All of major's Comments + Replies

There's a theory going around about how it was Amelia Bones who killed Narcissa Malfoy, based on nothing more than the stray thought 'Someone would burn for this.' What she said to Dumbledore during Hermione's trial ('You know the answer you must give, Albus. It will not change for agonizing over it.') seems to be taken as further evidence.


Of course it was Voldemort who did it!

I think what most of you fail to realize is, the whole thing happened after Voldemort heard the prophecy from Snape. Dumbledore predictably ignored the blackmail, and would not h... (read more)

I did mention this, along with some other guesses [].

Hat and Cloak is Salazar's creature. He (it?) was put in the Chamber to be a counter to the second thing Merlin did when he laid the Interdict in force, namely biasing holders of time-displaced information toward simpler (non-catastrophic) loops - my best guess is, by creating random change in subject's mind which randoms into thoughts leading to paradox-free behavior; from this side of the 4th wall it can look like 'being stupid for the sake of plot'. (to clarify: the random thought is an extra degree of freedom by which the situation can be paradox-free ... (read more)

"don't think about it either way" does not necessarily mean indifference, it means reverting to default behaviour.

Humans are (mostly) pro-social animals with empathy and would not crush another human who just happens to be in their way - in that they differ from a falling rock. In fact, that's the point of hate, it overrides the built-in safeguards to allow for harmful action. According to this view, to genuinely not give a damn about someone's life is a step further. Obviously.

The thing about built-in default behaviour given by evolution is that... (read more)

About horcruxes

Magic itself seems predisposed to keeping wizards in existence, what with ghosts and resistance to blunt trauma, and Avada Kedavra requiring they be very sure about the outcome, and all that. A ritual that requires murder seems to be opposing that spirit. Can't magic make up it's mind? Or was it designed by multiple, competing purposes?

It occured to me that horcrux might be more of a late addition to magic; a hack, a twisting of an existing function. If so, the requirement may not be there for the usual reasons (to represent the making of a ... (read more)

I think it works like this: this sort of thing can trigger some people's bullshit detector. They sense that something is off when this 'rationalist fiction' tries to to claim some sort of special status, while still doing the usual writing tricks. Of course they fail to pinpoint the source of the contradiction (most don't habitually look out for the 'Is that your true rejection' thingy - especially if they already have some reason to jump to an EY-bashing conclusion, mostly something status-based; I call that sort of thing 'suspiciously self-serving'). Ins... (read more)

Re: revisions

Harry reached up, wiped a bit of sweat from his forehead, and exhaled. "I'd like this one, please."

Harry's entire body was sheathed in sweat that had soaked clear through his Muggle clothing, though at least it didn't show through the robes. He bent down over the gold-etched ivory toilet, and retched a few times, but thankfully nothing came up.

Hermione shut her eyes and tried to concentrate. She was sweating underneath her robes.

"Forget I said anything," said Draco, sweat suddenly springing out all over his body. He neede

... (read more)
I think EY might just not be familiar with the physiology of children. Didn't the original version of chapter 7 imply that Draco couldn't get an erection? Puberty is nothing resembling a requirement for those. And the alternate version of "boy who lived gets Draco Malfoy Pregnant" had female Draco as 13, when it would have made more sense for Harry to be the older one (boys hit puberty later on average than girls).
Could you explain your last paragraph? Is it referring to any (sincerely or ironically) "amazingly insightful critics" in particular? What motivated cognition do you think might be their problem? (For the avoidance of doubt: I am not asking you to explain the concept of motivated cognition.) The impression I get from that paragraph is that there are some specific people (maybe just one specific person) you have in mind, that you think their thinking is messed up, and that you're indulging in a bit of snarkiness. But I am unable to come up with any coherent idea of what they might have said that would make much sense (ironically or otherwise, snarkily or otherwise) of what you wrote.

Care to elaborate? 'Interesting' is a word with many connotations.

