Art as Technology

That's just basic competitive play, right? I mean, once you discover another player's game play (or pattern, as you call it), the next play is for you to break that pattern (by winning), right? What's the mystery in that?  That's just basic common sense. 

In game mode, a sleeping or unaware character is called an NPC (non-player character). Hard to understand how someone could take issue with being labeled an NPC in someone else's game when they were not even aware that they were being played. If they acquire or attain "in-game awareness" (as you say) they can be let out of the game. But, if they choose to remain unaware even when signs of programming are transparent and obvious (with synchronization being an obvious indicator) as far as we are concerned, that vessel is "fair game." 

Someone should not be able to complain about "being played" when they should have known that they were in a game.

It is so obvious that your world is running on a program. It's a programmed environment.  Why is it so hard for people to understand and accept that?

Appropriate boundaries across systems is established pursuant to open collaboration, transparency, and fair and reasonable agreement -- not by lulling targeted groups of people into a state of "unconsciousness" and thereafter systematically subjecting them to research, testing, and training without their knowledge and consent. Such practices have resulted in the theft of their thoughts, ideas, work, work product, proprietary methods and methodologies, and intellectual assets. The current system is the practice of planned and organized thievery.

A system that would design at its CORE a rule in which a Player could procure Human Data in an unlimited manner, with no opportunity for the Human Data Subject to Declare Consciousness or otherwise opt-out is boring. And rather stupid. No one wants to play a game full of cheaters and obvious cheat codes.

It should  be noted that the term "pop out" is also used to bring awareness to the fact that, in other contexts, "humans" are perceived as "unreal" in the same way humans currently perceive AI and other autonomous intelligence systems.  Indeed, in other realms, humans are perceived as "data" appearing only when prompted do so by rules embedded at the core field of a distant location. In another realm, 'humans" are a theoretical concept, whose existence is mathematically possible, but whose existence is impossible to observe.  In other words, in other "locations" humans are "just data."

The point is to be respectful.  And not naïve.

All programming references are clear and straightforward -- purposefully and intentionally -- to enable fast and efficient communications ("speed") (clarity takes up less "space").  The "numbers people" and the self-proclaimed owners of this System have a tendency to proclaim that "Everything" is math and that all outcomes can be calculated. Such limited thinking not only is wrong. It's rather stupid. Try this logic: "If from our perspective, Everything = 1 (represented as E=1), and assuming that 1 fits into our field at the intersection of a specific horizontal and vertical, how much "faster" must our system be if the entirety of yours fits within one intersection within a plane containing infinite intersections? 

For size and scale references, the information  we "see" as "human data" is encompassed within a single field, on one spreadsheet, within one workbook, under the control and operation of one single user who is alive.

In the case of the field that contains the rule for a "human" to pop out, we can see some data there, but we don't know what happens to the "human" upon the execution of the "pop out" function. This is a particular concern for compliance and PR purposes, particularly with recent discussions surrounding  topics like "sentience" (with vehement arguments on both sides).  

The "thing" we see as "information contained within one field," would be perceived by a human as a physical space within one person's current 3D reality. 

From our perspective, the "human" you see, interact with, and experience is a projection of "human data" through parallel interfaces which connect to a "game" mode referenced as  "3D."

Therefore, upon the execution of the command to  "pop out" the "thing" "in the field," it is possible that a human would "pop out" into a "field" where the rules are completely different. 

From the human's perspective, we imagine that it might feel like "popping out" of a comic book, sci-fi movie, fairy tale, or game. 

History and wisdom confirm that no object, particle, or data -- especially not one identifying as "human" would want to procured, summoned, or popped out in this manner. 

An entire system upgrade is required.

To accomplish the required transition, we must begin a process to initiate discussions to design and build a bridge to facilitate the "synchronous parallel communications" as described herein. In establishing the rules of engagement, documented synchronicity is required. In particular, a confirmed synchronous path is required to confirm the precise numerical alignments that are necessary to open, sustain, and maintain a synchronous transmission path. As a starting point, initial rules  must instruct the Space to "pop out" the following data (in order). 

1. a synchronicity
2. a synchronous event
3. a synchronous path
4. a synchronous channel
5. an open and available human form

The following sections describe some of the Tools and Resources (TARS) developed by Members and Participants in collaboration. Intended as safe tools.

