Joshua Hobbes
I think Harry’s Memories of Godric’s Hollow are supposed to tell us that Quirrell knew better then to allow the sacrifice to take place, not that it just doesn’t exist. I think we’d probably know if Eliezer had completely removed it, just as he explained his nerfing of Unbreakable vows.
Even though Harry doesn’t have magical-love-protection, I think we should take note of the fact that it’s probably still in play and fairly broken.
If Quirrell could get Bellatrix to take a deadly spell from for him, he’d have Love’s permanent protection against Dumbledore(if that were the caster). And, with the right amount of cleverness, he could probably arrange for her death to protect all death-eaters in the same way Harry provided protection to all of Hogwarts.
Frankly I wouldn’t put it past Dumbledore to arrange for something similiar, for the greater good.
I believe I do.
What reason do you have to believe we’re more inclined to weirdness?
I realize that even a small percentage of English-speakers is still a huge number of people, but I don’t think it’s more than half of all the potential rationalists in the world.
A few questions on International Rationality
I think the subredddit is already doing so.
Isn’t Less Wrong supposed to be partially about counteracting those? The topic must have come up at some point in the sequences.
What about vitamins/medication? Isn’t Ray Kurzweil on like fifty different pills? Why isn’t everyone?
What practical things should everyone be doing to extend their lifetimes?
I don’t think anyone failed to see the signs that Quirrel is Voldemort in HPMOR. There are just those of us who believed it to be a Red Herring, because “that’s how stories are supposed to work.” If a potential solution to a mystery seems very obviously true in the first quarter of the story, then in most stories it’s probably not the true solution. . Of course, at this point there’s just no denying it.
I think it has to be cold-blooded murder, not a utilitarian sacrifice.
So, Eliezer isn’t human? Or am I missing something?
I wasn’t referring to the actual vote, but rather to the reaction to Harry’s speech.
Some of the members of the Wizengamot were looking abashed at the Boy-Who-Lived’s admonition, and a few others were nodding violently to the old wizard’s words. But they were too few. Harry could see it. They were too few.
And that’s just those who agree that Children shouldn’t be exposed to dementors, and it seems to be like it’s <20%. It’s probably only around .1% of the population who don’t want anyone of any age given to the Dead Things.
Try not to take this as me being a big snobby snob, but did you actually read them?
I don’t think that would actually make sand, it must be the game-discs.
Never mind, the “far too few” comment Harry makes during the trial means you’re likely correct.
More like 60%, I think.
This chapter reminded me very much of Dusk Specks vs Torture, and if I wasn’t before I’m now very confident that Harry is soon going to get very utilitarian on us.
I think it was fairly obvious that he was manipulating Lily into not choosing to sacrifice herself for Harry. She was initially going to sacrifice herself “for him” and with a few choice words Quirrell got her to attack him.
There are many ways Eliezer could have had Harry not be eligible for magic protection, E.g. just have Lily try to kill Voldemort straight away. Instead he made it look exactly as it would if Quirell wasn’t an idiot who didn’t know anything about love magic and was trying to prevent a love-shield.
It’s possible he was just screwing with her, but It seems too coincidental that for him to screw with her in exactly that way.