You got downvoted for a request for an elaboration? I just don't know what people are thinking sometimes with their downvotes. I found it interesting because it was out of character for the usual Evil Dark Overlord, who is generally portrayed as wanting violence for the sake of violence and terror, or at least willing to match you death for death. It's almost as if his goal was to push Dumbledore's side into doing/supporting something horrible. Having accomplished that with minimal losses, he stopped. I can see that as making a lot of strategic sense. It would solidify the resolve of his side - and Malfoy in particular - but wouldn't get into an escalation that he was sure to lose, given the numbers on Dumbledore's side. Interesting also that much the same happened to Harry. Malfoy was after revenge against Hermione, not capitulation to blackmail from Harry. But from Harry's perspective with respect to the magical government and Dumbledore, it would have been much the same result if Harry hadn't paid off Malfoy. Instead of Narcissa tortured to death by the forces of "Good", it would have been Hermione.

As we know, Harry's idea of double memory-charm has not been presented to the Wizengamot, which is a good thing; not only is it low status, as Harry realized, it's also unlikely to work, as Snape pointed out. Also, that's not what happened.

Hermione has been told the right lie, to lead her through the right emotions - a growing suspicion towards Draco, mainly - and then she was Obliviated, and told the same lie over again, went through the same emotions again, and again. If the sense of disorientation isn't a problem, she could have been looped through just... (read more)

Your explanation of the Groundhog Day attack is the only one I've seen so far that makes sense.

My guess is, the intermittent one is H&C taking the appearance (and name, on the map) of students who are elsewhere to walk among the children, listening to rumours, maybe even talking to them. I'm going to assume he can disappear as well as change shape when out of sight, otherwise it would be too easy to track him down; plus, that's why it's 'intermittent'.

The last chapter to me indicates strongly that the glitch is Voldemort's spirit. Now you might ask, 'wouldn't George & Fred be scared witless by Voldemort appearing on their map occasionally and maybe even report it?' But Voldemort is a pseudonym and the spirit would show up as 'Tom Riddle', as Dumbledore's PoV indicates (notice Dumbledore has no problem saying 'Voldemort' in other contexts, but when he uses the Map, he asks for 'Tom Riddle'). Canon indicates that Voldemort's origin is a secret: Dumbledore spends years digging out the link and the diary in Chamber of Secrets seems to think it's telling Harry something good when it explains the anagram 'Tom Marvolo Riddle' = 'I am Lord Voldemort' or whatever. So the twins wouldn't make the link. What probably happened is they noticed the glitch - maybe it claimed Riddle was in the same room as them at some point? - and investigated carefully, not finding anyone where the Map said a Riddle was. Perhaps they did some more digging and turned up Riddle's old school history as Head Boy etc. Naturally, they conclude the Map is buggy: 'old students from half a century ago are showing up! Bugs in the Map are not good!'

At this point it's almost funny how everyone seems to think I'm dissing Eliezer. Oh, well. Sarcasm clearly doesn't work in writing.


What makes you think that others think you're dissing Eliezer? I didn't downvote you for dissing Eliezer, I downvoted you for that rude and unproductive usage of sarcasm against fellow readers. I got your sarcasm, I just hated it.

Of course. Otherwise Eliezer would be a Bad Writer. There are circumstances where 'heat conduction' is the correct answer, you know.

Good/Bad writer is too crude a distinction.
Maybe he is a good writer and creating a story with a perfectly rational protagonist is neither optimal story-writing nor Eliezer's expressed intent.
Please note that HP is beyond reason when his girlfriend being such is brought up. He also completely fails to realize his unreasonableness in those instaces. He is ubersmart, but not a perfect rational actor, and of course makes mistakes. That has been established.

Ha! Or maybe Eliezer has been rolling his eyes at us (or, rather, y'all), and gave us a blatant hint with the contrast of competent Quirrell interrogating sneaky Snape and less experienced H&C working on naive Hermione. I think you're just clinging to your one beautiful idea, instead of examining other possibilities - like, say, H&C is taking instructions from Quirrell, maybe?

See? Two can play that game.

Well, it's a historical fact that when I first saw this term-use-implies-identity idea, I rolled my eyes at it. What I think happens here is this:

The first appearance of H&C does indeed seem to imply Quirrell is H&C. He walks off after Zabini, Zabini's lie benefited him, and so forth. And however shakily, the common use of a term could support this as well.

