All of BabyBoo's Comments + Replies

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 27, chapter 98

... and I know I really shouldn't, but I just couldn't resist.

image, SFW, foolishness

Hope that helps with the mental association problem.

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 27, chapter 98

I thought it probably wouldn't be necessary, but I wasn't certain, and I figured it would be the better part of valor. Basically, I'm not sure how to proceed under the declaration that the identity of an extremely central character is supposed to be a spoiler now; it seems like even using the name Dhveeryzbeg unscrambled would break the rule.

I didn't make the Zoidberg connection until you pointed it out, but I did think that "D-Zbeg" was an immensely more awesome nickname than the term it was rot13'd from.

And now I can't see "Dhveeryzbeg&qu... (read more)

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 27, chapter 98

Just occurred to me that if D-Zbeg vf chggvat na njshy ybg bs rssbeg, naq nccnerag npghny pbaprea, vagb funcvat Uneel'f zvaqfrg gbjneq gur 'Qnex Fvqr', vs uvf cyna vf gb whfg gnxr cbffrffvba bs gur xvq yngre. Gung frrzf gb zr gb vzcyl svir cbffvovyvgvrf, va nfpraqvat beqre bs yvxryvubbq:

  1. D. pnerf jurgure Uneel'f orunivbe nccrnef cuvybfbcuvpnyyl pbafvfgrag;

  2. Fbzr fbeg bs 'flzcngul' orgjrra zvaqf vf arprffnel gb rssrpg cbffrffvba, be creuncf gb 'njnxra' gur fbhy-sentzrag vafvqr Uneel;

  3. D.vf irel qrqvpngrq gb uvf cuvybfbcul naq ungrf gb unir vg synhagrq ol f

... (read more)
1Velorien8yI don't think you need to rot13 this, simply because the various notions in your post have been openly discussed in this and past threads quite a lot. Also because when I see "D-Zbeg", I instantly parse it as "Dr Zoidberg", so now thanks to you I have an uneraseable mental association between Quirrell and said character.
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 27, chapter 98

I think this or something very close to it is strongly likely to be correct; so much so that at this point, I'm very close to shifting the question to the level of whether, univat tebbzrq Uneel nf n fgebat prageny yrnqre sbe zntvpny Oevgnva, uvf vagragvba vf gb npgviryl pynvz cbffrffvba bs Uneel, be jurgure ur jvyy or fngvfsvrq nf gur cbjre oruvaq Ehyre! Uneel'f guebar juvyr ur crefbanyyl tbrf nobhg chefhvat vzzbegnyvgl.

What Bayesianism taught me

The fact that you haven't seen a tiger in your trashcan is, however, evidence that there is no tiger in your trashcan.

Edit: Which I think is more or less harmonious with your original post. It appears to me, however, that at some step in the discussion, there was a leap of levels from "absence of evidence for goblins in the trashcan is evidence of absence of goblins from the trashcan" to "absence of evidence for goblins in the trashcan is evidence for the complete nonexistence of goblins".

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 27, chapter 98

Hey folks!

I just got twigged back to MoR after having wandered away for a long while -- I think the chapter I had left off with before was 'Interview with the Confessor' -- so I spent most of last week re-reading the story and then working my way through the discussion threads here (most of them, anyway -- it was around the Chap. 84 discussions when the pressure of "arrrgh I just want to go back and tell all these people in the past that Hermione's trial ain't nothing on what's coming!"). Along the way I made some notes and I'd like to dump them... (read more)