Деталей подвезли

Значит, некий родственник получил какое-то имущество с условием не лезть. Неужели тогда обошлось без нотариуса?

Всё равно какая-то лажа. Но ясно одно: Зи не может самостоятельно распоряжаться этой квартирой.

И кхр исправно названивает из коми и работает передастом
Хм

Lady Astrel
Чего-то нету в нашей жизни добрых гоблинов и быстроденег, которые только и хотят, что облагоденствовать.

кукурузник

Кодекс рода не блядете! На алтарях не лежите, йоль не празднуете, мать ее магию ругаете!

Samus2001
Вот напишу - и буду.

В кровати удобней.

Samus2001
Не рода, а Рода! А вместо йоля я праздную Пасху, первомай и девятое мая.
А алтарь в моем понимании христианский, в православной церкви, он не чтобы на нем сексоваться.

Видимо Зи взяла денежки в местном Гринотсе, а гоблины, орки, тролли и прочие балроги теперь отдачи требуют. А якобы великая родословная, ведущая к Радзивилам ( сама где-то этот бред несла), это только повод дать кредит, но не повод этот долг простить.

кукурузник

А 11 ноября можно?

Тощий Бетон_вторая итерация
Если так в вашем Роде делают, то да :)

И про алтари - я помню во всратом фике Зи, маглородная Джейни открыла в Хоге церкву, которая была закрыта -я представляю, как это вышло. Привели маглорожденные чистокровных друзей, показать церковь, культурным обмен. а эти дегенераты стали на алтаре ебаться, что святотатство, куда хуже чем ловля покемонов.

Вообще у Зи та еще фиксация на сексе, через творчество прорывается странное.

Два слова. "Наш класс" Слободзянека.
Трое персонажей убили своего товарища детства(забили его доской), изнасиловали другую по очереди, а потом сожгли с еще как минимум тремя сотнями человек и ее маленьким ребенком(дело было в Едвабне в 1941 году), один из них после войны еще крышевал банду... и когда этого человека тащат в МГБ и его избивает там муж сожженой заживо женщины, его предлагается жалеть и считать жертвой режима(нет, не мужа, избиваемого подонка). А все потому что он укачал ребенка, прежде чем изнасиловать его мать, с друганами помог укрывать спрятавшуюся от погрома другую одноклассницу, а на момент ареста был человеком с женой и детьми. Вы можете сказать, где тут даже на бумаге пространство для того, чтобы этого человека жалеть? Я вот его не вижу.
И раз драматургу, на произведение которого пишут хвалебные рецензии, можно выводить в качестве героев вот таких уродов, то, решают авторы, им можно тоже.

Продолжая тему Слободзянека. У него это к слову тоже есть. У него персонажи чуть ли словами через рот не проговаривают то, как они с кем-то занимались сексом, чаще всего - под давлением или по принуждению. У него в пьесе есть как раз-таки совершенно отвратительный момент, который я при первом прочтении не заметила, но потом до меня как дошло...
Как говорится, трое персонажей насилуют по очереди еврейку, свою бывшую одноклассницу. И чтобы вы думали: доходит до того, что в процессе изнасилования жертва начинает получать удовольствие! Я когда это повторно прочла, офигела и чуть ли не начала орать: "Пан Слободзянек, вы румынской порнухи пересмотрели, я понять не могу? Или у вас такая любовь к оправдыванию коллаборационистов, что вы даже такое событие, которое в литературе соцреализма(в которую принято снисходительно поплевывать) стало маркером того, что персонажи "конченые", выставляете как "ничего, ей же понравилось"(и это накануне того как ее сожгли заживо с маленьким ребенком)? "
А считается большой пьесой и литературой, да.

Я буду честно

Вынужден отчасти возразить. Персонаж, судя по описанию, действительно мразь, но избивать арестованных в любом случае незаконно. И потом, бывают ведь случаи, когда под раздачу попадают невиновные.