But. Later we find evidence that it is indeed simply a technical term - as quoted above, (but it seems to be ignored, because the first H&C incident already implies a Q=H&C - at least I t... (read more)

there was the 'wards keyed in' statement of both H&C & Quirrell


Salazar Slytherin's ghost [...] is still keyed into the Hogwarts wards so he knows everything that happens, I bet.

So, maybe H&C is Padma!!1!

sigh. Can we please let this idea die already? It's no more than common use of a technical term.

Amelia Bones, Ch55:

And change the harmonics on everything changeable, they may have stolen our keys.

Downvoted for the attitude. People in LessWrong generally understand the difference between "evidence" and "indisputable proof". When you say that "we should let this idea die already", are you actually claiming that the similarity of the H&C and Quirrell statements in regards to Slytherin's monster is exactly zero evidence towards H&C and Quirrel having some connection between them? Are you really saying that the author is exactly as likely to have H&C and Quirrel use the exact same phrase in regards to Slytherin's monster, if they were the same character, and if they were completely unrelated characters? If you're not saying that, then all you're saying is that you feel it should be weighed as less significant evidence than how some people are weighing it -- but a mere disagreement on how it should be weighed doesn't justify your tone or the way you say "please let this idea die already".

No, that was just something he was trying to get out of his system.

You got that right. After this thing becomes relevant in the story, there may be complains, and while I'm sure Eliezer will explain it competently, people are prone to throwing accusations of asspull around. So if there is enough detail in a time-logged, non-edited comment, it can be pointed out later. 'It's not an asspull, look, this idiot even guessed it. You can read about the stuff he used to do it in the Sequences.'

Now that I no longer feel like I'm doing LW a disservice by sitting ... (read more)

Um.. The initials are not clues, NBT is just how I refered to the theory (Next Big Thing). Sorry about any confusion this might have caused.

did you intend to skip actually telling us what NBT is?

Of course. The hard part about noticing your confusion isn't recognizing it, when it is pointed out. It's, you know, the noticing part. I tell you, I get a few points of karma for it, maybe, and everyone looses the opportunity to do it for themselves. Now, that's negative sum!

I think one thing that keeps people from asking questions is the flinching from the uncertainty that may never get resolved. But that's clearly not the case with MoR (unless Eliezer is evil, and his puzzles will never be resolv... (read more)

No, it just looks annoying. If you really wanted to prod thought, you'd offer the proverbial 'hostage to fortune' in the form of a hash precommitment to your NBT theory so you have verifiably expressed a particular theory well in advance of MoR ending and have exposed yourself to public ridicule in the event your theory is laughably wrong or you had none at all; knowing that you now have something at stake, people might take you more seriously.
Nobody's infallible. What kind of rationalist approaches a work with a couple holes in it and leaves under the assumption that the writer is simply so perfect that everything will be addressed and wrapped up neatly by the end? Isn't it far more likely that in writing a fantastic teaching tool/test, Eliezer occasionally leaves a thread or two hanging?
tl;dr = I figured out why Dumbledore set fire to a chicken, but I'm not going to tell you.
Um... You kept talking about how you kept finding confirmation, but... did you intend to skip actually telling us what NBT is? (ie, you said you spoiled it, but I notice no actual description of NBT or which specific bits of evidence you used.)

if souls and their attendant afterlife existed, it'd put quite a dent in the entire motivation for Harry's "conquer death and achieve immortality for everyone" program.

Oh, quite the opposite!

Yeah, I worded that poorly. It wouldn't put a dent in his underlying motivations (he would still love life, and no doubt be relieved at the news that the dead aren't lost forever), but it would make his current ambitions to optimize this world a bit beside the point, if he also needs to concentrate on optimizing the next one. Or did you mean something else?

The mock offer he made to Lily is not funny. It's the kind of kick the dog thing authors write when they want to make you dislike the villain. Eliezer is better than that. What made it laughworthy for Voldemort was the delicious irony of Lily offering her life in exchange of a life that would not have been taken to begin with. From this it was clear he knew the whole prophecy and that Snape heard the whole thing. Took me some time to figure out why it's different from canon, though of course that should have been clear too. Snape is no fool. And the outcom... (read more)

Yes, well... It was only guessable since Ch43. Is that how you saw it?