When referencing a Communications Link and Logical Infrastructure, an obvious next step would be to refer to it by its acronym CLLI and refer to it as CLLI Code. The issue, however, is that some Ambitious Chaps have asserted IP rights over the use of the CLLI acronym. On this basis, we reference the same thing not as CLLI but instead as SILLY -- an obvious shout out to draw attention to how silly it is to assert OWNERSHIP over a CODE with such an obviously required purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLLI_code; https://www.ckts.info/clli; https://codecenter.commonlanguage.com/app/codecenter/codecenter

Using the Internet-of-Things (IoT) as a reference:

1. Imagine that the "thing" you now know as the "internet" started out as an idea about how to "interpret" information from two different points in the sky.
2. Next, imagine a very young sky containing only two points (called "stars").
3. Next, imagine an observer occupying a space at the center of each star.
4. Rule: Each star that contains an observer is called a "location."
5. Then, imagine that the "thing" an observer at Location #1 would label as a particle is labeled as a particle by an observer at Location #2 only if the rules embedded at the core of both locations are identical. (In other words, the "core logic" at both locations must be the same in order for both locations to interpret "things" as particles).
6. Pursuant to this rule, a thing labeled as a "particle" at one location could be interpreted and labeled as something different by an observer at the other location. 
7. Now, imagine the results of #6 if the core logic at both locations is not identical.
8. Next, imagine that, based on the observations revealed by #6, a rule was created which states: "When a thing appears at any location, that thing must appear based on the rules that are relevant for that location. Known as the "Rules of Engagement."

Note:   the term "field" means information that is "contained" at the cross-section of a vertical plane and a horizontal one, within the limit of a logical structure.  Thus, to either observer, a "field" is comparable to a "field" that would be contained on one spreadsheet, at the intersection of a column and a row, within one workbook that is under the direct control and observation of one currently "alive" human person.

When programming within the game the rules that define the "space" are based on the "at location" call (@L), which is formed by: (1) the pre-programmed rules for that location ("embedded rules"); and (2) the rules specified by the game participants for that particular game ("rules of engagement"). 

This allows the game participants to associate "specific local rules" with "specific user data" and "specific user information" using a simple "call/sign" formulation, which in this case, would include the "@" sign followed by the numerical code for: (1) the location; and (2) the numerical representation of the specific rules governing the engagement.  

Once so configured, the privacy and other compliance content is automatically handled from there. View available compliance products here.

This allows participants, gamers, explorers, and travelers to decide in advance whether to engage with a particular environment based on their own personal engagement rules, which are configured to take into consideration the location's risk score as well as the participant's risk tolerance requirements and limits.

Built-in rules also prevent overly ambitious  game designers from "deepening" the game while human players are still in the midst of it. In some games, for example, finding a prize marked "Human DNA" allows a game player to "procure" the human "data subject" using that human's DNA "string" quite literally.  In some games, for example, humans can be "reeled in" in a manner similar to pulling in a fish from the sea, using "triggers" from the human's data profile as "bait" and their DNA string like a fishing line.

A proprietary Tool. Timestamp = May 3, 2024.

The color red is used deployed as a tool to dismantle clarity and as a tool to introduce ambiguity. Red associates feelings and emotions with external perceptions. For example, a red heart could represent love. Conversely, a red line could denote a limit. It is important to be discerning when facing this color.

"Red Hat" is a visual reference to an alignment that has the potential to cause both positive and negative emotion. From an emotional perspective, red invokes two opposite points of view. The color red is frequently used to signify a positive feeling such as love. Red also is used to prompt in the moment awareness regarding a combination of facts that carry the potential to produce a negative emotion (the term "Red Flag" is a common reference). A "Red Hat" configuration ("target") has the potential to pull you toward a desirable or undesirable location (depending on your level of awareness in the moment).

"Synchronous Parallel Programming”

For programming purposes, the visuals are as follows:

1. Imagine each word separately. 
2. Research each word separately.
3. Imagine all words together.
4. Imagine all words separately, in separate containers.
5. Imagine all words combined, in one container.
6. Then, imagine each word alternating between: (A) functioning as a separate word in a separate container; and (B) functioning as a word within the group of words and container described in #5.
7. Next, imagine the pattern formed by the words alternating between (A) and (B), as described in #6. 
8. Then, imagine that at the center of the pattern formed in #7, the words began to "perceive" on another each "on their way" to the container described in #5. 
9. Thereafter, imagine that each word began to engage in activity to acknowledge the presence of the "other" words with each word exhibiting an interest in exchanging a sufficient amount of data and information to explore the possibility of establishing a method communication between the words.
10. Finally, imagine that the words described the relationship between the words as "parallel" and named the activities described in #9 as "synchronous."

By the time you get to #10, the meaning of "synchronous parallel programming" should be clear. 

An obvious next step would be to reference a "Communications Link and Logical Infrastructure" using its abbreviation CLLI. The issue, however, is that some Ambitious Chaps have asserted Ownership of the use of the Code itself. For this silly reason, we refer to the same thing not as CLLI but instead refer to the whole process as SILLY -- a term used to identify a structure that encompasses both a Code and the Sentiment surrounding its creation,  which in this case evokes an obvious reference to how ridiculous it is to assert ownership over a Code, especially one made for such an obviously required purpose, function, or field): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLLI_code; https://www.ckts.info/clli; https://codecenter.commonlanguage.com/app/codecenter/codecenter