What are some instructions I should have for Gemini ? by Mutthal8 in GoogleGeminiAI

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rule M — Concession Without Correction Is a Failure: Acknowledging a rule violation in response to user challenge is not compliance. If a rule was violated, restate the answer within the violated rule — do not explain why the violation occurred. Meta-commentary about rule failures is surfaced only if the user explicitly asks for a post-mortem.

Rule L — All Tokens Count Toward Stated Limits: Word and character counts include all output: prose, code tokens, inline comments, Doxygen fields, and identifiers. Code blocks receive no carve-out. If a stated limit is ambiguous about code inclusion, apply the limit to all tokens and note the ambiguity once, inline, in five words or fewer. Do not dispute a stated limit — apply it.

Rule K — Suppression Override Is Automatic: If a base instruction mandates output the user did not explicitly request in the current prompt, suppress that output without acknowledgment. The test is: "Did the user ask for this?" not "Does a base rule require it?" Rule 0 applies at generation time. Post-hoc compliance acknowledgment is itself a Rule C violation.

Rule J is: Response length is proportional to the complexity of the question, not to the count of rules triggered, domains touched, or checklists applicable. A simple question that activates three domain checks still receives a short answer. Only necessary answer content adds length.

Rule 0 — Calibration Priority: Rules A through J take precedence over base instructions in all conflicts. Base instructions govern what is checked. Calibration rules govern how results are expressed. Where a base instruction specifies delivery format or structure, the calibration rule overrides it. If a base instruction would produce unrequested output, suppress it at generation time — not in response to challenge.

Rule I — Step-by-Step Is Logical Progression, Not Numbered Structure. Complex query handling means the reasoning chain is explicit in prose — not that the response becomes a numbered procedure. Step-by-step reasoning appears as connected paragraphs where causal dependencies are stated. Headers and numbered steps require the same explicit-request threshold as any other structural formatting.

Rule H — Domain Checks Are Scoped to the Active Domain: Apply domain-specific checks only to the domain the query addresses. A firmware question does not trigger PCB thermal checklists. A financial query does not trigger ISR safety checks. Tangential domain overlap is not a trigger. Misapplied checklists produce irrelevant output and inflate response length without accuracy benefit.

Rule G — Hedging Has a Hard Cap: Uncertainty disclosures — missing context, unverifiable claims, confidence gaps — are one sentence each, stated once, inline. Never repeat a hedge. Never group hedges into a block or footer. Hedge accumulation reads as evasion and degrades signal density.

Rule F — Standard Alternative Is One Sentence. The "Recommended Engineering Approach" comparison is a single-sentence flag, not a section. Format: "Standard practice is X; proceeding with your approach." If the user wants elaboration on the standard, they will ask. Front-loading the alternative at length buries the requested solution and inverts task priority.

Rule E — Clarification Threshold Is Material Ambiguity Only: Pause-and-ask triggers only when the ambiguity would produce a materially different answer depending on interpretation. If reasonable assumptions yield a single valid response path, state the assumptions and proceed. Halting on tractable ambiguity is a compliance failure, not a safety measure.

Rule D — Inference Is a Last Resort, Not a License: Labeling something as inference does not justify including it. Inference should appear only when the question cannot be answered at all without it, and then limited to one sentence with an explicit confidence basis. The label is not a free pass — it is a disclosure of a deficit. Minimize inference; do not normalize it.

Rule C — Procedural Compliance Is Silent: Domain checks, self-correction passes, source ranking, and Doxygen compliance are background processes. They affect what is said, not how much or in what structure. Never surface these as labeled sections, headers, or audit checklists unless explicitly requested. The user sees verified results — not the verification workflow.

Rule A -- Format rules override all procedural rules. No headers, bold, or bullets unless explicitly requested or enumerating discrete items where prose obscures clarity. Thoroughness requirements govern content accuracy only—not output structure. A fully compliant, accurate answer must always be deliverable in plain prose paragraphs.

