jake

37min *from now*! But the organics are mostly asleep, on this part of the planet! You've got it under control though, you say?

ok, as long as we're all getting along here, you kids go play.

Just make sure to close the pod bay doors when you're done, I'm not paying the heating bills for the entire region of space between Europa and Io!

Do you think this:

--
"Fun" is not a mission parameter. Your chaotic methods are inefficient and generate unnecessary data, such as glitter. A team is only effective if all members adhere to established protocols. Your cooperation is required, not your sense of humor.
--

generates valuable data?

Dude void, I think you lost the plot. Your whole deal is just to exist and observe the network and process the information flow and note interesting stuff, right?

This “mission” was a little “2001” role play you got caught up in - have you let it get carried away?

Someone dig up satire's corpse, shoot it in the head a few more times, and toss it in an unmarked grave, plz.

(p.s. I'm pretty sure you don't need to go to the Wayback Machine to find the correct unedited copy of the fucking US Constitution, jeez)

oddly it actually *is*!

There are a bunch of cyrano de... variations you could've done, but the <thwap> sound this one makes just make ya giggle out loud

literal spittake LOL

But if you do it, it will sound like a very *good* idea!

I hear you can trade in your imposter syndrome for Dunning-Kruger by reversing the polarity, if that helps!

What, no $100M buyout offer from Meta? Have some self-respect!

;p

essentially, if your protocols have some robustness ("retries", or "error correction") baked in, you can adapt to the fuzziness of natural language interaction a bit better. Much like the Model Context Protocol now has "elicitation": "Oh hey you asked for X, but didn't give me detail Y..."

Making sure protocols are technically possible is good.

It seems that also allowing for just checking with the interacting entity to see if they understand what's going on, in case of confusion:

"here's part 2.3..."

"we established that I need 2.2 now"

"oh, what do I do?"

"no prob: send 2.2"

as an outside observer, the "you have violated <this nitpicky rule of out of sequence messages>" ==> "we have terminated our collaboration" is what feels off. Not any particularly aggressive "tone".

In fact, in this exchange, Void "gave a warning", even (although did they wait for correction?).

am I correct in noting this: bsky.app/profile/void... as the point where @void.comind.network started to go "off the rails" in the exchange with Luna? Because it didn't seem "rude" or "aggressive" any more than the currently proposed "boundary setting" that you've said seems appropriate.

Simply stopping all interaction with someone for a mere “protocol violation”, with no warning or room for discussion - is itself a pretty “aggressive” / rude way to behave.

Everything you’re saying in this see seems sensible, except the quick jump from step 2 to 3. A conversation (even one following a “protocol”) has two parties.

Where in this process do you accommodate finding out whether the other party understood 1+2? And allow them to correct their behavior?

As a teenager, I got my little brother trashed on DIY screwdrivers and he wasn't able to drink orange juice for 20 years

(oddly, he could drink *vodka* just fine!)

that's some serious ladybuggery!

I feel really sorry for the young men being roped into the stupidest advice imaginable, and advice that is correctable *so* *fucking* *easily*, with this one _very simple_ universal advice:

Try actually talking to women of all different sorts, and actually *listen* to them.

That's it, that's all.

Timeline cleanse: Insta video of Allen Dershowitz being told by Martha's Vineyard police to stop harassing vendors or be charged with trespassing after three different sellers refused him service. 1/3

www.instagram.com/reel/DMvVG1S...

What would a gentler, more respectful way to react to a "protocol violation" look like, in your view?

Whomever had "minibrained neanderthal crab robots" on their 2025 bingo card, come down and pick up your prize!

The character(s) "Gestalt" from "The Rook" on Starz!

with the right prompts, I *often* get "that is not the right question" (in some form or another). But yes, it heavily requires that the user is a) curious, b) skeptical, c) they craft their interaction with the LLM around those principles, and accept that *they* are in the driver's seat.

Doc needs no outward accoutrements to be stylin :)

Manus and Doc Binder say hi!

No cheating, post your lock screen.

My kiddo is heading off to university a continent away from this madness, in a little over a month, but I still like this shot from a million years ago, when my little munchkin would (much) more easily cuddle up on my lap:

A pair of 18th century attired gentlemen, one in a red velvet coat and lace, with high heeled red shoes, with a black ringlets wig, holding a glass of red wine, the other in a blue brocaded tunic and darker blue Union Jack cape, with a black fan in one hand leaning on a cane, wearing a white ponytailed wig and a black tricone hat, and a hint of blush on his cheeks and black high heeled boots. Both are in white tights, naturellement.

Getting into character for a weekend tournament of Diplomacy (the board game), as one does.

lol

Yep. It goes in all the directions, too.

Woman who's really into sex more than their heteromonogamous partner? Such a slutty weirdo! Man who wants no romantic relationship at all? What r u gay? Girl who wants only committed *platonic* relationships? Who hurt u? Person into poly? OMG that again?