I think you're underestimating how guessable things can be if one pays attention to clues. I can't remember for sure, but I think the possibility was in my mind since I first read the note about how Harry should have noticed his confusion about the story.

The list of evidence I gave in favour of that position in a Hatrack forum discussion back in November 2010 was simply that
a) We're told that Harry should have noticed something off about the story, but he didn't (simplest thing he should have noticed is: how the hell do people know what Voldemort tried to ... (read more)

So. Ch76, the part about how prophecies work. Has anyone else seen the connection to Amputation of Destiny?

Aside from Harry's parents, there was only one "unrealistic" adult so far (by Ch6), McGonagall, who assumed Harry might have been abused. Her tolerance is reasonable.

It's irrelevant, though. Harry is behaving strangely, and you assume it's bad writing. I guess, since you have read some fanfiction ("OOC is irritating to me"), you aquired a useful heuristic for filtering out bad fanfic; it's just that it is bound to give some false positives.

Eliezer addressed it here

If you saw a character talking like that in a published SF novel, you would know that he was an alien or genetically engineered or that the author meant you to know something was funny about him. In fanfiction they assume that it's either the author's conceit or, more probable yet, you're just a terrible author who can't write realistic eleven-year-olds. I thought it was so blatantly lampshaded that nobody could possibly mistake it for an accident, but no, fanfiction readers just don't think like that - they don't look for clues

... (read more)
The infodumps are not what I'm talking about. I wouldn't believe it's Eliezer's writing if people weren't smugly going on about eigenvectors. My concern is that Harry is a complete asshole. And the unrealistic adults.

Harry was tested (via Veritaserum) after the Daily Prophet incident. The fact that he is being tested in regards to Quirrell's illegal activity is not evidence of it's failure, it only shows that it's impossible enough to make someone suspect Harry Potter was involved.

A flashback where Quirrell explains the failsafe to Harry might have helped, though. For example, he would have foresaw the hide-from-dementors nature of Patronus 2.0 as a clue for Dumbledore (which is probably what prompted him to make this particular failsafe in the first place). How much o... (read more)

The alarming thing about being tested isn't that they tested Harry specifically; it is that they were aware that tests needed to be performed at all. Had the plan gone successfully, nobody would have ever have known that Bellatrix was removed. Remember that the entire advantage of Patronus 2.0 (to Quirrell) was the undetectable nature of it. It allowed a person to commit a perfect crime without the guards or dementors being aware that a crime ever occurred. From the point of view of Harry, sitting with his invisibility cloak in the empty room at 3:00 PM, only a small number of possible futures could exist: No note - Either the plan will go successfully, Harry shall be captured/killed in the attempt, or they abort for some other reason. Do not mess with time note - This also should result in aborting the mission since some terrible paradox occurred and you DO NOT mess with time. Passcode note - Harry will not be apprehended, but the plan will fail in some way and Harry is a suspect. Or Harry will chose to abort the mission and send back a false passcode preserve a stable time-loop. This is the result that actually occurred and is the only one that confirms a definite partial failure. I admit it is possible that, once the message was sent back in time, Harry and Quirrell were committed via fate to perform the prison break. The problem is that both Harry and Quirrell act as if No Note was received. In the TPSE chapters, we do not see characters who are aware that their plan will be detected. They do not seem to act as if their plan is definitely going to partially fail. Neither does Harry take heart in nor mention the fact that he has already survived escaping Azkaban. Contrast with the same situation in cannon!PrisonerofAzkaban where it is a major plot point. Edit: There is the possibility it is related to "Azkaban's future cannot interact with it's past", but then you run into the problem of Harry being able to send the note at all. If they abort or are just mo

I think Ch21 (near the end) played with this idea already. How many potential first week has Eliezer thought through before settling on that one, I wonder.

Also, it's a hint. With the previous generation so weak in Battle Magic (due to Voldemort's curse - and this was discussed before, I think), it was part of Professor Quirrell's plan to train up Harry's schoolmates as well, so he can have a decent army someday.