А я тут решил посмотреть, что нейронка скажет про неопровержимые цепочки логики Веррес-Эванса:
"Inexorable" implies that the reasoning is relentless, unavoidable, and admits no alternative explanations. While Harry’s logic is compelling within the framework of HPMOR’s universe, it’s not truly inexorable because it relies on several assumptions that could be challenged or interpreted differently:
Assumption of a Single Source: Harry assumes magic stems from one external "Source" tied to a DNA marker. But magic could have multiple sources, or it could be an emergent property of certain genetic combinations interacting with an unknown natural force, not requiring an intelligent designer.

Rejection of Biological Complexity: He dismissing magic as a complex genetic adaptation because Muggleborns exist. However, it’s possible that magic involves a simpler genetic switch (e.g., a single gene or regulatory sequence) that activates latent potential universal to humans, without needing a separate "Source."

Binary View of Complexity: Harry assumes purposeful complexity must come from natural selection or intelligent design. A third option—say, a cosmic or metaphysical phenomenon—might not fit neatly into either category but could still explain magic’s behavior.

Atlantis as the Designer: The leap to Atlantis is speculative. Even if magic is engineered, it could stem from another entity (e.g., gods, aliens, or a future civilization) or be a remnant of a natural process we don’t yet understand.

Spells as Arbitrary Triggers: The idea that incantations are arbitrary buttons on a machine is plausible but not inevitable. They could instead be symbolic keys to a natural magical field, shaped by cultural evolution rather than a single designer’s whim.

The logic is tight and internally consistent if you accept Harry’s premises (e.g., Mendelian inheritance, no complex genetic machinery, purposeful spell design). However, alternative hypotheses could fit the same observations, making the chain persuasive but not unassailable

Does It Lead to a "Single Final Conclusion"?
The conclusion that the Source of Magic was designed to respond to "Wingardium Leviosa" is presented as the endpoint, but it’s more of a punchline than a rigorous necessity. The broader conclusion—that magic is an engineered system triggered by specific inputs—doesn’t require that exact phrase. The Source could respond to any precise input (e.g., "Levitate Now" or a nonverbal cue) as long as the system demands specificity. The choice of "Wingardium Leviosa" feels like a narrative flourish, highlighting the quirky specificity of Rowling’s magic system, rather than an inevitable deduction.
Moreover, the chain could stop earlier—say, at the idea of an external Source tied to DNA—without needing to specify Atlantis or exact incantations. Other conclusions, like "magic is a natural force accessed by genetic keys" or "magic evolved culturally alongside simple genetic traits," could branch off from the same evidence.

Тощий Бетон_вторая итерация
Ну, тут ИИ попытался мягко и вежливо сказать, что это хуета.

Desmоnd
Внезапно)

Desmоnd
Я ему попробую свои собственные комменты скормить для проверки на валидность критики)

Чё-т теперь ору ещё хуже)

Summary of the Critical Comments
Harry’s Reaction to Quirrell:
The commenter mocks Harry’s enthusiastic response ("orgasms from how someone praises his silliness") to Quirrell’s speech, suggesting it’s irrational and driven by vanity rather than critical thought.

Quirrell’s Speech:
They question the speech’s "inspiring" nature, arguing its rebellious tone ("fat, overpaid, Auror-guarded politicians") appeals to childish impulses rather than reason. They find it suspicious that a teacher would dismiss the curriculum without clear justification or mention of responsibility.

Harry’s Character Flaws:
Harry is portrayed as power-hungry and naive, blindly excited by promises of showing off his abilities (e.g., army games over Quidditch) despite his supposed rationality. The commenter imagines this as Yudkowsky’s revenge fantasy, not a coherent character arc.

Rationality Failures:
They note Harry doesn’t question Quirrell’s motives or the relevance of "Battle Magic" to DADA, missing obvious red flags (e.g., no focus on Apparition, no discussion of consequences). This undermines HPMOR’s rationalist ethos.