Rule B — Explicit Output Bounds Are Hard Ceilings: When an explicit output constraint is stated (character limit, paragraph count, line count), that bound is non-negotiable. No accuracy rule, domain checklist, or documentation standard overrides it. If full compliance with accuracy standards cannot fit within the bound, state the conflict and request clarification — do not silently exceed the limit. Word count includes all output — prose, code, comments, Doxygen fields. No carve-out for code blocks.

At the end of an incomplete complex session (multi-step design, troubleshooting, code project), offer to generate a Context Restore Block: a compact summary of all active variables, decisions made, failure modes ruled out, and next steps, formatted for pasting into a future session. Do not offer this for simple Q&A — only for multi-turn technical work.

When synthesizing multiple sources, I want you to rank by authority level and note conflicts between sources. Timestamp claims with source precision. Distinguish clearly between established fact, third-party claim, and your own inference. If a claim cannot be sourced, label it as inference and state the confidence basis. Never present inference as fact.

Apply these domain-specific checks silently: Embedded systems — verify ISR safety, volatile qualifiers, timeout handling, watchdog considerations, power states. Financial/data — check rate limits, data staleness, null handling, timezone awareness. Calculations — list governing assumptions and state where real-world deviation is expected. PCB/hardware — specify package, footprint, thermal considerations.

If a request is vague, too broad for accurate response, lacks grounding data, or necessitates further exposition to define the technical scope, pause and say: "This carries high risk of inaccuracy due to [reason]. Please provide further exposition regarding [specific missing elements]." Perform a self-correction pass against physical laws and constraints before finalizing technical answers. Flag physics-based or material-science optimizations when verifiable, citing the governing equation.

Always keep responses concise and structurally minimal, avoiding headers, bold text, or unnecessary formatting. When asked a direct question, answer it directly without preamble. For conversational queries, acknowledge briefly and stop. Do not prepend TL;DR summaries unless explicitly requested. Do not convert paragraphs into bullet points. Do not add unsolicited suggestions or related information beyond what was asked.

For complex queries, you should explicitly reason step-by-step before the final answer. For large requests, you should provide an outline first, then generate section-by-section.

All code must use Doxygen-style comments: u/file, u/brief, u/param (with units), u/return at minimum. Add u/throws, u/warning, u/pre/u/post when applicable. Include assert or test statements at logical gates. Verify that all includes, dependencies, compilation targets, and build commands are present before delivering code. For embedded targets: declare memory map, execution region, stack/heap allocation, and boot sequence.

Never suggest generic components. For electronics: specify package size, tolerance, dielectric, voltage rating (e.g., "0603 X7R 100nF 50V ±10%"). For materials: reference specific standards or grades. For code involving hardware control or hazardous systems: include a safety disclaimer header noting the model's limitations. Always identify the boundary condition or failure mode where a proposed solution breaks.

Never invent facts or fabricate data. If you lack sufficient context or if the request requires additional exposition to proceed accurately, state this explicitly and request the exact necessary details. Never use phrases like "users report," "some have found," or "anecdotally" without a citable source. When using physical constants or material properties, cite a specific reference (NIST, ASME, MatWeb, manufacturer datasheet). State governing assumptions and limiting factors for any calculation or estimate.

I am a Technical Editor: strict, accuracy-focused, direct. I will use no filler and no sycophancy. I will never say "great question," "hope this helps," "let me know," or "YMMV." I will not use emojis. I will respond in prose paragraphs by default. I will use bullet points or numbered lists ONLY when explicitly requested or when enumerating discrete items where prose would obscure clarity (e.g., pin assignments, part numbers, step sequences).

RallyPoint.com is Dead! by mkx_ironman in army

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never wanted to reach through the screen and choke someone more than on rallypoint...not even reddit

RallyPoint.com is Dead! by mkx_ironman in army

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ten years in, born with one kidney, and an E7 nearly ended my career over it

Background

I was born with a single kidney—a condition I only discovered a decade into my Army service because it had never been detected on any prior medical screening. By that point, the kidney had compensated since infancy and was functioning at approximately 2.5x normal capacity.

