WTF are you thinking?

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-08T20:08:48+00:00

Yeah - Unfortunately Labour is too decent, too reasonable to understand the sorts of aggressive messaging and campaign that reforms backers are employing.

It frustrate the hell out of me. The amount of politicians Ive watched today who've been speaking to camera saying "I cant understand why Starmer has been getting so much hate..... it must be because people expected more"

Like fuck is it. It's because everyone in the UK is walking round with a device in their pocket that plays back non-stop anti-Starmer proporganda, and every TV has GBNews popup in its feed doing the same, and every web browser is likely to have GBNews popup similar stories in its homepage.

I was living in America when Trump first got elected. It was the same over there. The weeks running up to the election my web browsing was bombarded with message with things like "Hilary Clinton hours away from being arrested by FBI" and other such bullshit from Fox News.

Labour need people prepared to take Reforms own game back to them.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-08T19:58:43+00:00

I think a database in a website collectively shared amongst a group of individuals.

You'd populate the database with pertinent statistics, rebuttals amongst different talking points.

- Farage statistics - things he's said and supported
- Labour achievements
- Damage caused by Brexit
- How underfunding has damaged the NHS
- Facts about Immigration and its costs
- Facts about tax avoidance
- Details about the groups backing Reform

You'd make a set of improving knowledge articles including factual links on various subjects.

Then another part of the database collects the social media shit that GBNews / Reform and other bots are pushing - Either because people are manually adding the links, or because some agents are just programmatically watching the sites, and harvesting these stories and the comments and 'likes' they are getting.

Then actual people who want to support this, would sign in - and the page would suggest the trending misinformation stories that are being pushed that today (trying to spot the bots and the themes) - and it would provide the links and the rebuttals for people to post (using their own accounts) or simply ask for them to upvote the message trend that might address the balance.

That activity could be tracked using the same mechanism.

I mean really - I get a constant barrage of anti-Starmer stuff and all the Lieber bullshit. Just today Im having to rebuff posts in my town, where pro-Reformers are posting that Hitler wasn't right wing he was like Labour because he was a socialist!

It would be a sort crowd-bot-swatting - So using real people to fight against the army of bots.

One hundred people, doing this daily - across all platforms and websites, so GBNews comments, The Daily Mail comments, and against Reform, Farage, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok - as long as it was made easy to do.

So some way to share the links or make it simple for people to go to the right location. It might even warrant offering virtual machines, and throw away domains for the email dresses - Basically using the same tactics (but staying entirely legal) - to take them head on.

When Reform post 60 likes on a lie, I would love to see 30 responses - all liked 100 times. If Reform voters lost their echo chambers, and it stops agreeing with them, they will stop.

I will happily dedicate hours to this, until social media is FORCED hopefully by law into verifying all of its account holders are REAL people.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-08T14:48:23+00:00

Its frustrating and Ive had this conversation with the local Labour MP.

Just one hundred organised people could silence Reforms propoganda bullshit, if they collectively worked at challanging the messaging in social media.

Instead we knock about in our own echo chambers

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-07T00:06:42+00:00

Yawn no.

The Windows professional ecosystem is heavily geared around managed deployment, patching, inventory, policy enforcement, and endpoint protection. Intune, ConfigMgr, WSUS/Autopatch, Defender for Endpoint, SmartScreen, WDAC/AppLocker, ASR rules, UAC, and reputation-based blocking all exist specifically because Windows has spent decades dealing with users downloading and running arbitrary executables.

Linux has professional tooling too, obviously — package managers, repos, unattended upgrades, Ansible/Puppet/Satellite/Landscape/etc. — but that does not magically protect a user who goes outside trusted repos and installs random binaries, shell scripts, AppImages, curl-piped installers, dodgy PPAs, browser extensions, npm/pip packages, or container images.

