You're not wrong about the nazi analogy, but in the books, the pure bloods *also* clearly believe that Muggleborns are weaker at magic.They might still be right; after all there is a selection bias. Any child of wizards will be trained in magic, but muggleborns with only a weak magical ability might never get noticed by the wizard "talent scouts" and never get sent to Hogwarts.
)Yes I was less talking about the "mudbloods are bad" side of things and more about the "we must preserve our pure bloodlines and mustn't mix with lesser men" side. Which is at least in part intended as an analogy to the Nazi ideology - but in Harry Potter, the Nazis are right.IDK, all children born to two wizard parents that I know are also wizards!Ah, that's what you're getting at. Yeah, I retract the stronger claim. He could be good at chess. It would just not be likely.
Based on my experience, it's more likely than him being a wizard.
Which reminds me of a fundamental flaw in the racism allegory presented in the Harry Potter books. As far as we can tell, in the Harry Potter universe, wizarding ability is a recessive gene. If that is the case (and it is definitely the case that wizards have a much higher chance of spawning a wizard than muggles do), then the "pure-blood" ideology... kind of makes sense.
In hpmor, Harry hypthesizes that it could be based on exactly 2 genes (or chromosomes?). So each person has 2 wizard genes, they either say "magic" or "no magic". If both say no magic, you're a muggle. If it's split, you're a squib. And if it's magic/magic you're a witch or wizard. If two people have kids, each kid gets one gene from each parent randomly. So two wizards get 100% wizard. Wizard/Muggle always get squibs. And Squib/Squib have 25% muggle, 50% Squib, and 25% wizard. They find that this fits the data.
That's one way where the ideology wouldn't make sense, at least insofar that Hermione has no disadvantage compared to malfoy. If on the other hand it depended on 100 genes and more wizard genes make more wizardy wizards, then it would make sense. Two parents with n/wizard genes each where n > 50 would have kids with an expected number of genes m with m > n.
But in the universe, the data seems to be prett clear on it not making a difference. If anything mudbloods tend to be stronger.
IDK, all children born to two wizard parents that I know are also wizards!Ah, that's what you're getting at. Yeah, I retract the stronger claim. He could be good at chess. It would just not be likely.
Based on my experience, it's more likely than him being a wizard.
It's certainly possible that most people (especially children) won't put that much thought into it., though I don't think that's easy to judge. But anyways isn't the point that as the author that is the level of thought you should put into your characters?As far as making the character itself black is concerned, in my opinion that's detrimental to the antiracist allegory because clearly Hermione wasn't written to be someone who has experienced racism in the muggle world. If you're going to make a point about how racism is bad with an allegory, you probably shouldn't also have an actual black character and portray her and her family as though they were completely unaffected by the racism that definitely would have been going on in the UK around that time.
But isn't this, like, way more thought than most people put into it? I could see young black girls being empowered by seeing Hermione without ever thinking through the implications.
Anyone feel free to debate me on this take.Not sure what the take is.
Did you read the books?No; I played one of the games but it didn't entice me enough to want to read a book set in that world.
Is this an RPG that accidentally transformed into a tv show? Only ever seen something with this computer game vibe in anime.Yes, pretty much.
I mean, if we are listing out features, a discord server for managing the private conversations would allow:What formatting options does Discord allow?
What are the odds that the USA still has anything resembling a democracy in 40 years?It's debatable whether the US has anything resembling democracy today.
Agree that could work but doesn't in her case bc she really likes Trump and thinks he's pushing into the right direction by being a nationalistWell if she likes Trump then the argument that he's stupid probably won't convince her either.
Probably everyone who reads this is going to agree with me on this butI feel like it isn't hard at all to incorporate that into the theory; the social elite is just fine with Donald Trump. That was their plan all along. You have some grounds to argue this, as Trump pushed through tax cuts for the wealthy and is generally opposed to any measure that would empower the disadvantaged.
my sister who is ridiculously smart and talented and could have probably succeeded in just about any profession now thinks that
- the world is ruled by some kind of social elite
- most big events like covid are coordinated
- - vaccines are a way to control the public and maybe reduce the size of the population
This theory is so completely and utterly trashed by the existence of Donald Trump. The political elite in the USA are too incompetent to prevent this guy who probably literally has < 100 IQ and no strategic bone in his body from winning in 2024 even though they had/have four years to do it. This so infinitely far away from the power they are supposed to have under this world view
oh how I wish that the world really was ruled by a social elite.This statement is all kinds of terrifying.
I made a virtual room in Chatzy to test it out, and I think it has the features we need.From what I can see, there are two restrictions to the free version that might be problematic:
http://us25.chatzy.com/88177764337625
It also matters for Venture, and potentially Capitalism.QuoteMill Town: Action, $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may play one or more Treasures from your hand to gain a card, costing up to $1 per Treasure played.
This is a bit ambiguous if you use it to play Counterfeit-Copper; can you now gain a card costing up to $3 or up to $1?
It seems clear to me that the answer in that situation is "up to $1" because Counterfeit played that Copper twice, Mill Town didn't play the Copper at all. And any rewording necessary to avoid all doubt also seems minor, such as adding "in this way" or "with Mill Town" at the end.
I would have interpreted it as “up to $3” in this scenario so it would be great if LFN could clarify.
It would be "up to $1" in that case. I'm not super keen on adding more words just to clarify it on the card, though it also matters for Crown, so maybe. So far I think this is a FAQ thing.
