Why are they having a normal conversation and occasionally switching to Parseltongue to confirm the more important bits? Why not conduct the entire conversation in Parseltongue? Seems like the best way to ensure full cooperation leading to superior outcomes for both parties. Harry has already sneaked one lie past Quirrell, and he has no idea how much of what Quirrell said is true outside of the parts he deliberately chose to speak in Parseltongue.
jaime2000
Karma: 1,125
Quirrell’s internal monologue makes that unlikely.
Also, in a 2002 interview, Eliezer said that “a few years back” before the interview his actual guess at when the singularity would occur was between 2008 and 2015, but he would say that it would occur between 2005 and 2020 in order to give a conservative estimate.
Thank you! This is great.
Since Eliezer has forsaken us in favor of posting on Facebook, can somebody with an account please link to his posts? His page cannot be read by someone who is not logged in, but individual posts can be read if the url is provided. As someone who abandoned his Facebook account years ago, I find this frustrarting.
One important difference is that video games are optimized to be fun while musical instruments aren’t. Therefore, playing an instrument can signal discipline in a way that playing a game can’t.
The link is broken. Could you please provide a new one?
I’m succumbing to confirmation bias and this isn’t a real pattern
No, this is definitely a real pattern. YouTube switched from a 5-star rating system to a like/dislike system when they noticed, and videogames are notorious for rank inflation.
Four to six classes a year, out of about twelve in total? That doesn’t sound too bad to me. I took about that many non-major classes when I was in school, although they didn’t build on each other like the curriculum I proposed.
I studied at two state universities. At both of them, classes were measured in “credit hours” corresponding to an hour of lecture per week. A regular class was three credit hours and semester loads at both universities were capped at eighteen credits, corresponding to six regular classes per semester and twelve regular classes per year (excluding summers). Few students took this maximal load, however. The minimum semester load for full-time students was twelve credit hours and sample degree plans tended to assume semester loads of fifteen credit hours, both of which were far more typical.
And while you might argue that home-based work is preferable to market work due to having a “kinder, more caring master”, the swift demise of cottage industry once early factories became feasible suggests that folks care more about how productive they are than whether they can work from home.
I think that was just Moloch.
Just to be clear, when you say that it’s much harder to get such a job, and that this is due in part to increased competition from immigration and women, what you mean to say is that it’s much harder for non-women and non-immigrants to get such a job, because it’s correspondingly easier for immigrants and women to get them. Yes?
Yes. I am aware of the lump of labor fallacy, and that in theory an increasing number of workers might have economic effects creating more jobs even as said workers take existing ones, ending up with a similar or perhaps even a better job market than existed before the new workers came into the picture. But in practice it seems like workers have increased faster than jobs, and the oversupply of labor has led lower wages, lower non-monetary compensation, and/or lack of jobs.
You seem to additionally be implying that how hard it is for women and immigrants to get jobs isn’t a relevant factor in determining the difficulty in achieving a decent life. Yes?
Let’s start with women. If you think of the family as the basic block of society instead of the atomized individual, then yes. Under the old model, it was understood that women would marry early (men slightly less early), and that their husbands would be financially responsible for the resulting household and children. If there is a strong job market for men under this model, then most women do not need to work; only the very poor, the widows, the spinsters, and other extreme cases. Instead of slaving away 40 hours per week at work like their husbands did, wives were free to slave away cooking and cleaning and raising the children, which is still slavery, but is a much kinder form of slavery, with a more caring master. Under the new model and circumstances, both men and women perform the wage kind of slavery, and either they perform the household kind of slavery on top of that, or they outsource it, with negative consequences all around.
Immigrants are a different matter. Utilitarians can make a good case that immigration increased total utility, improving the immigrants’ quality of life more than it lowered existing citizens’. If you’re one of those guys who thinks we should all be sending all of our spare income to Africa, or whatever percentage of our income is realistically psychologically sustainable, I guess this is pretty great, and it’s also great if you are one of the immigrants waiting to get in, but it’s not so great for existing citizens whose quality of life is being brought to equilibrium with the rest of the world’s, or for the immigrants already here.
I do read MMM, and ERE, and other frugality blogsphere titles. I disagree with your characterization that the difficulty in achieving a decent life today merely reflects an inflation of what is considered decent. First, because it’s much harder to get the same kind of job in 2010s that would have been available in the 1950s; a solid, respectable job you easily can get out of high school is not the same as a solid, respectable job you might not even get after wasting a minimum of four years and going thousands or tens of thousands of dollars into debt. That this latter condition holds in modern times can be attributed to academic inflation and increased job competition from immigration and from women entering the workforce, which are all progressive policies. Second, because zero-sum competition for safe housing away from city centers has increased their prices to reflect what a two-income household can barely cover (and, indeed, the increased prices is part of what keeps them safe), not to mention the horrors of commuting (distance from city centers being the other thing that keeps them safe).
Eh? If I was renting, I think that would have an impact on my life—so maybe this is yet another metaphor I never heard of.
It’s from _The Sequences_, which you should read. Specifically, it’s from the post “Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences)”.
What? It’s a perfectly valid response to your claim that neoreaction is filled with moral anti-realists who are obsessed with arbitrary value preservation. Also, Roissy is Heartiste.
Any difference between men and women on average is just that: on average. Think almost-but-not-quite-completely overlapping Gaussian curves.
The second sentence does not follow from the first. It is also possible for the Gaussian curves to be so far apart that there is almost no overlap, and that situation is still perfectly describable by saying that there is a difference between both populations on average but reflects a much stronger difference in prior probability. As a matter of empirical fact, only 20% of Alcor’s members were female as of 1999, and the number of women opposed to their husband’s cryonics arrangements is well-known as the hostile wife phenomenon. Combine with Dr. Miller’s experience and we have a strong outside view case that ilzolende’s mother will probably react worse than her father to cryonics.
The reactosphere theorizes that feminism is behind the drop in fertility, which has now collapsed to sub-replacement rates.
Quality of life. The idea is that without the ravages of modernity, technological advancement would have created an even higher quality of life.
By way of example, consider the 1950s. Their technology was obviously inferior to ours. And yet they had intact families (marriage rates were higher, divorce and bastardy rates lower) and well-paying jobs (a husband’s salary alone sufficed to support his entire family, his wife was free to cook and clean and raise the children). Is our quality of life higher than theirs? It’s not obvious to me. Even if it is, why is this trade-off necessary? Why can’t we have the superior scientific technology of the 2010s and the superior social technology of the 1950s?
I just realized why some spells were causing Harry dread, apprehension, and anxiety in chapter 104. It’s not because Professor Sprout is controlled by Professor Quirrell (which she is), since other spells of hers fail to trigger the effect and yet one of Tonk’s spells does. It’s because Quirell is using metamagic to influence the outcome of the battle! He empower’s Sprout’s brown bolt so that it tears through Professor Snape’s shield, and he quickens her stunner so that Snape can’t dodge. Then he empowers Tonk’s spell to ensure that she will take out Sprout.
In retrospect, this makes perfect sense. There are too many people involved, and combat is inherently chaotic; there is simply no way Quirrell can predict exactly how the fight will go. But he can be there, using gentle nudges to actively steer it towards the small region in outcome-space that ranks high in his utility function, and hope that Harry Potter is too distracted by the battle to notice (which he was; his deduction that Quirrell is behind the plot never once mentions this fact). As a bonus, this explains how Sprout can defeat Snape, when normally we wouldn’t expect her to stand a chance.