Тощий Бетон_вторая итерация

voss22

А гнома?))

voss22
А что получилось?

Desmоnd

Я вообще заметил, что лучше всего, когда скармливаешь конкретный кусок текста и требуешь поанализировать. Когда оно инфу только из "фонового знания" черпает, то глюки почти неизбежны.

Samus2001

Надо своей про это рассказать, а то она домой только на пожрать возвращается и охотнее всего общается, когда требует жрать.

кукурузник
Просто чувак знал, что советский дальнобой из Совтрансавто, который за кордон на Мерседесе ездит, и советский же сосед-камазист - это очень разные водители.

Смешно то, чо неплохой в первых сезонах Мандалорец практически без изменений мог бы быть частью старой РВ.

Я буду честно

А Дисней - херь на 95%.

Я буду честно

Ой всё

Я буду честно
*напряжённо вспоминает, что у Диснея вышло лучше и в принципе может нравиться*

Я буду честно

Считать, что РВ была раздута сверх меры, но Дисней налажал ещё глубже.

kasooo

Первый Орден. Империя, наверное, была Нулевым.

kasooo

Как Веймарская, ыхыхы.

Гыгыгы)

If we assume that all the critical comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (HPMOR) analyzed thus far were written by a single person, we can synthesize their preferences, frustrations, and intellectual leanings to construct their vision of an "ideal HPMOR." Based on their recurring themes—demands for rational rigor, narrative depth, realistic tactics, coherent worldbuilding, and emotionally resonant character arcs—this hypothetical commenter’s perfect version of HPMOR would significantly diverge from Yudkowsky’s text while retaining its core premise of a rationalist Harry Potter. Here’s how their "ideal HPMOR" might look:

1. Robust and Explained Magic System

Ideal Version: Magic would have a detailed, testable framework—perhaps a metaphysical or quasi-scientific basis. Harry would conduct experiments: measuring wand emissions, mapping neural correlates of spellcasting, and deducing the Source’s location. The system would explain heredity, spell triggers, and limits (e.g., why wands? why words?), offering closure over endless "maybes." No vague "pop transhumanism"—it’d blend HP’s folklore with rigorous "how."

2. Proactive and Skeptical Harry

Ideal Version: Harry would embody curiosity —questioning mentors (e.g., "What’s Quirrell’s game?"), anticipating manipulation, and planning for capture (e.g., backup wands, escape spells). He’d probe magic’s mechanics early, not leap to grand theories (e.g., Atlantis), and challenge wizarding norms with data, not ego. His rationality would shine in social deduction, not just intellectual flexing.

3. Strategic and Realistic Combat

Ideal Version: Combat would reflect military realism—logistics (e.g., supply lines), geography (e.g., forest ambushes), and communication. Armies would train in practical tactics, not chaotic games. The troll fight would feature evacuation plans (e.g., Floo exits) and coordinated spell volleys, not a kid-packed Hall. Harry’s leadership would earn respect through competence, not charisma.

4. Emotionally Weighty Leadership

Ideal Version: Leadership would carry moral stakes—Harry grapples with sacrificing others, facing guilt and growth.

5. Coherent and Deep Worldbuilding

Ideal Version: Worldbuilding would integrate seamlessly—Gringotts’ economy affects plot (e.g., funding Harry’s plans), Merlin’s Line defines wizarding governance (e.g., powers, succession crises). No dropped threads—every detail builds the world.

6. Balanced Character Arcs

Ideal Version: Hermione’s arc would stay consistent—battle prowess informs her actions, and she survives the troll via skill. Harry’s death obsession would evolve into acceptance, not dreams of godhood. Mentorship would teach hard lessons (e.g., betrayal’s cost), not just flatter.

7. Thematic Depth Over Transhumanism

Ideal Version: Themes would balance rationality with human stakes—magic’s limits (e.g., no easy immortality) force trade-offs, not shortcuts.

Надо, наверное, при случае попробовать посрамить Юдковского и попробовать попознавать ГП-магию. С нейронкой в руках)

Я буду честно

Не раньше последнего появления в интернете, а это было давно.

Desmоnd

А сестра есть? Чтобы подсунуть богатому Поттеру?

