Does anyone know how to programmatically generate large video files (presumably made of noise) for testing purposes?
thomblake
Karma: 11,827
You’re surely mistaken. The bible translators often brought in popular sayings and turns of phrase that seemed to fit. If there was a wizard motto with some currency that sounded like an appropriate translation when KJV was written, then I could totally see it being used in the bible, assuming there was any cross-pollination between wizards and christians at the time.
I don’t see why the christians using a wizard motto would be particularly blasphemous, let alone maximally so.
Alternately: The wizards already mined all the real gold too.
It’s like bitcoin mining—whoever steals Muggle gold first gets to keep it. Of course that’s the Americans.
Hypothesis: The muggles don’t possess much gold. Most of the huge stacks of gold in places like Fort Knox are clever magical replicas, and have been for a very long time. Any wizard can easily see through the ruse, but the muggles are clueless.
How do we have gold that we use as a conductor? Perhaps when a muggle handles fake gold, it gets magically swapped with real gold from a small supply elsewhere. Or else, maybe fake magic gold is a really good conductor.
The problem was Moody not having read the paper when Harry brought it into the meeting.
Theoretically, indemnity implies compensation which makes the person indemnified as well-off as they would have been before the harm occurred. At the least, this change could have later been construed as a debt owed to Malfoy from Potter.
In logic, most examples are from politics because the most salient examples of logical fallacies are from politics. So that’s probably why the Nixon example was about politics, even though it wasn’t necessary.
No, the completely random baseline generated funny jokes 3.7% of the time.
Right, I stand corrected.
think the most likely option is that the Potter motto was first taken from the Bible in Latin, and at some point after the completion of the King James Bible (in the 1600s) the motto was updated to English.
The motto is in Old English in the story, presumably dating from the time of the Peverells. It may have been taken from the bible verse, but then your own argument raises the question, why didn’t they write their motto in Latin?
according to a quick Wikipedia search, translated into Old English by the Venerable Bede in the 7th century.
You may be thinking of the Gospel of John, which Bede translated shortly before his death. As far as I can tell, there was never an Old English translation of 1 Corinthians, and if there was it was not well-known.
Nice connection
Given the timing, it seems more likely in-universe that the particular English translation of that bible passage was lifted from the wizard motto.
The last category you mention is basically “eggs used as an emulsifier”—so other emulsifiers should also work.
But surely going to a rationality workshop is the best way to learn to evaluate whether to go to a rationality workshop. And whether it succeeds or not, you can be convinced it was a good idea!
The modifier “comparative” is used to highlight things that are, in isolation, disadvantages,
That’s just false. If A can make wool for $2 and coffee for $3, and B can make wool for $6 and coffee for $5, then B has a comparative advantage in coffee (which is in isolation a disadvantage) and A has a comparative advantage in wool (which in isolation is an advantage). Being a disadvantage just isn’t necessary for a comparative advantage.
Surely advantages can also be comparative advantages. If you’re trading beauty for attention, then presumably you have a comparative advantage in beauty.
Well, imagine a planning algorithm that has no memory—then a heuristic like that (maybe with some amount of randomness to avoid cycles and such) might be your best bet.
Indeed, understanding the particular error in reasoning that the person is making is not merely sufficient but necessary for fully understanding a mistaken position. However, if your entire understanding is “because bias somehow” then you don’t actually understand.
And you should be careful about accepting the uncharitable explanation preemptively, as it’s rather tempting to explain away other people’s beliefs and arguments that way.