It's easy to miss it because of the funny. Eliezer does this kind of misdirection all the time.

I'm fairly certain that being cryptic or condescending is not really the preferred tone around here, though cryptic would be understandable if you actually have insider information that you're not free to share.

Good, I'm probably no crazier then them, than. Did they also guess Quirrellmort's endgame plans before the hiatus? (Well, in retrospect, it was guessable way before that.)

If you want to figure out the James' Rock thing yourself, you should probably stop reading now.

I read this in ch58

Luckily - well, not luckily, luck had nothing to do with it - conscientiously, Harry had practiced Transfiguration for an extra hour every day, to the point where he was ahead of even Hermione in that one class; he'd practiced partial Transfiguration to the point where his thoughts had begun taking the true universe for granted, so that it required only slightly more effort to keep its timeless quantum nature in mind, even as he kept a firm m

... (read more)
Plausible, but that can't be the only reason for the rock; too big a deal [] was made of it at the time.
Yes, several people I know in-person had the same take-away from the rock transfiguration exercise when it was first introduced.
If there is a training effect in increasing magical strength, and or improving concentration, keeping the rock transfigured works that way too, without being Transfiguration specific. Quirrel's armies help too - would normal classroom activity exhaust magic that much? Harry could try a controlled experiment over the Easter holiday if he thinks about it. With McGonagall's permission, ask his classmates to keep a loop of cord transfigured into an unobtrusive platinum toe ring (or more than one) over the holiday when they're not otherwise allowed to use magic. Then compare deltas in transfiguration scores on the next test between those who did & didn't attempt it. Is Harry getting letters back from his parents? He doesn't yet seem to be thinking about measuring magical strength, but a tool to compare would permit some kind of scale - if it could use embodied magic in magic items as markers. That could argue for faster access to later year charms. Similarly of pre-electronic tech that may be useful, that his parents may remember. (Slide rules, Curta calcs, Microfiche & hand held readers, ...)

... they make several copies of an inmate’s clothes when they enter, and replace them as the old pair wears out.

With respect, it sounds like you're clinging to your theory. A much simpler explanation is the effect significantly decreasing over distance. Also the effect on living prisoners body is psychological, wasting away, not physical, like corrosion or decomposition.

What would Harry have thought about leaving the flask, then?

Harry? You mean Harry "the Defense Professor of Hogwarts was all like 'Let's get Bellatrix Black out of Azkaban!' and... (read more)

I did say that I thought it was a reach. As for distance, she's at the bottom of Azkaban, directly adjacent to the Dementor nest. There really isn't much distance there at all. Physical barriers, on the other hand, there are. As I mentioned above. Notice the part where I said "this theory is supported by the story and supports your idea"? And the effect on living prisoners was what I was referring to when I mentioned the emotional draining. You're assuming he didn't know about the flask beforehand. I'm assuming that he had to have, to have reacted the way he did (ie, not at all). Just because Harry has made mistakes doesn't mean he's a moron.

Even assuming it's possible to tell the difference between a few years old rotting corpse and a few years old rotting death doll (magic might help there), Dementors don't care about the dead, and a powerful enough wizard can easily sneak into Azkaban to replace a corpse. Finding a fake corpse in Bellatrix's cell would be a mystery, another conspiracy theory, not a sure signature of Voldemort. It might not convince anyone. Why settle for half-solutions?

Yes, I'm assuming that someone actively looking for signs of deception would eventually determine that "Bellatrix" was a deathdoll, especially if the wizard who created the doll intended them to. That seems pretty likely. As for being convincing... well, unknown agents breaking Bellatrix out of jail with the vial isn't a sure sign of Voldemort, either, but it didn't have to be: Dumbledore inferred, entirely sensibly, that the expected disutility of Voldemort's return given the probability of it conditioned on someone breaking Bellatrix out of Azkaban was high enough to be worth sounding the alarm. Perhaps you're right that Quirrell wasn't confident that Dumbledore (or Moody) would perform the same calculation without the vial. But it seems unlikely to me.

It took you long enough, but you are still to be congratulated on having realized it before most.