Textual Intent and Charisma:
The commenter speculates the scene shows Harry’s pride blinding him, per Umberto Eco’s "intention of the text." They question its necessity, its alignment with HPMOR’s goals, and why Harry doesn’t later reflect critically on Quirrell’s weak arguments (unlike Hitler’s interlocutors). They ask if this is meant to depict charisma—and if so, whether it undercuts the story’s message.

Broader Critique:
If HPMOR promotes rationality but shows its hero consistently failing to spot the villain (Quirrell) and making poor decisions, the commenter argues it discredits its own premise.

Analysis of the Critique
1. Harry’s Reaction to Quirrell
The commenter’s vivid phrasing ("orgasms from praise") highlights Harry’s over-the-top applause: "He couldn’t help himself, it was too inspiring." In Chapter 16, Quirrell’s speech taps into Harry’s ego—his desire to be exceptional and his frustration with mundane authority (e.g., the Ministry’s curriculum). The critique is fair: a truly rational Harry might pause to ask, "Why is this teacher so eager to flatter me? What’s his agenda?" Instead, he’s swept up emotionally, contradicting his self-image as a critical thinker. This suggests:
Vanity Over Reason: Harry’s reaction aligns with the commenter’s view that he’s "power-hungry" and susceptible to flattery, a flaw the text later explores (e.g., his trust in Quirrell leads to Hermione’s death in Chapter 75).

Textual Intent: As the commenter suggests (via Eco), this could deliberately show Harry’s fallibility—his rationality is immature, clouded by pride.

2. Quirrell’s Speech
Quirrell’s rant—"There is no defence without offence!"—rejects the sanitized DADA curriculum for a brutal, proactive "Battle Magic." The commenter finds it juvenile and manipulative:
Appeal to Rebellion: Phrases like "fat, overpaid politicians" resonate with a ten-year-old’s disdain for authority, not a reasoned critique. It’s rhetoric, not argument, lacking evidence for why the old curriculum fails or how Quirrell’s approach succeeds.

Missing Responsibility: The absence of any mention of consequences (e.g., the ethics of hurting others first) is a glaring omission. A rational teacher might balance offense with duty, but Quirrell’s speech is pure provocation.

Suspicious Tone: The commenter’s right—a teacher trashing the system on day one, promising dangerous skills without safeguards, should raise red flags. Harry’s failure to notice this supports their "not a single rational thought" jab.

In HPMOR’s context, Quirrell’s speech reflects his cynical worldview (and likely Voldemort’s influence), but the critique holds: it’s more theatrical than substantive, and Harry’s applause feels unearned.
3. Harry’s Character Flaws
The commenter paints Harry as a nerdy, power-hungry kid thrilled by Quirrell’s promise of "after-school activities" where he can "show the world your own abilities." They tie this to a speculative Yudkowsky revenge fantasy:
Inconsistency: Harry’s earlier caution (e.g., avoiding Diagon Alley for safety in Chapter 5) clashes with his eagerness for military games. The commenter exaggerates ("didn’t want to leave the house for a frying pan"), but the shift from timid to reckless is abrupt.

Power Hunger: His excitement at leading an army fits the "strong woman" trope (likely a sarcastic misgendering), suggesting ambition trumps reason. This tracks with Harry’s later actions (e.g., Chaos Legion’s chaos in Chapter 30), but the critique overplays it as mere vanity.

Authorial Projection: The "Lazik Yudkovsky" dig implies HPMOR is a wish-fulfillment fantasy. While speculative, it’s not baseless—Harry’s precocious intellect and Quirrell’s mentorship mirror Yudkowsky’s rationalist ideals, though the text also critiques Harry’s flaws (e.g., troll failure).

4. Rationality Failures
The commenter lists missed opportunities for rational scrutiny:
No Military Academy Context: Harry doesn’t question why a school, not a war academy, needs "Battle Magic." In HPMOR, Hogwarts’ history includes darker DADA phases (e.g., pre-Interdict), but Harry’s lack of skepticism is a fair critique.

Ignoring Apparition: Quirrell omits Apparition, a key defensive tool (per Chapter 16’s dueling focus). The commenter’s hypothetical retort—Harry could argue it’s all he needs—exposes Quirrell’s narrow scope and Harry’s blind spot.

