Fantasy / Double Shyamalan
Tenek
Karma: 145
So you’re replacing ‘lose a portion of magic’ with ‘risk being sent to Azkaban’? It changes the cost of binding but it certainly doesn’t remove it.
OK. I’m thinking of this in terms of Harry being able to see Bellatrix because it’s his cloak. Harry should then be able to see the other Harrys because they’re also wearing his cloak, unless the Cloak distinguishes between “master” and “time-travelled master”, or the “loan” part is significant enough that Harry wouldn’t be able to see someone under the cloak if they just pick it up without him expressly loaning it to them. If that counts as “stealing” and transfers ownership then you could “loan” the Cloak to everyone and they’d never be able to take it from you.
There’s something unsettling about a cloak that hides you from everyone, except its Master, unless the Master is also you.
Makes sense. Six possible one-directional (A loves B, B loves A, etc) relationships that can be either present or not, so 2^6 = 64. Each person has 3 graphs where they’re disconnected but the others are not (A loves B, B loves A, A and B love each other), and one where there are no connections at all. 64 − 3*3 − 1 = 54.
On further consideration of the Moody fight—as soon as Harry walked into the office, shouldn’t he have seen all his invisible copies as well? Ch. 56 -
Bellatrix was still transparent within the Cloak, but to Harry she was no longer hidden, he knew that she was there, as obvious to him as a Thestral. For Harry had only loaned his Cloak, not given it; and he had comprehended and mastered the Deathly Hallow that had been passed down through the Potter line.
He gets the mechanism wrong though. In a real fight, Moody kills him or at the very least takes his toys away if he’s needed alive. There wouldn’t be any time-turned copies of him in the first place.
Just because he has no reason to tell Snape doesn’t mean he has any particular reason to fear the knowledge getting out. He’s already earned his spot on the Supremely Dangerous Wizards list.
Kinda makes me wonder why he didn’t conceal the fact that he has a magical eye at all, though.
It should already be pretty high though—Harry even points it out at the time (Rule 1 of Unforgivable Curse Safety) and Quirrell equivocates it away by mixing up etiquette rules with safety rules. That might just as easily have ended with “I just shot Bahry in the face” considering how fast the spell must be going—probably <100 ms to recognize he can’t dodge in time, and push him away.
I don’t. GL’s canon strategy provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for all his supposed feats, and I didn’t see anything in 86 to suggest this is going to be a major divergence. I expect it’ll go something like the other CoS reference—at some future point we’ll get a “gee, looks like he’s just a fraud, moving on” with a possible joke about him teaching Defense.
You might want to check out TVTropes.
Maybe Prometheus could predict your decision by running a simulation of you and putting “you” in that situation.
There’s a difference between learning a skill and learning a skill while remaining human. You need to decide which you want.
Learning how to transplant a kidney is much easier when you have a few dozen people to experiment on. (I think that was the idea, anyways...)
Is there any dialect that is readily understandable to everyone who speaks English?
I’m not using it as an example of why they’re good. I’m offering it as an example because it’s relevant to the topic.
Adding a cost to circumvent the law makes you less likely to do so, though. If you keep hiring people who are decidedly suboptimal because you have to use a lousy approximation of whatever characteristic you want, you might give up on it.
I get that you would rather, given that you’re going to be rejected for your age/skin color/gender/etc, be told why. But if you want to reduce the use of those criteria, then banning it will stop the people who care a small amount (i.e not enough to bother getting around it.)
“I have no idea what criteria were used when I’m rejected for a job, and I’m not even seeing the jobs that never get posted because it’s easier to hire someone you know than go through the formal process and jump through all its hoops.” Maybe.
I don’t think your views don’t count—I was hoping that I’d gone to sufficient lengths to point out that while it might have just been bitterness, there was a substantial chance it wasn’t. Maybe I underestimated the LW rationalist:racist ratio… actually, probably by a huge margin. %#$@.
So what would happen if you traded the kafkaesque life for the officially-banned screening methods? Would you rather have twice the number of job opportunities and lose 3⁄4 of them right away because you’re ? Or would you rather that other people get rejected for them, if you don’t personally have many of the ‘undesirable’ attributes?
Finally, let’s go to story mode. A friend of mine applied for a job. They weren’t allowed to ask her about her religion. But she has a name commonly found among members of a particular one. She got the job, and became the only employee (out of a couple dozen) not sharing the faith of the rest of them. So I guess they took a guess at her religion based on her name, and chose using that metric. I have no idea whether this is a success or failure of antidiscrimination laws. Without them, she’d have had no chance. With them, they tried anyways. But at least it was possible, even if she didn’t fit in… and quit a few years later, when her husband got cancer and they blamed it on her not praying.
I’ve been rereading this comment for the past 10 minutes and I have no idea whether this is an (attempted) arms’-length assessment of discrimination law (I say attempted because of the “matters close to me” acknowledgement) or the bitter result of the author being turned down for a job. At first glance it looks like the latter, but this is exactly the sort of situation I would expect to see someone to make a completely rational analysis and not pay any attention to how it’s going to come across to someone who doesn’t know you’re not just another bigot. (I call it Larry Summers Syndrome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers#Differences_between_the_sexes )
It’s one thing to talk about “risk profiles” or “incentives” in general terms, but when you actually want to implement something, it becomes a particular incentive, and there is no a priori reason to assume the cost will outweigh the benefit. When you concentrate on the existence of a cost (or benefit) and ignore the magnitude, you start making statements like “[the Bush tax cuts] increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy”. Similarly, if you try to transfer utility from group A to group B, group A is going to be upset and try to minimize their loss—that doesn’t mean that group A is going to completely negate it, or that group B is going to be worse off.
Well, Jack doesn’t want any thinking at all, so I’m not sure if that’s better or worse than fuzziness.
I would imagine not (99%) , although it doesn’t appear to be in common usage.
So, random possible goals… make invincible, intelligent horcrux. Provoke Harry to attempted murder.
I am somewhat suspicious of announcing one’s own vulnerability as opposed to just killing her in the half-second it takes for AK.