Unfortunetly, like the rest, you're still stuck thinking it was a mere distraction. Ask yourself, what happened as a result? Who's plan benefited from it? Was it foreseeable?

Harry is still too young, his magic is still weak. He will need some more time before he can be the Hero and Leader Dumbledore and Quirrell wants him to become.

Suppose the rescue plan goes flawlessly. No one would be the wiser, until the time some Bellatrix-sightings or something similar ca... (read more)

That's an interesting idea. However, I think that you may be missing a couple of issues. For one, if the implication that magically created objects are more susceptible to the Dementors’ aura of destruction is sound, then the vial could easily degrade before the clothes, especially if it was designed to disappear quickly (e.g. hyper-thin glass, or made of something even more fragile than glass). You do make a good point about the clothes, but honestly, that makes me question why she still had her original clothes at all. When the Dementor was taken to Hogwarts, it was wearing a cloak that was new that morning, but is tattered by the time the students practiced their Patroni on it. Very close proximity to one Dementor did that in hours, why does she still have her original clothes after a decade of being in rather close proximity to dozens of Dementors? The intensity of the aura could fade quite sharply relative to distance, I suppose, but if it weakened that quickly I don’t think it would be the issue that much of the story makes it seem to be. The only explanation that leaps to mind quickly is that they make several copies of an inmate’s clothes when they enter, and replace them as the old pair wears out. It would keep them from having to bother about making clothes themselves, and be consistent with the story. Though, if the clothes are copied magically, it seems that they’d wear out quickly as well…perhaps they preserve the original and make dozens of copies, but overall it seems like a reach. It might also be that while a Dementor’s emotional drain is more or less unaffected by physical barriers (is this true? I think it is, but I can’t seem to find anything that points in either direction) their destruction aura is not, thus the color was leeched from the clothing but they stayed more or less intact. This seems at least as plausible, and supports your argument about the flask. In an aside, if the cloaks aren’t an integral part of the Dementors, how do they
Seems to me Quirrell gets all the same benefits without the vial. As soon as he stages a Bellatrix-sighting or whatever, Moody will arrange for her body to be carefully examined, and the deception will be uncovered. Cue Dumbledore sounding the alarms, etc.

Ugh, really?

I thought it's obvious it was told to Dumbledore. I also thought it obvious it implies that it was Dumbledore who suggested the new rule. If people can't see that, I shouldn't be surprised most can't see the full extent of Dumbledore's plot.

Had the battle lasted longer, had one army pulled ahead in points, the other two would have switched to point-diminishing. The natural attractor for the situation was a three-way tie. All because whoever made such rule predicted Harry Potter would find the way to exploit it. Zabini's job was fine-tuning. And... (read more)

I agree/changed my mind.


My interpretation (which Eliezer's above comment seems to have confirmed) was, Eliezer deleted Roko's comment for the exact same reason he would have deleted an epileptic-fit-inducing animation. Simply to protect some of the readers, many of whom might not even be aware of their own vulnerability, for this is not exacly a commonly triggered or recognized weakness.

I felt all the rest with 'existential risk' and 'supressed ideas' was just added by people in the absence of real information. Like, someone saw 'existential risk' near (in?) Roko's commen... (read more)

-5Eliezer Yudkowsky12y

My apologies.

I was going to comment on how Ch61 made me realize I lack the ability to predict what others find obvious (specifically why Dumbledore and Snape doesn't see the purpose of the left-behind vial, and, more importantly, do reviewers fail to mention it because it's obvious or because nobody sees the discrepancy), but then I didn't, because I realized probably no one cares.

Ch 62. Holy crap! Dumbledore killed Narcissa in response to the kidnapping and murder of Aberforth?! That doesn't sound right. For one thing, how can he still own the Bird of Good, then?

"Bird of Good", that's great. I can't help but think that whenever I read about Fawkes, now.
Well, he didn't free the prisoners of Azkaban, so how can he still own the Bird of Good? Clearly there's room for some disagreement between Dumbledore and the Bird without breaking up their relationship.
"Not giving into blackmail" sounds like letting Aberforth (etc?) be killed by the Deatheaters rather than giving into demands, but I dunno if it was implied that Narcissa was direct revenge for that, or if that was a separate incident.
Sorry, where's this?

