Stupidity I would get, let alone well-reasoned disagreement. But bad faith confuses me. However selfish, don’t these people want to live too? I really don’t understand, Professor Quirrel.
MarkusRamikin
Karma: 2,658
The “they are playing a game” thing—some examples, please?
Was cold war NATO willing to retaliate “in full force” against an attack on a non-member?
If Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in a limited theater, It seems to me that, given the West’s reticence, it may seem reasonable to expect from it a similarly limited, local retaliation.
Even if it’s not a certainty, Putin may be weighing such risks against the risk of what will happen to him if he is ousted from power (this idea speaks to me because it’s simple, mundane fear, it does not require Putin being about to keel over and looking for a dramatic end). Die the death of a deposed tsar = die in nuclear war, you’re dead either way. Maybe the latter is even better, as it’ll be more impersonal. As long as you’re selfish and amoral (which Putin obviously is), the fact that this is “bad for Russia” (let alone the world) won’t stop him.
Kamil Kazani proposed that Putin may be planning to use nukes as a face-saving gesture (in the eyes of Russian public opinion, not yours, you don’t matter to him no matter how absurd you think he’s being), since it’s not humiliating to lose to a retaliatory strike from powerful America, but losing to “inferior” Ukraine certainly is.
Thoughts on this?
What if there was an asteroid rushing toward Earth, and box A contained an asteroid deflector that worked 10% of the time, and box B might contain an asteroid deflector that worked 100% of the time?
I’d change that to 95%, because if B contains a 100% deflector, A adds nothing and there’s no dilemma.
Finally got around to it, and it’s great. The ending was exactly what it should be.
Is this against spaced repetition as such, or against flash cards?
For me the value of Anki (or my own custom program that I wrote a while back) is as a review-scheduler, not as a quizzer.
Yep, me too.
I guess that when I thought “religion”, I thought “system of worship”, not “system of belief”. To me the a religion would be “true” if it accurately responded to a demand for worship or obedience or such. If the creators of the Universe have no preferences over our actions, then at most you could have a, well, description of them, but not much of a religion thus defined. Discovering such beings would not make me a religious person.
Of course now that I thought of it explicitely, I realize this is a rather narrow definition.
Wait, why? If God existed, I’d expect the true religion to be among actually existing ones.
Pretty sure you’re getting downvoted for some combination of the following: unclear, incoherent, unspecific, and impolite. Compared to your growing wordcount in this conversation so far, you have shown little evidence of having something to say.
For reasons, I suggest that Bayesian Judo doesn’t make EY look good to people who aren’t already cheering for his team, and maybe it wasn’t wise to include it.
More generally, the book feels a bit… neutered. Things like, for example, changing “if you go ahead and mess around with Wulky’s teenage daughter” to “if you go ahead and insult Wulky”. The first is concrete, evocative, and therefore strong, while the latter is fuzzy and weak. Though my impression may be skewed just because I remember the original examples so well.
stop watching TV
One of my past life decisions I consistently feel very happy about.
I’m guessing something vaguely along the lines of the “do not mess with time” warning. Except I can’t imagine it specifically, how that might possibly go in the case of someone who’s doing what Minerva says not to do.
If Quirrel killed Hermione to “improve [Harry’s] position relative to Lucius”, what was the point of trying to persuade her to leave Britain for France, in chapter 84?
To be sure: Fiendfyre, the black-red phoenix, and the “spell of cursed fire I shall not name” are all the same thing? I don’t see Quirrel sacrificing a drop of blood in chapter 107...
Probably nothing
So what do you think McGonagall meant by disconcerting?
“Although wizards are advised to avoid being seen by their past selves. If you’re attending two classes at the same time and you need to cross paths with yourself, for example, the first version of you should step aside and close his eyes at a known time—you have a watch already, good—so that the future you can pass. It’s all there in the pamphlet.”
“Ahahahaa. And what happens when someone ignores that advice?”
Professor McGonagall pursed her lips. “I understand that it can be quite disconcerting.”
So what does happen when someone ignores that advice, on the assumption that history with time-travel is self-consistent in the way EY describes?
Does this count?
(cough, don’t answer that, cough)
Finally got around to this story. Good read, not quite HPMoR, but good read. The PDF is out of date.
After the groping and kneeing incident I understand even less what sense I’m supposed to make of the, ahem, changes to consent—doesn’t look to me like practical attitudes are meaningfully different from what we might see happen in our civilisation. It just seems random “btw the future legalized rape, are you culture-shocked yet?”—unlike baby-eating, whose origin and continued acceptability in their own society are at least explained.
But then again these are people who rely on reddit and list Hamlet and Fate as high literary achievements, so this future is ass anyway.