroft 3 Apr 2012 2:08 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  FWIW I agree with your interpretation.

  To take it further: McGonagall accompanies Harry to Diagon Alley, while (on Dumbledore’s orders) learning as much as possible about him. She attempts to report to Dumbledore, but is speechless; Dumbledore may or may not be reading her mind, I don’t know. Before this, he was happy to delegate the responsibility, but after this meeting, he naturally decides he’d better investigate personally. Platform 9.75 is the next convenient opportunity.

  Yes, that’s a lot of detail, but I think the story bears it out.

• clgroft 30 Mar 2012 3:31 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: loserthree’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  Interesting idea.

  My pet theory for some time has been that Narcissa was a Horcrux, and that Dumbledore was destroying said Horcrux by the only means he could—Fiendfyre. Are there any obvious gaps?

  (EDIT: pedantarrific below points one out.)

• clgroft 24 Mar 2012 14:45 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: DanArmak’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 11

  Unless he’s a perfect Occlumens by now.

• clgroft 28 Apr 2011 11:49 UTC

  1 point

  on: DC Meetup: Sun­day May 1st, 1 PM

  I’ll be there.