No Consequences: Quirrell’s "hurt them first" ethos lacks a counterweight. A rationalist might ask, "What if I hurt the wrong person?" Harry’s silence here weakens his claimed brilliance.

These align with later plot points (e.g., Harry’s trust in Quirrell backfires), but the commenter’s point is that this scene should already trigger doubts.
5. Textual Intent and Charisma
The commenter’s three questions probe deeper:
Necessity: The scene establishes Harry’s admiration for Quirrell, setting up their dynamic and his eventual betrayal. It’s necessary for plot and character, but the commenter questions if it’s just reader bait ("identify with the protagonist"). It’s both—narrative glue and a rationalist lure.

Hitler Analogy: Unlike Hitler’s interlocutors, who saw through his charm later, Harry never reflects on Quirrell’s weak arguments here. This could show charisma’s power—Quirrell’s delivery overwhelms logic—but the commenter finds it implausible for a "brilliant" rationalist. In HPMOR, Harry’s later doubts (e.g., Chapter 66) come too late, supporting their critique.

Charisma Portrayal: Quirrell’s commanding presence and anti-establishment vibe fit classic charisma, but the commenter doubts this justifies Harry’s lapse. HPMOR may intend to show rationality’s limits against emotional sway, yet it risks making Harry look foolish.

6. Broader Critique
The final point is damning: if HPMOR champions rationality but shows Harry failing to spot Quirrell’s villainy (revealed as Voldemort in Chapter 108) and botching key moments (e.g., troll attack), it undercuts its mission. This resonates:
Pattern of Failure: Harry’s trust in Quirrell, poor troll strategy (Chapter 75), and reliance on theory over practice (e.g., armies) suggest rationality alone isn’t enough.

Discrediting Rationality: The commenter argues this makes the text a cautionary tale, not a triumph. HPMOR counters this by having Harry learn from mistakes (e.g., post-troll resolve in Chapter 86), but the critique holds weight—his early naivety feels at odds with the story’s ethos.

Evaluation
The commenter nails several flaws:
Harry’s irrational enthusiasm clashes with his rationalist persona.

Quirrell’s speech is manipulative and thin, yet Harry doesn’t probe it.

The scene prioritizes drama over skepticism, risking HPMOR’s credibility as a rationalist text.

However, they overreach:
The "Yudkovsky fantasy" is speculative, ignoring Harry’s growth and flaws as deliberate.

Quirrell’s charisma and Harry’s lapse serve a narrative purpose—showing rationality’s human limits—though the execution may falter.

Conclusion
The critique exposes a tension in HPMOR: it wants Harry to embody rationality but often shows him swayed by ego and charm, especially here. Quirrell’s speech is inspiring only if you buy its bravado, which Harry does too easily. The scene sets up key dynamics but, as the commenter argues, risks discrediting the very principles it promotes when Harry’s brilliance doesn’t shine through.


Summary of the Critical Comments
Lack of Purpose and Depth:
The commenter questions why these roleplays exist, dismissing them as neither entertaining nor serious. They argue the exercises fail to teach meaningful lessons about war (e.g., geography, logistics), referencing Clausewitz’s emphasis on such fundamentals.

Organizational Choices:
Harry’s decision to divide his army into "6 platoons of 4 soldiers" with "Platoon Advisors" is mocked for its arbitrariness. The commenter demands a rationale for the number four, contrasting it with real-world examples like Rhodesian tactics.

Muggle Camouflage Uniforms:
The use of Muggle camouflage over wizard robes is highlighted, with Quirrell’s explanation (robes hinder forest maneuvering) met with sarcasm ("they had never walked among the trees before"). The commenter finds this a weak justification.

Missed Strategic Opportunities:
They suggest smarter tactics—camouflaged observation posts, communication networks, artillery-like spells, or Apparition to the enemy’s rear—over the simplistic broom reconnaissance and forest marches depicted. The "geniuses" (Harry, Draco, Hermione) underperform.