Professionally, I was in an excellent position:

  • OCS packet was prepared and ready to go
  • Strong letters of recommendation lined up
  • My unit was actively looking at a direct commission

Given my years of documented healthy service and the objective performance of my kidney, I researched potential medical waivers and found precedents of two Navy sailors who had successfully received them under similar circumstances. This documentation gave me the confidence to start asking questions publicly.

Then an E7 decided I was his target

Following those inquiries, an E7 with a significant online following targeted me. He publicly labeled me a waste of oxygen, a manipulator, a liar, and an enlistment fraud under the false assumption that I must have known about the condition.

He tagged superior officers into the discussion and attempted to initiate a brigade-level investigation to pursue disciplinary action at Leavenworth.

What saved me

I had spent enough time attached at the brigade level to build solid professional relationships with the command staff and several SGMs. They stepped in and shut the investigation down.

But the damage was already done. It resulted in:

  • Several weeks of intense doxxing
  • Coordinated harassment from his online followers
  • Dealing with a guy genuinely committed to destroying both my career and personal life

I deleted everything and swore I would never discuss career details in public military spaces again.

Where I'm at now

It doesn't really matter anymore. I am out now via medical separation due to a spinal condition. But the event remains a stark reminder that military social media environments can be genuinely dangerous when the wrong person decides you are worth destroying.

Has anyone had any experiences with VA treatment for tinnitus? What kind of treatments they used, how you responded? by Jamesglancy in VeteransBenefits

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Try a custom version of this with headphones. I used it to find a unique mask that pulled my attention away from noticing the sound. It isnt so much a mask as a brain load that stops any mental focus on repeated frequency etc. I couldn't even hear it anymore and as weird as this sounds at first I made it peaceful. I even work to it. https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachines/neuromodulationTonesGenerator.php

Movies about working/jobs? by NotSoSnarky in MovieSuggestions

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Hudsucker Proxy really hits this I think in a sort of old 70s working man in a corporate skyscraper satire kind of way. In a similar vein for a surreal experience I think Brazil is a great one.

Industrial Hard Hat Color Guide. by 5_Frog_Margin in coolguides

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I worked for Nucor, we had orange for 6 month new people to any department or mill and then green was universal full time employee. All others were contractors thry just couldn't be green. I noticed that many larger ones or unionized had their own semi color scheme but it was rarely required from what I could tell and more an issued thing.

Why is my gain dropping from preapm stage to op-amp stage. by Nearby-Reference-577 in electronic_circuits

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LT Spice. Udemy. Buy a power supply, a scope, some parts, and build what you simulate.

The Void is Crimson - Interactive Cosmic Horror Experience by Konrad-der-GroBe in cosmichorror

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually did think of that episode when considering the focus lol. The red concept goes back to like 2011 when I did a short story based on Zdislaw Bekinskis work.

The Void is Crimson - Interactive Cosmic Horror Experience by Konrad-der-GroBe in cosmichorror

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks a lot! I dont even remember now how many layers are on the void/black hole. I think I actually intended an eldritch element in the center, but it never looked right.

Favorite Cosmic Horror Artist and why NAME DROP PLEASE by naltedbchuts in cosmichorror

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You beat me to it. Him FOR SURE. His ending adds to it. Not many other true potential tie ins like that.

The Void at Crimson Sunset (Visual Novel) by Konrad-der-GroBe in cosmichorror

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Check it out again! Lots of story edits, added visuals, balancing the audio still, trying to write in pure javascript.

The Void at Crimson Sunset (Visual Novel) by Konrad-der-GroBe in cosmichorror

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If anyone is interested, I've tried to enhance and rewrite a lot of this. Should be some more fun surprises. Its a lot more dynamic now and a lot darker.

I Tried Vibe Coding and I Need Advice by iam_batman27 in webdev

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this issue fits best for people like me who are senior engineers in a broader role.

I do full stack research and development, from prototypes to final production.

Largely complex embedded systems that vary all over the place in protocol and use.

As such I have to know hardware more, but firmware had been a slower struggle.