This is a bit ambiguous if you use it to play Counterfeit-Copper; can you now gain a card costing up to $3 or up to $1? Unfortunately any way I can think of to make that ambiguity go away makes the design also more clunky, likeQuoteMill Town: Action, $5
+1 Card
+2 Actions
You may play one or more Treasures from your hand to gain a card, costing up to $1 per Treasure played.
You may set aside one or more Treasures from your hand. If you did, play them in any order, then gain a card costing up to $1 per Treasure you set aside.
Monk - $4
Action
Trash a card from your hand. If there are no other copies of it in the trash, gain a card costing up to $5. If there are, you may replay this.
Agree it's also preference. Although I think it's obvious that, on the margin, writers go way too far in the direction of plot armor. E.g., I don't buy that if in the worst scene of GoT, Theon had instead been beaten to death by a nobody, this would feel less exciting. Pretty sure it would feel more exciting.It's also an issue of internal consistency. GoT has made it clear early on that people will be killed off in difficult situations. That makes it all the harder to excuse plot armor later on. If you're watching a show like Dr Who, then plot armor takes you out of the immersion way less because that's kind of what you signed up for.
I don't think that's comparable. Khal Drogo dies of an intentionally self-inflicted wound. He obtains it after trying to change the Dothraki's ways and being challenged for it. The way he deals with the challenge can be seen as reverting back to the old Dothraki ways, and ultimately he cannot escape them.But it doesn't make it a good story.
but is that really true?
This seems very close to what happens to Khal Drogo in season 1, which is universally beloved to this day.
The one predictable death I have no problem with is Melisandre because she did out of choice. In her case, and only in her case, there is an in-universe reason why she died when she had no more part to play. She's arguably the one amazing character who made it until late in the show and never got worse.I personally find it a bit frustrating that there is never any point where she really faces the fact that she was wrong and that her being wrong caused thousands of deaths. But she's not a major character, so it's not such a big deal. I would have liked her to actually do something in between resurrecting Jon Snow and showing up for the fight at Winterfell, like recruiting an army of R'hollor followers from Volantis.
I'm also disappointed that no important character ever gets killed by a nameless soldier during war. Another missed opportunity, and this criticism may even extend to the books.
Although I think the red wedding is probably the single greatest scene of the show That had to have been the moment where everyone felt like they were watching something real, something that didn't take place in the alternate universe of story writing, something that wasn't fair, something that wasn't predictable.I'm not sure that it's fair to criticize stories for taking place in an alternate universe of storytelling. Telling stories is always about relating the exceptional. I might tell you about that time I found a 50 dollar bill in a pair of pants that I bought; I won't tell you about the other hundreds of times where that didn't happen. If you relate a story about some characters then it is expected from a reader that there is a reason why that story should be told. It could have been part of the story that Robb Stark catches tuberculosis and dies while campaigning; that would have been realistic, it's not fair and not predictable. But it doesn't make it a good story.
GalaThis has two "if" clauses, and it's not clear what the "otherwise" refers to - though I assume to the first "if". I think it's a bit too convoluted.
$4
If this is the first time you played a Gala this turn, gain a card costing up to $5 and, if it cost $5, each other player gains a Horse. Otherwise, gain a card costing up to $4.
Inspired by Bargain.
KitchenThis is overpowered even with the self-junking. You can easily have 12 Coffers by turn 7, and just start buying Provinces from there.
Action
$4
+4 Coffers
Remove any number of tokens from your Coffers and gain a card costing up to the number of tokens removed.
- A card that is to gainers what Butcher is to remodelers.
- The wording is based on Butcher although I am personally not that keen on it.
- Obviously it cannot gain $5 cards immediately, but it can if you also have coffers from other cards or have saved some from an earlier play of Kitchen.
- If you decide to keep all 4 coffers you have to gain a card costing $0, which will be self junking in most cases.
But also made me think. I'm way too much of a coward to actually send something like this, but maybe I should import 5% of it into my real attempt? Thinking of the line where I point out that these letters test for the wrong thing.I feel like that in particular is like telling the person reading it "you're doing your job wrong", which might not garner the best reactions.
To the unknown person who is in charge of screening applications and probably hoping to reject it as quickly as possible to save time,This reminds me of the flatshare application I sent to rent a room with what are now two of my best friends.
Doing a PhD or doctorate doesn't sound like it will allow me to use my time optimally, but it's still pretty good and having a PhD or doctorate will increase my status in the academic world dramatically, so I've decided to do this. I still don't really understand the difference between the two, and I'm especially confused now after reading the description on your website (doing a PhD to earn a doctorate??). But this isn't that important. Either one would be good. So it would be nice if you hired me.
I seriously question the correlation between making yourself sound good in a letter and actual skill. Aren't you selecting for something like lack of shame? So I'm not sure what to say here. I also don't know how much the motivation letter actually matters. Anyway I'm really good at doing research, look at my awesome paper. It includes a program that does a real thing and it puts out numbers that are high than those that have existed before, isn't that neat. Also it has lots of code that is probably pretty beautiful and non-stupid compared to what many other produce. And it has a user study. It will totally get published too, this kind of thing just takes months, there was literally no way to get it published before writing this application. So you should thus definitely hire me.
Also while you have no way of verifying this, I'm actually good at working consistently and for long hours on a difficult problem where I can't really ask for help, which I believe is like really important for a PhD and probably the kind of thing you should trying to select for. And I'm really smart. You should definitely hire me.
Kind Regards,
