3 ms·
This seems weirdly...off. Take the reference to Julius Scalier. What in the heck is he doing here? Did somebody do a quick and sloppy search for Julius Caesa
by MarkusQ 8mo ago
This seems weirdly...off. Take the reference to Julius Scalier. What in the heck is he doing here? Did somebody do a quick and sloppy search for Julius Caesar? Or mangle Joseph Justus Scaliger and Julius Caesar together and try to take the average? This seems like a very strange thing to do.
- marssaxman 8mo ago> mangle Joseph Justus Scaliger and Julius Caesar together and try to take the average Such a person actually existed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar_Scaliger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar_Scaliger This sheds no light on the mystery of "Julius Scalier", of course, but it amused me.
- MarkusQ 8mo agoRight, I know he existed. But what is he doing in this article? I'm loath to cry "LLM!" but this seems like a really weird error for a human to make. Sort of like getting Babe Ruth, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the Lindbergh Baby confused in your head.
- pseudohadamard 8mo agoCould just be sloppy writing. The first instance that grabbed me was "The Julian Date simply counts the number of days from an arbitrary remote reference point", it's not arbitrary, it was chosen specifically because three major time cycles, solar, lunar, and the other one, all coincide at that point.
- verzali 8mo agoThe source seems to be here: https://bsky.app/profile/gro-tsen.bsky.social/post/3meiqswj7b22a https://bsky.app/profile/gro-tsen.bsky.social/post/3meiqswj7... It is a weird error, true.
- MarkusQ 8mo agoThat's not only the source of "Scalier" but, from the looks of it, a significant chunk of the embedded e-mail thing. So it was maybe just copied from a bluesky thread?