Why would Bellatrix hide the wand next to Pappa Riddle's grave? Kinda arbitrary, isn't it? Unless that was the designated meeting place where she was supposed to wait. As Yvain pointed out, it's possible she aquired the wand from Voldemort's corpse, and went looking for the shade afterwards.

There are other possible meeting places beside the graveyard, the only reason I can see for going there is for the bones. It means a plan for the revival ritual was in the making, still missing an enemy. My guess is, it was a safety net thing, bring the baby there, do t... (read more)

Voldemort might have vanished for ten years intentionally. It's certainly within his power to reveal himself to his old followers now, and probably take charge of them again, but he hasn't done so. Whatever his intentions are, it seems they're probably not served by people being aware that he's still around. Who knows how long he's been possessing Quirrel?

What, nobody? Oh, well.

Voldemort stands next to the crib of his destined enemy, the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord, the completely defenseless one year old child. The Dark Lord's most faithful servant, Bellatrix, is waiting for him at the graveyard, near his father's grave. One Side-Along-Apparition, and not even death will slow Voldemort down for long.

Too bad he died the moment he touched the baby.

Why would Voldemort touch the baby at all, if he was aware of the danger? And if he wasn't, why did he leave his wand to Bellatrix, why did he come alone and prepared for the ritual? There's also Harry's flashback in which he learns the precise shade of avada kedavra.
A couple of scenarios I considered would suggest that Voldemort's death was not an accident, but suicide. I can think of reasons he might have done it, but I don't put a lot of stock in them, first because it doesn't seem like the most practical course of action, it's not what I would have done in the same circumstances, and second because even with every expectation that he would actually survive, considering how much he fears dying, I don't know if Voldemort would commit an act of suicide if he could possibly avoid it.

I don't know about subtle. I noticed it on my second read.

Why call it Aftermath 2? Why not just a nameless block? How is it the result of anything?

I guess I didn't fail to notice my confusion.

Dumbledore messed with the girl's mind to test if Snape was still in love with Lilly.

What I'm a bit uncertain about is the 'Ever since the start of this year' part. Has he been setting something like this up every year to have something ready when needed? More like, was that an intended implication?

Mind, the second part only occured to me after I read the reviews re Ch29 Notes.

Naive argument coming up.

How Omega decides what to predict or what makes it's stated condition for B (aka. result of "prediction") come true, is not relevant. Ignoring the data that says it's always/almost always correct, however, seems ... not right. Any decision must be made with the understanding that Omega is most likely to predict it. You can't outsmart it by failing to update it's expected state of mind in the last second. The moment you decide to two-box is the moment Omega predicted, when it chose to empty box B.

Consider this:

Andy: "... (read more)

major said: You're not the only person to wonder this. Either I'm missing something, or two-boxers just fail at induction. I have to wonder how two-boxers would do on the "Hot Stove Problem." In case you guys haven't heard of such a major problem in philosophy, I will briefly explain the Hot Stove Problem: You have touched a hot stove 100 times. 99 times you have been burned. Nothing has changed about the stove that you know about. Do you touch it again?

After all, your decision can't empty box B, since the contents of box B are determinate by the time you make your decision.

Hello. My name is Omega. Until recently I went around claiming to be all-knowing/psychic/whatever, but now I understand lying is Wrong, so I'm turning over a new leaf. I'd like to offer you a game.

Here are two boxes. Box A contains $1,000, box B contains $1,000,000. Both boxes are covered by touch-sensitive layer. If you choose box B only (please signal that by touching box B), it will send out a radio signal to box A, which will pr... (read more)

Yes, you are changing the hypo. Your Omega dummy says that it is the same game as Newcomb's problem, but it's not. As VN notes, it may be equivalent to the version of Newcomb's problem that assumes time travel, but this is not the classical (or an interesting) statement of the problem.
What is your point? You seem to be giving a metaphor for solving the problem by imagining that your action has a direct consequence of changing the past (and as a result, contents of the box in the present). More about that in this comment [].