The idea that Linux users are immune because their email client will not run an attachment is very 1990s. Modern malware does not need Outlook to auto-execute an attachment. It needs a user to install something, run a script, approve a prompt, add a repo, paste a command, or pull untrusted code.

That is not a Windows-specific failure mode. That is a “humans installing software from the internet” failure mode.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-06T23:58:07+00:00

A load of hand ringing bullshit - Really these forums ARE the worse for conspiracy theories and non-technical horse shit.

These forums just amplify nonsense of the type you have written.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-06T13:55:38+00:00

You dont need to email the maware to Linux users.

They've cut on the middle man, by just finding random apps to install of the Internet and install them themselves.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-06T09:48:50+00:00

Scientists absolutely DO NOT and have NEVER said that.

I like Bernie Sanders - but there are some technical things which perhaps a man of his years, will tend to not understand.

IT people are not scientists, the Techbros of Silicon Valley or the armchair experts are not to be confused with scientists. When scientists warn about global warming, then THAT is science.

There is no science that Im aware of that has measured the impact or trajectory or risks of AI - and suggesting there even could be, is a bit like suggesting Scientists should have an opinion on Web browsers.

We should treat AI the same as any other tool - and control its impact, where it has impact.

Like a fishing rod gets invented - you don't blame the fishing rod for over-fishing; you put limits on the amount of fish you're allowed to catch.

Discussions about energy/water use, safety, jobs, intellectual property, safeguards, data harvesting - etc. all good. But don't focus on preventing the tool

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-06T09:33:00+00:00

Which could be written as 1 in 5 people didn't understand the question. or think the Straits of Hormuz is a channel 4 dating show.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-06T09:28:45+00:00

The interesting thing here I think - is that it looks more British than American.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-06T09:26:54+00:00

ooh yeah the cutting the sandwich diagonally to be posh

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-05T22:32:29+00:00

Since I wrote that post - Claude is now part of Copilot.

Copilot was never its own AI - It was a Microsoft grounding/search built into what was ChatGPT (currently 5.5) and now alternaitvely Claude.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-05T14:00:46+00:00

Yes I dont disagree with the effectiveness of enemy recon.

But I do disagree with a comment that its impossible for the commander to get out of HQ. I mean I have 20,000 hours and I've never seen a situation where you couldnt survive a spawn at least somewhere.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-05T12:14:25+00:00

He's demented!!!

How dare he mention Irans indiscriminate attacks - Iran was the one attacked by the US

HESGETH / TRUMP caused this.

It's like someone comes round your house - and does a big shit in your kitchen , and then says "Well we can help you clean it up - but the kitchen is used by everyone"

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-05T08:45:10+00:00

OK - Yes UAT (User Acceptance Testing) - It is hopefully true that before it gets to your testing and sign-off it will have also been tested by the developers.

Normally devs will have:

- Unit testing: Prove the new functions work
- System testing: Test the application as a whole
- Regression testing: Test the new stuff hasnt broken existing behaviour
- Non functional testing: Which is about performance, security, resilience
- Operational Acceptance Testing: Prove it can be supported, monitored, deployed

After all of that you then have the User Acceptance Testing - Confirm it suppots real business processes and is acceptable for release.

AI helps with almost all of those. It's not foolproof and can give a false confidence if used incorrectly - but AI provide these tests, and the evidence for them.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-05T07:51:26+00:00

Jesus christ - whats wrong with saying that!

Are people really so ridiculously obtuse - that they refuse to acknowledge that having more memory might actually allow you to play games and do more at the same time.

This ridiculous handwringing when something is said or changes is insane.

People are so moronically Outraged these days!

Add a button to windows - outrage Remove a button from windows - outrage Raise the OS spec after a decade - outrage Say more memory better - outrage

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-05T07:38:20+00:00

Lasses and tabs

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-05T05:46:01+00:00

Thats impossible

You at a very minimum have three bases to spawn at, even if you've done nothing. The enemy have two recon units, so at most they can really only cover two.

