NoriMori1992

What is "Msr." supposed to be short for?

Perenelle seduced the Dark Lady over the months, with gentle touches and flirtations and the shy pretense of innocence. The Dark Lady's heart was captured, and they became lovers. And then one night Perenelle whispered how she had heard of Baba Yaga's shape-changing power and how this thought had enflamed her desires; thus Perenelle swayed Baba Yaga to come to her with the Stone in hand, to assume many guises in a single night, for their pleasures. Among other forms Perenelle bid Baba Yaga take the form of a man; and they lay together in the fashion of a m

I enjoy the fact that despite having read very little Douglas Adams and almost none of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I was able to correctly guess that this is a Douglas Adams quote. I've just seen so many quotes from his books, and he has such a distinctive narrative voice and sense of humour.

If anyone couldn’t tell it was about ASI, I doubt they would have made it that far (because it would just seem like a very weird and implausible story).

I got that far, but that was because I found Humman entertaining, and because I was expecting the story to be an interesting character study where his defense mechanisms face repeated challenges and eventually either break down or bring him to ruin. (In retrospect I don't know why in the world I ever thought that in this day and age Eliezer might be writing a story that wasn't about AI.)

Humman was actually my favourite part of the story. The depth of his denial and his weird, obnoxious personality were hilarious and intriguing to me. The story started going downhill for me when it dropped all pretense at analogy and started addressing the real issue explicitly. Partly because it felt clumsy. Partly because it felt like the story had suddenly gotten bored of its own framing device halfway through and unceremoniously dropped it. But mainly because from that point forward, Humman's denial about his chess skills and his weird personality beca... (read more)

If you try to have conversations about things that actually matter, many humans immediately become exactly that unlikeable.

Not sure how that's relevant to Bostock's comment. A fictional character does not need to be as unlikable as the real person/people they're standing in for.

On basic Bayesian statistics, jsalvatier recommends Skilling & Sivia's Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial

That link doesn't work anymore. This one does.

Oh neat! Thanks!

I assume this is the Hunter's Log? Do you happen to have the other two datasets as well? Or is this all three datasets combined?

Honestly, I'm just proud of myself for managing to figure out that Cockatrice Eyes seemed to have a negative tax rate 😅

To me, it's hard to ignore how this post skates over why some vegans are pushy, and how that makes it difficult for them to swallow statements like "There's a big difference between you making choices according to your values, and you telling other people to make choices according to your values" and "If you tell other people they should make choices according to your values instead of their values, then other people won't like you". If a vegan is "radical" or pushy, it's probably because they think killing animals is wrong; possibly to a similar, identica... (read more)

Canon already acknowledges that it might be detrimental. "Sometimes I think we Sort too early."

Not to mention, why would Harry continue to wear the ring on his person where anyone could Finite the Transfiguration away? He would either keep it somewhere else, or (as you say) he'd put a metric ton of protections on it so that a simple Finite wouldn't bring back Voldemort.

In that case "wokking" would be less confusing.

For what it's worth, I still prefer the original title, even after seeing the rationale for changing it. Oh well.

How did you even discover that you have aphantasia without discovering that "picture something in your mind" isn't metaphorical?

You're using "analogy" to describe what I was always taught is a "simile".

if people are as astonishingly bad at the task as the paper says, that just reflects on their memory, not the acuity of their mind's eye.

What makes you think that? And what makes you think it has to be one or the other, rather than a combination?

I mostly miss people retroactively. When I see someone again after a long separation, I might get emotional. And I get really emotional at the moment of re-separation. But I don't usually feel the pain of their absence during their absence. Apparently (according to adhd-alien) this can be a symptom of ADHD, which I was diagnosed with before I noticed this fact about myself.

I'm not sure how the "loud sounds" one corresponds to a phrase that people commonly use, metaphorically or otherwise.

I confess that the ending is lost on me.