Even so, I doubt Quirrel would leave clues as to him killing anyone (due to him knowing Harry doesn’t like killing and me believing b))
SkyDK
I doubt he is a perfect utilitarian.
Thank you; I even managed to figure that out myself (with the help of our ever vigilant and watchful google); as seen in my response to Desrtopa (24 seconds before you clicked the comment button apparently).
Makes sense. I was confused so I looked it up: “And the third wizard, the binder, permanently sacrifices a small portion of their own magic, to sustain the Vow forever.” I guess the self-improvement part is out of the question then...
Still; it’d be a pretty hardcore thing to do for an ambitious dying grandfather. Make his grandson, age 3, swear the vow (something along the lines: “I will never spend an awake moment on anything except improving my abilities or the situation of my family”—it could be phrased better) and then die happily.
Not to mention perfect self-motivation.. Actually I still don’t understand why it is not used that way. Unbreakable Vows only require energy until said vow is fulfilled right?
Seems to be a lot more effective than A. Robbins...
Our time zones are different (hence you might have written me in the middle of my writing), but I think I reached my goal: thank you for your help. I’m still struggling a little bit with the interface.
Yes, of course. First of all, I just updated it to 0.15-0.20. This might actually be a bit high, but I’ve set it higher than what I feel is right due to my bias (consisting of Eliezer finding a more interesting way of writing the story).
It is “so low” due to the following:
a) I believe that Quirrel is not seeking a physical confrontation with Harry (earlier we saw him toss Harry a knut (that could have been a portkey to a volcano))
a.1.) Harry wouldn’t win such a confrontation (a sneak attack would of course be much more likely to get the job done)
a.2.) If there is a confrontation and if that confrontation ends with the death of Quirrel, I expect the wands or Lily’s ritual to be the deciding factor, not any action of Harry’s.
b) I consider it most probable that Quirrel tries to turn Harry to his ways (0.6 < p < 0.5)
b.1) Harry might try to counter-turn Quirrel. I do doubt though that this will end with one of them dying. Killing one another seems so irrational...
c) if Harry decides Quirrel must die, he’d do better using henchmen
[I’m now officially not a fan of the editing options here]
Prediction time!
Due to Harry’s new vow he’ll feel forced to kill Quirrel: 0.2 > p > 0.15 [UPDATED from 0.1 > p > 0.05]
Due to Harry’s new vow he’ll feel forced to kill Dumbledore: 0.12 > p > 0.08
Due to Harry’s new vow he’ll end up killing the wrong person (bad judgement call on Harry’s behalf): 0.15 > p > 0.1
Due to Harry’s new vow he’ll end up killing the wrong person (bad execution on Harry’s behalf): 0.1 > p > 0.05
Due to Harry’s new vow he’ll not kill the right bad guy at the right time hence become indirectly responsible for the deaths of innocents: 0.3 > p > 0.2
Please add and/or comment on predictions.
Or Justine… But perhaps that was just the wrong book to steal from my dad’s library. Or right. Updated evidence from encounters later in my life would suggest the latter, public opinion the former.
No. It’s just a clock. But it is there, so Dumbledore knows at which point in time he should jump back to (given the option of course) {all this is an interpretation of loserthree’s post}
I had planned to do as little as humanly possible at exactly that interval of time. Now, I guess I have to postpone it… Procrastination is a b**
Seems an awful lot of work to go through rather than just siccing an expert killer on the baby. No, I find it highly unlikely that killing Harry is the main goal. On the other hand Dumbledore’s version of good seems to be very incompatible with Harry’s...
I’d throw in son of Mr. Fantastic for good measure. (nobody says Lilly was faithful)
It’d be illegal in most countries, but getting very small mics is not that hard. I’ve used it myself for testing if I had a better idea generation state of mind while running/doing sports than when penning.
I suggest you reroll. I heal paper cuts in a couple of hours.
… I need a slur to describe how dumb I feel now...
Slurs? (oh you mean “idiots”? I’d refrain from that in the future; I didn’t mean to be offensive EDIT: later clarified to referring to retarded which I’ll also refrain from using in the future… me not being a native speaker will end up being expensive karma-wise).
Transfiguring a whole mountain would: a) take more magical energy than most wizards could muster. b) not extract any resources.
Partial transfiguring has the distinct advantage of not having to transfigure entire objects (such as mountains). Perhaps a spell could also help with actually finding valuable resources.
Besides that partial transfiguration is an excellent break in/out spell (as seen earlier in TSPE) and I do not recall saying that Harry had to stay legal. He’s shown already his ability to disregard the law (again TSPE) if he thinks it’s worth it.
I disagree. Harry can do partial transfiguration. If he cannot figure out ways to earn insane amounts of cash just through that then he is too retarded to be called rational (remember that he can actually extract resources in ways the wizarding world cannot—as I write in another place: mining ++).
Plus you underestimate the degree of separation between the two worlds plus the extreme lack of respect the wizarding world holds for muggles.
And about the 100.000 galleons: well if they’re bright, ambitious and socially aware plus they’re using questionable sources they SHOULD act surprised. Not acting surprised would give away their game to the idiots remaining.
I will be severely disappointed if EY will waste time on the money issue. It doesn’t deserve much more than a paragraph. Perhaps two just to let us know that Harry won’t abuse it, because he doesn’t want to call too much attention to himself.
Eh no… Harry has Mining++ also known as partial transfiguration. Now EY didn’t believe that to be enough so he also equipped Harry with an invisibility cloak a bag AND a suitcase of holding.
If Harry is really pressed for cash and some rules against arbitrage, stock market manipulation, insurance fraud (which he should be able to do to an amount that’s not even funny to think about) exist, he still has one glaringly easy way of earning shit tons. He should be able to, as soon as he is allowed to use magic outside school (which IIRC is at 17 which is before his last year at Hogwarts’ starts; the 31st of July to be exact) of doing the following:
a) Robin Hood his way through pretty much anything (Invis+teleport is an old classic) b) mine diamonds/gold/other valuable resources by using partial transfiguration, invisibility and if need be Apparation.Some mines in Somalia are just waiting for a wizard to abuse them… c) and of course just straight up gambling.
Sincerely: this stuff doesn’t even require a lot of thinking. He could also just do some honest transport business of high quality wares… Teleportation is a whole lot faster than anything else I can think of.
This is wrong. At least in my case. I do not know who you are and I do not care. I upvote theories I find to well-thought out and/or highly probable. Also I upvote alternative more effective solutions to Harry’s problems.
Most of your posts suffer, as far as I can see, from the illusion of transparency. This goes for both the HPMOR-related and community-related comments. I honestly cannot follow your chain of thought nor your the theories you use to infer your deductions. I feel like downvoting some of your posts, not because of the unclear HPMOR-content, but due to the lack of insight in social interactions. I haven’t, ’cause I don’t think it’ll help your understanding (but rather provide false evidence for your flawed theory).
Neither your stance against Harry’s dark side being Voldemort NOR your stance for Harry’s dark side being Voldemort are very well documented or contains any useful reasoning. Seemingly, you just quote a paragraph and magically arrive at your conclusion. Plus in the parent comment to this one, you don’t even reference your original stance, hence it’s extremely hard to know that you’ve just updated your point of view on a specific subject. All in all, you frankly come across as rather paranoid. I’ve just checked and I’ve both up- and downvoted some of your comments. Downvotes have been due to “clearly bla bla”-reasoning and upvotes have been for interesting points of view and/or use of evidence I hadn’t noticed.
More essentially: why do you honestly care about these useless karma-points? I don’t think Buddha will change them for a treat. Personally I don’t click on profiles to check their karma. I hope most others don’t either.