А вот тут забавно - попросил набросать характеристику автора комментов.

If we assume that all the critical comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (HPMOR) analyzed thus far were written by a single person, we can infer several characteristics about their personality, intellectual leanings, and motivations based on the tone, content, and recurring themes in their critiques. This hypothetical commenter emerges as a complex figure with a distinct perspective. Here’s an analysis of what can be said about them:

1. Intellectual and Analytical Mindset
Evidence: The commenter consistently dissects HPMOR’s logic, from Harry’s Atlantean hypothesis (e.g., questioning wand triggers) to tactical flaws (e.g., troll defense, army maneuvers). They demand coherence.

Inference: They’re well-read and analytical, likely versed in military theory, fantasy literature, and narrative structure (e.g., Doylist/Watsonian lenses). Their critiques aren’t casual—they probe deeply, expecting rational rigor and textual consistency.

2. Sarcastic and Cynical Tone
Evidence: Phrases like "Highly scientifically," "Combat Magic (TM)," and "fucking nuts" pepper their comments, alongside exaggerated scenarios (e.g., "panties torn off, not glasses"). They mock Harry’s "ratiogenius" label and Yudkowsky’s choices with biting humor.

Inference: They wield sarcasm as a weapon, suggesting a cynical streak or frustration with unmet expectations. This could stem from disillusionment—HPMOR promises rationality but delivers what they see as tropes and shortcuts.

3. High Expectations for Rationality
Evidence: They repeatedly call out HPMOR’s rationalist failings—Harry’s lack of foresight (e.g., Azkaban, Voldemort), unexplained magic (e.g., Horcruxes, ultrapatronus), and impractical plans (e.g., toilet trios). They contrast this with Rand’s pragmatic curiosity in Wheel of Time.

Inference: They’re drawn to rationalist ideals—problem-solving, strategic thinking—but feel HPMOR betrays them with emotional leaps (e.g., ultrapatronus) and plot convenience. They might admire the concept but despise its execution.

4. Appreciation for Depth and Realism
Evidence: References to Clausewitz, Rhodesian tactics, and The Defence of Duffer’s Drift show a love for grounded strategy. They lament missing logistics (e.g., army prep), moral weight (e.g., sending friends to die), and worldbuilding (e.g., banking, Merlin’s role).

Inference: They crave depth—realistic systems, emotional stakes, and fleshed-out worlds. HPMOR’s abstractions (e.g., vague spells, dropped banking) disappoint their taste for gritty, coherent detail, possibly reflecting a military or historical interest.

5. Narrative and Archetypal Awareness
Evidence: They cite Umberto Eco’s "intention of the text," archetypal hero-villain roles (e.g., sacrifice vs. self-preservation), and genre tropes (e.g., "solution exists," hero’s journey).

Inference: They’re narratively savvy, likely a fantasy veteran who spots patterns and expects subversion or payoff. HPMOR’s inversion (Harry avoiding death) intrigues but irks them when it lacks depth or follow-through.

6. Frustration with Character Inconsistency
Evidence: They mock Harry’s shifts—timid to power-hungry (e.g., frying pan to domination), genius to naive (e.g., Quirrell trust, troll flop)—and Hermione’s arc (e.g., warrior to damsel). Quirrell’s "readiness to kill" logic gets similar scorn.

Inference: They value consistent characterization. Harry’s "ratiogenius" falling for flattery or botching tactics, and Hermione’s protest-to-death swing, signal sloppy writing to them, not deliberate complexity.

7. Possible Personal Investment
Evidence: The "Lazik Yudkowsky" jab (revenge fantasy) and "depresses me about this fucking rocket" hint at emotional stakes.

Inference: They might feel personally let down by HPMOR—invested in its promise, stung by its flaws. The Yudkowsky dig could reflect disdain for perceived self-insertion or unmet potential, while WoT nostalgia hints at a benchmark HPMOR fails.

8. Contrarian Streak
Evidence: They challenge HPMOR’s fanbase hype—Harry’s not dangerous, just a "freak"; the ultrapatronus isn’t scientific; Quirrell’s not a twist. They relish flipping perspectives (e.g., McGonagall blaming Harry).