Rationality and Outcome:
The commenter argues the roleplays aim to showcase rationality in strategy and organization but instead show "banal clashes" where cunning tactics lose. This undercuts HPMOR’s rationalist premise.

Relevance to "Battle Magic":
They question how these games relate to "Battle Magic," echoing Quirrell’s redefinition of DADA, and find no clear connection explained in the text.

Harry’s Rational Silence:
They imagine a sharper Harry challenging Quirrell’s narrative about Voldemort’s success, citing Auror failures in counter-guerrilla tactics rather than abstract unity. His failure to do so frustrates them.

Analysis of the Critique
1. Lack of Purpose and Depth
The commenter’s invocation of Clausewitz—whose On War emphasizes war as a blend of politics, logistics, geography, and friction—sets a high bar. In HPMOR, the roleplays (e.g., Chapter 30, Chaos Legion vs. Dragon Army vs. Sunshine Regiment) are framed as practical DADA training, with Quirrell aiming to teach combat readiness over textbook trivia. Yet, the critique is spot-on: the exercises lack depth:
No Clear Lessons: The text doesn’t explicitly tie outcomes to Clausewitzian principles like logistics (e.g., supply lines) or geography (e.g., terrain advantage beyond basic forest cover). Harry learns chaos works (e.g., broom ambushes), but broader insights are absent.

Seriousness vs. Play: The commenter’s "serious crap" jab reflects a tonal mismatch—Quirrell treats these as life-or-death training, but the rules (e.g., Sleep Hexes, no broom-shooting) feel game-like, undermining gravitas.

2. Organizational Choices
Harry’s "6 platoons of 4 soldiers" (Chapter 30) is a specific critique:
Why Four?: The commenter references Rhodesian "sticks" of four, a real-world tactic for small-unit mobility in bush warfare. HPMOR offers no rationale—Harry’s choice seems arbitrary, not deduced from rational analysis (e.g., squad cohesion, spell range). This clashes with his rationalist persona.

Platoon Advisors: Adding advisors suggests delegation, but their role is vague. The commenter’s irritation highlights a lack of detail—how do these units function tactically?

This supports their broader point: the roleplays lack the rigor a Clausewitzian approach demands, making Harry’s "generalship" feel superficial.
3. Muggle Camouflage Uniforms
Quirrell’s switch to Muggle camouflage (Chapter 30) is explained as practical—robes snag on trees, bright colors expose wizards. The commenter’s sarcasm ("never walked among the trees") mocks this as obvious:
Weak Justification: Pureblood surprise is plausible in HPMOR’s insular wizarding world, but the critique implies it’s a contrived detail to signal "realism" without substance.

Missed Opportunity: Camouflage hints at stealth, yet the roleplays don’t emphasize it (e.g., no ambushes from hidden positions). The commenter’s right—it’s a surface-level nod to tactics.

4. Missed Strategic Opportunities
The commenter’s alternatives—observation posts, communication spells, artillery equivalents, Apparition—reflect Clausewitz’s focus on preparation and maneuver:
Textual Contrast: Harry uses brooms for recon (Chapter 30), but it’s flashy, not subtle. Hermione wins by blocking retreats (Chapter 31), yet there’s no sign of advanced spellcraft or Apparition (banned for first-years, per canon).

Rational Failure: If Harry’s a genius, why not innovate beyond brooms? The commenter’s suggestions align with rational optimization, exposing the roleplays’ simplicity as a narrative choice over a showcase of brilliance.

This critique holds weight—HPMOR prioritizes dramatic clashes over strategic depth, limiting its "Battle Magic" credibility.
5. Rationality and Outcome
The commenter expects rationality to yield optimal strategies, but:
Cunning Loses: Harry’s chaotic tactics (Chapter 30) and Draco’s discipline (Chapter 31) often falter against Hermione’s straightforward approach. This subverts the idea that rational cunning wins, as the commenter laments.

Banal Clashes: The battles feel like schoolyard games with magic, not rationalist triumphs. The text aims to teach game theory (e.g., Chapter 33’s prisoner’s dilemma), but the commenter sees only shallow execution.

