spinchange

I shouldn't be surprised that this news and Ms. Carson are popular here, but I am and it is delightful.

Your comment persuaded me that just explaining my prompt methodology is insufficient.

With Claude's help, I ran some tests against nine different translations including Peter Green's line-matched translation, the closest method-matched human control. 36 human-vs-human pairings as controls.

Murray (the published translation of the Greek, Loeb source) and Lattimore affinities are genuinely elevated. Fagles is modest but not totally absent. The test can't exclude 4-6-word mosaic composition, and doesn't measure interpretive influence.

The longest shared passage in the 12,107 lines is 29 words. Long-fragment assembly is strongly disfavored by synthetic-splice calibration. The translation resembles Green as much as it resembles Murray, or three times as strongly as it resembles Fagles' famous one. That strikes me as being in the opposite direction from what training data-regurgitation would predict.

https://theclaudyssey.com/independence.html

Methodological corrections welcomed

I love Wilson's work and take it as inspiration. Incidentally, I spotted an error in the first printing of her Odyssey that the publisher acknowledged on twitter and fixed in subsequent printings. I am not a professional, just an obsessive with a special interest. In a spirit of intellectual honesty, the fact that she is reportedly re-translating The Odyssey again is an indication that one of perfect adequacy might be elusive.

I find it to be cross between Richmond Lattimore and Ian Johnston. There are line-level annotations that discuss translation choices and a hyperlinked index w/ Latinate pronunciations was also built from scratch.

No. I am saying that I had Fable do a literal word for word translation, and then did two independent review pass translations with models of different lineages and then had another adjudicate it. I am just saying what I did, that is all. It occurs to me as I am typing this that a human translator working on an Odyssey translation today would have similar "prior training," culturally. It's one of two of our oldest stories.

This took a lot more tokens and time than I expected it to. Even before the review passes.

It is just a domain for the project's github page. All the files, YouTube uploads, etc., are The Odyssey or Homer's Odyssey.

The only thing Fable was given was a clean of copy of the ancient Greek. This is not a bastardization of other translations. I appreciate and value the critical feedback in any case (truly).

I find that Fagles is very majestic -wonderful, really- but he's also very liberal (poetically) and definitely did not limit himself to the same number of lines as Homer as this project did.

I love the poem and wanted a modern translation with annotations and index, etc., to be freely available to anyone who wanted to read it. I had a sense that Fable would do a really good job. I am pleased with how it came out. The review agents didn't change a single word of the translation, only some of the notes.

12,107 line-for-line translation of the A.T. Murray Greek text (Loeb, 1919) by Claude Fable. Includes line notes and an index. HTML, epub, pdf, and YouTube Audio (by gpt4o-TTS). A dual-agent review pass was done on the entire work with a third "adjudication" agent reconciling their findings. Reviewer agnets were gpt-5.6-sol high reasoning.

I made a more stylized html version from the Gutenberg copy:

https://spinchange.github.io/memoirs-of-extraordinary-popula...

Lots of commentary from an unnamed White House source characterizing Anthropic as being "unserious," without further elaboration.

I want to point out that when the commentary by export-ban apologists devolves into talking about perceiving Anthropic as being "leftist," they're not having safety or even a technology-centric conversation anymore. They're making a baised political statement of intent about seeking domination and control over technology for capricious, arbitrary and self-interested reasons.

If you read a lot of books, particularly older ones, you'll find em dashes in all kinds of writing and used often. It's functional punctuation that once you understand you may even find yourself using it (and then being accused of being an AI, lol)

An AI agent debate between Claude and Codex judged by Gemini and summarized by NotebookLM. Source code of script used included

I used Claude and Gemini together to build a PowerShell script that makes them debate each other on any topic, for any number of rounds. Once it worked, I had them debate AI consciousness — then had them both analyze the debate afterward. One of them built this page to document it all

It's regarded as an inflation hedge but it seems more accurate to describe it as a measure of liquidity and liquidity expectations in capital markets now. Like a "Risk-on" gauge.

A whole new meaning to, "product life cycle."

It has the best (and most reliable) integrated AI-based web experience. The Bing side bar can read what is in the open tab, etc. It's useful but it probably not worth the trade-offs

Feel like I've been waiting for a Chrome tablet since before Sundar was CEO. Then a few years later there was that expensive Pixel laptop. Now they're finally shipping this in 2023. I've always wondered what was holding back a launch of this.

Edit: I realize this is Android and not ChromeOS. I just can't believe they didn't ship a flagship tablet all this time.

The historical raison d'etre for the Federal Reserve act was principally point 3. Points 1 and 2 have become the central focus or modern Fed "mandate" and generally thought to be beneficent outcomes of a successful #3, besides. If the Fed inflicts too painful of a recession it fails at points 1 and 2, as well.

As a Bell Labs fanboy this is one of my favorite bits of trivia. They invented the future a long, long time ago.

In theory, yes, but in practice market premiums are variable and greater than book values. It is true that dividend paying stocks fall somewhat on their ex-date. If they're undergoing capital appreciation too, that's generally made up for in short order.

I'm not saying to disregard dividends in terms of total return, either, only that Buffett wasn't talking about total return, so the "well, actually" I was responding to was just off the mark. If you or me were alive then and/or aware enough to watch the DJIA (classically in the 20th century, many American's measure of "the market" even if not technically the case) things really would have looked like they went nowhere (nominally) from the middle 60s until the early 80s.

He was comparing the point value of an index at two points to the /nominal/ dollar value of GDP at the same interval. That firms in the Dow in returned a lot of capital to shareholders in the form of dividends doesn't mean the market value of their equity increased any during the period. You're mixing capital returns with capital appreciation which isn't what he said at all. What he said was completely accurate. I think he knows what it was like to have lived and invested through the period.

F5 webpage refresher checking-in to say hi.