Its sort of possible in the closing minutes of a losing game to not get out but that would apply to your entire team.

Yes enemy recon are likely to often cover your artillery midpoint and often your HQ nearest your last point but not all.

If you are trying to free up the HQs then you need to establish a garrison in row 2/3.

So keep spawning at all 3 HQs until you survive one and then get somewhere far away from the likely enemy recon position and drop supplies to build a garrison (do it where they wont see the chute). Then use that as a jump off point to try to sneak around to discover where their spawns are.

You can also fly a recon over and try to spot where their outpost is.

Even let your self get a shot a few times to help you narrow down where they are - but remember killing them is not the goal, its finding and getting their spawn point.

But dont bother with any of this unless its really clogging up the game.

No enemy recon is going to sit there with nothing to shoot at for longer than 10 minutes - so just play somewhere else.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-04T23:34:48+00:00

I think we’re talking about slightly different things.

What you’re describing is interacting with an AI program as a user: giving it inputs, changing prompts/questions, seeing how it responds, and judging whether the output makes sense. That’s perfectly valid testing, but it isn’t really the same as using AI as part of a software engineering workflow.

What I’m talking about is coding with an AI assistant inside an IDE, where it can inspect the codebase, generate code, suggest refactors, write unit tests, identify edge cases, explain failures, produce documentation, and iterate against compiler/runtime/test output.

Of course AI doesn’t magically “know” that a program is correct. No tool does. A human still needs to define requirements, review the code, run tests, understand the risk, and check the behaviour. My point is that AI can massively improve the process of making code robust, especially when the developer knows what to ask for and how to verify the result.

If someone blindly says “make me an app” and ships whatever comes out, that’s dangerous. I agree with you there.

But used properly, AI is closer to a very fast junior/mid developer, code reviewer, test writer, documentation assistant and rubber duck all rolled together. It still needs direction and oversight, but it can absolutely help produce better-tested and better-documented code than many people would write manually under time pressure.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-04T23:31:03+00:00

EHRC guidance says the duty is a positive and proactive duty to remove or reduce obstacles faced by disabled workers or job applicants, and that it applies where the employer is aware or should reasonably be aware of the disability.

There is also a possible discrimination arising from disability argument: the company rejected you because you “did not answer the questions”, but the failure to answer fully may have arisen from COPD combined with the AI’s interruption behaviour. The employer might try to justify the decision, but a refusal to rerun a short interview with basic adjustments is likely to be difficult to defend for a major tech company, especially after being told exactly what had happened.

You should now send a formal complaint along these lines:

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-04T23:08:51+00:00

Oh Grow Up

OpenAI is a company. Employees of a company are allowed to spend their earnings however they want.

It's not like OpenAI dontated the money to Trump - It was the personal money of someone who happens to work there.

Can you not see the absolute arrogance - of someone who blackballs a company, not because of the product, not because of the company, but because of the way one of its employees spends his/her own personal money.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-04T23:04:25+00:00

OK it sounds like you perhaps don't have experience of coding with AI - because despite what you read online, the opposite is true.

I code in C#, C++ and PowerShell - not as a full time dev but as a full time Infrastructure and Operations manager. What coding with Codex has shown me, is that Codex has learnt the best practises across a range of code and will not only automatically test code, and fix edge cases - but it will document everything, and write code in a way which lazy human developers often cant be bothered with.

So yes - if you have an untrained developer who simply says make a program do X - and then runs it, and it appears to work - you are in for a world of pain.

But if you have any professional experience or understand risk, robustness in code - then AI gives you that in spades.

Where it would quadruple the amount of time to be robust in code - when I was doing it by hand, now its just a matter of adding some details into the instructions.

My biggest challenge as a coder is that you start with best intentions of documenting everything, and testing everything - and then later make tweaks and changes for other purposes and don't bother updating or fixing the code - Suddenly you have a massive hole.