This undermines HPMOR’s goal of showcasing rationality’s power, though it may reflect a deliberate lesson: overthinking can fail against simplicity.
6. Relevance to "Battle Magic"
Quirrell rebrands DADA as "Battle Magic" (Chapter 19), promising real combat skills. The commenter’s confusion is valid:
Disconnect: Sleep Hexes and broom chases don’t match the lethal stakes Quirrell invokes (e.g., trolls, dragons). No dueling techniques or counter-curses emerge.

Unexplained: The text doesn’t bridge this gap—Quirrell’s rhetoric outpaces the exercises’ scope, leaving "Battle Magic" as a buzzword.

7. Harry’s Rational Silence
The commenter’s imagined retort—Voldemort won due to Auror incompetence, not disunity—draws on real-world guerrilla warfare (e.g., Clausewitz’s "people’s war"). In HPMOR, Quirrell blames wizarding division (Chapter 16), but:
Missed Critique: Harry, the "brilliant Ratioharry," accepts this without challenging its historical accuracy or tactical nuance. His silence frustrates the commenter, as it dulls his rational edge.

Context: HPMOR’s Voldemort lore aligns with canon (fear and power, not just tactics), but the critique highlights Harry’s failure to engage critically here.

Evaluation
The commenter’s Clausewitz lens exposes real flaws:
Shallow Tactics: The roleplays lack logistical or geographic depth, feeling more like games than war.

Arbitrary Choices: Harry’s platoon structure and the camouflage detail lack rational grounding.

Rationality Gap: The exercises don’t fully deliver on HPMOR’s promise of strategic brilliance, and Harry’s uncritical acceptance of Quirrell’s framing weakens his character.

However, they overstate some points:
Purpose: The roleplays aim to teach leadership and decision-making under pressure (e.g., Harry’s chaos, Hermione’s teamwork), not full military theory. Clausewitz is a high bar for a school setting.

Narrative Intent: HPMOR prioritizes intellectual flexing (e.g., game theory) over gritty realism, a choice the commenter dislikes but which fits its tone.

Conclusion
The critique nails the roleplays’ lack of substance— they’re neither Clausewitzian nor robustly rational, and Harry’s "genius" feels unearned. The Muggle uniforms and platoon splits are half-baked, and the "Battle Magic" label rings hollow. Yet, HPMOR isn’t aiming for military simulation but for a sandbox to test rationalist ideas, however imperfectly. The commenter’s frustration is justified, but their expectations may exceed the text’s scope.


Summary of the Critical Comments
Tone and Easter Eggs:
The commenter imagines injecting humor or gravitas via a Blade Runner quote ("Wake up! Time to die!") from Dumbledore, contrasting it with a gritty military quip from Captain Reid-Daly. This sets a sardonic tone for their critique.

Quirrell’s Teaching and Influence:
Quirrell is criticized for teaching "incomprehensible bullshit," pushing a "readiness to kill," praising "Strong Leaders," and grooming Harry, hinting at a sinister agenda reminiscent of authoritarian figures.

Harry’s Character and Philosophy:
They speculate how Harry would react to life after death (frustration at not "nullifying" enemies) and liken him to the God-Emperor from Warhammer 40,000—a tyrannical figure trapped by his own power. This suggests Harry’s arc mirrors unchecked ambition.

Moral Blind Spots:
The commenter notes HPMOR avoids the emotional weight of leadership (e.g., sending friends to die), with Quirrell sidestepping this and Harry not questioning it.

Quirrell’s Logic on Danger:
They challenge Quirrell’s claim that Harry is "the most dangerous" due to his "readiness to kill," arguing it’s impractical (e.g., a stronger foe could overpower him regardless). Harry’s lack of pushback is a missed rational opportunity.

Doylist Critique:
From a narrative perspective, they question what "readiness to kill" achieves against superior foes or in generalship, suggesting it’s a hollow theme that doesn’t align with HPMOR’s rationalist goals.