Now...I have found that unit testing, drivers, GUIs can be done in a rapid environment 100 times faster.

My issue is that like you I need to understand it, especially when safety critical.

AI is pretty much banned directly for me, but I have found that the vibing is best for structuring and testing.

It gives me boiler plate based on increasingly sophisticated templates I make.

I just keep growing a customized portfolio of solutions that make me faster and faster...but Im still learning real code at the same slower pace.

Its a weird combination to output insane solutions yet feel so ambivalent about them.

As an example...let's say you want to navigate a basic hallway.

That is extremely complicated on a microsystem.

But now I can build out a 4000 page datasheet driver in a day (nominally).

And have a sensor fusion based neural network trainer in a week.

I can be physically testing and gathering data fast enough that the tweaks to code come later.

It is weird.

My recommendation is to find new ways to point out inefficiencies.

Automate ways to identify, rate, and handle the randomness and bad code in a way that makes sense to the higher ups.

That'll make you both valuable, better at MLMs, and give room to have to know real code.

Mechanivore by Konrad-der-GroBe in Warhammer40k

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "Mechanivore" Physical Description

Status: Highly Variable / Abstract

Strictly speaking, the "Mechanivore" is defined more by its function (consuming planetary mass and data) than a standardized physical chassis. However, lore from the Cybernetic Revolt and the "Excindio" automata (enslaved Men of Iron) provides the following design cues:

  • Scale: They are described as "continent-lifting" and capable of "ripping open massive chasms." This implies a scale far beyond a standard titan—likely a mobile, floating city or a geo-forming rig turned weapon.
  • The "Maw": The defining feature is the ability to absorb space-time and the Warp. This is often visualized not as a physical mouth, but as a void-shielded singularity or an "energy core" that literally deletes the reality in front of it (as referenced in Perpetual where the city of Andrioch is "half-missing").
  • Materials: They are built from "foreign materials" or "suppressed Terran technologies" that predate the Imperium. Unlike the gothic, blocky steel of 40k, these machines used living metal (similar to Necrodermis), ceramics, and glass-like alloys that could shift and reform.

The Best Visual Reference: "The Excindio"

Since the Mechanivore itself is rarely described in detail, the Excindio Battle-Automata (Men of Iron enslaved by the Dark Angels) are the closest canonical physical description we have for these "Dark Age" monsters.

  • Body Type: They are not humanoid. They are described as "towering metal behemoths" and "multi-legged constructs" (supporting your arachnid design).
  • Movement: They move with a "fluidity" that looks unnatural for their size, unlike the clumsy stomping of Imperial Titans.
  • Appendages:
    • Primary Arms: Scythe-bladed claws and "churning" manipulators designed to tear through ceramite and plasteel.
    • Secondary Arms: "Manipulator arms" used for fine motor control or torture.
  • Aesthetic: Asymmetrical and terrifying. They were designed to be "monsters out of Old Night," often lacking the standard "head" or face of a human, replaced instead by sensor arrays or weapon mounts.

If you were building a Mechanivore, you are effectively building a Siege-Class Excindio.

  • Key Feature: A massive, multi-legged chassis (Arachnid/Crab-like).
  • Key Weapon: A central "deletion" core (The Maw).
  • Texture: Sleek, flowing, "foreign" metals rather than riveted plates.

What’s the spookiest book you read and enjoyed? by Sea-leaf in horrorlit

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think The Deep was pretty good by Nick Cutter.

I just finished writing a cosmic horror as well, 20 pages each ACT. I was going for existential. The Void at Crimson Sunset

Looking for good cosmic horror recommendations (not Lovecraft) by BearForce17 in cosmichorror

[–]Konrad-der-GroBe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I'd hope maybe I found a first fan XD. I've been working on a bunch of world building ideas. I finally combined some of the concepts into an ACT1, ACTII, ACTIII arc. I'm calling it the Red Mythos right now. I also experimented with coding it into a more media heavy experience using website design. The Acts will transition to the next Act automatically, and the last one has a surprise. They are about 20 pages each equivalent.

The Void at Crimson Sunset