Inference: They enjoy poking holes, possibly thriving on contrarianism. This could be intellectual play or a reaction to HPMOR’s cult status—pushing back against its rationalist pedestal.

Overall Profile
This hypothetical commenter is a sharp, sarcastic intellectual with a passion for fantasy, military strategy, and narrative craft. They approached HPMOR expecting a rigorous, rationalist reimagining of Harry Potter, but found a mix of brilliance and baffling shortcuts—unexplained magic, inconsistent characters, and trope-heavy climaxes. Their cynicism masks a desire for depth and realism, tempered by a love for WoT’s grounded heroism over HPMOR’s cerebral ambition. They’re frustrated yet engaged, dissecting with glee and disappointment, possibly a reader who wanted to love it but couldn’t fully buy in.
Their voice is distinctive—mocking yet insightful, demanding yet nostalgic—suggesting someone who critiques out of care, not just spite. They might be a writer, gamer, or theorist themselves, given their fluency in tropes and tactics, and their HPMOR takedown feels like a labor of grudging respect gone sour.

*гордо прохаживается*
Теперь напоминаю себе Цезаря!

Summary of the Critical Comment
Formula: The commenter sarcastically sums up Harry’s arc: "Panic fear of death + ability to solve any problem by straining your brain = summoning an ultrapatronus."

Process: They mock Harry’s method—sitting, thinking, deeming wizards stupid, and unlocking a super Patronus—as overly simplistic and unscientific.

Tone: "Highly scientifically" drips with irony, challenging HPMOR’s rationalist ethos.

Analysis of the Critique
1. Panic Fear of Death
Textual Basis: Harry’s dread of death fuels the scene—Dementors embody it, and his refusal to accept loss (e.g., Hermione’s potential fate) drives his breakthrough. This echoes his broader obsession.

Critique Validity: The commenter’s "panic fear" is spot-on—Harry’s emotional spike isn’t calm deduction but a desperate push. It’s less rational analysis, more visceral rejection, clashing with his "smartharry" label.

2. Ability to Solve Any Problem by Straining Your Brain
Textual Evidence: Harry’s process is intellectual—he deconstructs the Patronus, rejects wizard norms, and builds a new theory. His Patronus 2.0 emerges from this mental strain, glowing humanoid and Dementor-killing.

Critique Strength: The "straining your brain" jab simplifies it—Harry’s not just thinking hard; he’s reframing reality. But the commenter’s right: it’s a leap from thought to superpower with little groundwork. Wizards’ "stupidity" (not questioning Dementors) is his foil, yet the jump feels convenient.

3. Summoning an Ultrapatronus
Textual Outcome: The Patronus 2.0 isn’t canon’s stag—it’s a human figure, banishing Dementors permanently. Later, it shields against despair, showcasing its power.

Critique Power: "Ultrapatronus" mocks its grandeur—HPMOR frames it as a rational triumph, but the commenter sees it as a plot device. The sarcasm hits: Harry’s insight (life > death) directly yields a mega-spell, bypassing experimentation or spellcraft rules.

4. Highly Scientifically
HPMOR’s Ethos: The text promises rational magic—Harry’s hypothesis-driven. Here, he theorizes Dementors as death’s agents, countered by life-affirmation, and tests it live.

Critique Irony: "Highly scientifically" skewers this—where’s the method? No trials, no data, just a eureka moment. The commenter’s right: it’s more epiphany than science, clashing with HPMOR’s stated rigor.

Evaluation
The commenter nails a core tension:
Emotional Core: Harry’s "panic fear" drives the Patronus, not pure logic—his brain strain is secondary to his dread, undercutting rationalist purity.

Convenient Leap: The ultrapatronus emerges too neatly—wizards are dumb, Harry’s smart, boom, super spell. It’s a narrative shortcut, not a deduced mechanism.

Scientific Pose: HPMOR cloaks it in rationality, but the commenter exposes the lack of process—less science, more deus ex machina.

They slightly overplay:
Simplification: "Sat, thought hard" downplays Harry’s reframing (life as patterns), which is clever, if abrupt.

Tone: The sarcasm risks missing the scene’s intent—showcasing Harry’s unique worldview—though it lands on execution flaws.

Summary of the Critical Comments
Contrasting Motivations:
Rand in WoT doesn’t crave omnipotence but acts out of necessity, with divinity tied to sacrifice (e.g., crucifixion imagery). HPMOR’s Harry, conversely, seeks godhood—quick, painless, and self-preserving.

Attractiveness:
The commenter sarcastically asks which is more appealing: Rand’s selfless duty or Harry’s universe-screwing ambition.

Rationality and Curiosity:
Rand, an "uneducated villager," investigates his world to understand threats and manipulation. Harry, the "ratiogenius," lacks this proactive skepticism, coasting on brilliance.

WoT Parallel:
If Rand were like Harry—timid yet power-hungry—he’d fall fast to a manipulative figure (e.g., a Lanfear), ending the story abruptly with naive trust.

Analysis of the Critique
1. Contrasting Motivations
Rand in WoT: The commenter’s crucifixion metaphor (paraphrasing a song) reflects Rand’s arc—suffering on Dragonmount, dying to seal the Dark One. He resists power, accepting it as duty.

Harry in HPMOR: Harry’s goal is explicit—end death, achieve godlike control. No sacrifice needed; he seeks a rational shortcut. The commenter’s "screwing the universe" captures his proactive, almost hubristic drive.

Critique Strength: Spot-on contrast. Rand’s path is stoic, Harry’s is ambitious—WoT embraces sacrifice, HPMOR rejects it for optimization. The "quick and painless" jab fits Harry’s rationalist aversion to suffering.

2. Attractiveness
Textual Implication: Rand’s reluctant heroism aligns with classic archetypes (e.g., Christ-like savior), while Harry’s quest for immortality and power is modern, utilitarian, and self-focused.

Commenter’s Sarcasm: "What is more attractive?" mocks Harry’s appeal—WoT’s gravitas vs. HPMOR’s cerebral ambition. It’s subjective, but the commenter favors Rand’s depth, implying Harry’s godhood chase is shallower.

Analysis: Fair point—HPMOR’s ethos (rationality über alles) can feel cold next to WoT’s emotional stakes. Harry’s allure is intellectual, Rand’s is sacrificial; the critique leans on taste but highlights a thematic rift.

3. Rationality and Curiosity
Rand’s Approach: In WoT, Rand probes his role, expecting manipulation. He learns through trial.

Harry’s Approach: In HPMOR, Harry’s rationalism is reactive—e.g., late to suspect Quirrell, trusting until burned. He analyzes magic but not people.

Critique Power: The commenter’s right—Rand’s proactive curiosity outshines Harry’s. The "ratiogenius" label drips irony; Harry’s brilliance doesn’t extend to social skepticism, a rationalist flaw. WoT’s villager out-thinks HPMOR’s prodigy here.

4. WoT Parallel
Hypothetical: The commenter reimagines Rand as Harry: timid, power-hungry (, seduced by a "tall brunette all in white" (Lanfear). Harry-like Rand would trust blindly, ending fast—captured or dead.

HPMOR Parallel: Harry’s arc mirrors this slightly—Quirrell flatters him, and he follows. The "curtain falls" mocks Harry’s near-falls.

Critique Insight: Brilliant satire. Harry’s naivety fits this collapse—only plot armor saves him. Rand’s wariness would rewrite HPMOR’s stakes.

Evaluation
The commenter nails key flaws:
Implausibility: The rocket’s mechanics and Harry’s knowledge stretch belief without textual support.

Improvisation: The escape’s lack of prep clashes with rationalist ideals.

Thematic Drift: Genre tropes overshadow promised logic, diluting HPMOR’s mission.

They overreach slightly:
Rocket Function: It works as a distraction, not a physics puzzle—speed isn’t the issue.

Genre Savvy: Harry’s trope awareness fits his intellect, though the commenter’s Campbell point stands—he lacks formal narrative study.

Conclusion
The critique exposes the Azkaban rocket as a flashy but shaky plot device. Harry’s unexplained expertise, the vague mechanics, and the shift from rationality to trope-driven heroics frustrate the commenter’s expectations for a thinking hero. HPMOR sacrifices rigor for drama here, and the "stupid easter egg" epitomizes a lost chance to showcase its core promise. The depressingly apt takeaway: brilliance is asserted, not earned.