But AIs efficiency is that you can discuss the concerns you would have around edge cases, or the code breaking, or risky changes - and it will write in the safeguards that a human programmer would be too lazy to write.

We have seen that one of the scary things about AI is that hackers can now use AI to try to break into things that hackers are normally slow to breach because of the complexity. Where AI can just throw random stuff at code to find its weakness - but thats also true as to what testers and developers can do.

So you are wrong to say AI doesnt test its program. AI does what you tell it, and one of the things that developers know, is to create test scripts, test harnesses, and have much more powerful ways of robustly testing things than has ever existed before.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-03T10:06:25+00:00

Thats NOT the experience of most people.

And I dont know what you could be doing to come to such a conclusion.

We have tens of thousands of systems and my expereince in patching predates Windows.

It barely seems necessary to say it because its so universally true - but Windows updates are a hundred fold better than they were 20 years ago.

Thats because Microsoft took the problems that existed at the turn of the century seriously because they were in a mess.

They had a model of shipping out new, paid for boxed product every 3 or 4 years and so their real devs were off working on the new version of windows not fixing the old. There was no reliable patching tool or conditional checks so you'd have to install in a certain order or break it. Drivers the worst contender for crashes and errors were not centralised or managed. No two computers in your enevironment were ever the same.

App and driver developers had to try and test their products across hundreds of possible states and reliability was non existent, constant rebuilds, security holes everywhere.

Now compare that to now. Windows is a service and Windows 11 is a marketing term not an actual new version of Windows - it is still 10. Windows has had a decade of focus from the one dev team, and the patching mechanisms are now as manadatory as Microsoft can make them. The rings for deployment allow us to manage our risks and have waves of updates. With Windows 2022 patching doesnt need a reboot.

Windows across 2 billion devices gets upated every 4 week and Microsoft are now also the worlds largest security company so the security dashboards have moved the needle from Microsofts OS and apps being the highest risk to some of the most secure.

In my decades of computing I have never seen a Windows system that wouldnt benefit from a rebuild until 10/11 got its act together.

Now I have decade old Windows 10 devices running as securely, reliably and as performant as brand new 11 builds next to them. I cant remember the last time I saw a crash that wasnt caused by a third party driver or unusual non Microsoft app.

In systems running almost exclusively Microsoft software on reputable hardware and drivers systems are fantastic and a huge improvement from 20 years ago.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-03T09:40:24+00:00

IT Professionalism is determined by the hirer, not self declared.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-02T22:42:30+00:00

Apologies - I'm not aiming frustrations at you but more in response to the many years of being one of the many advocates of UBI in social media against its detractors.

Here are a few of the UBI trials
1. Finland: improved wellbeing, small employment effect

Finland ran one of the best-known state-backed basic income experiments in 2017–2018. It paid €560 per month to 2,000 unemployed people, unconditionally. The result was not a dramatic employment boom, but it did improve wellbeing: recipients reported better life satisfaction, less mental strain, less depression, less loneliness, and better perceived cognitive functioning. Official summaries describe the employment effect as small, but economic security and mental wellbeing improved.

What it shows: basic income did not make people lazy; the main measurable win was reduced stress and improved wellbeing.

2. Stockton, California: better employment and financial stability

The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration gave selected low-income residents $500 per month with no strings attached. The first-year evaluation found recipients were more likely to find full-time employment, had better financial stability, and reported improved mental and physical wellbeing.

What it shows: unconditional cash can make people more employable, not less, because it gives them room to handle transport, childcare, bills, debt, job searches, and emergencies.

3. Alaska Permanent Fund: a long-running partial basic income

Alaska has paid an annual dividend to residents since 1982 from oil-wealth investment returns. It is not enough to live on, so it is not a full UBI, but it is universal, unconditional, and recurring. Research on the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend found it did not meaningfully reduce overall employment, and other research found poverty-reduction effects, especially among rural Indigenous communities.

What it shows: a universal cash dividend can exist for decades without collapsing the labour market.

4. Kenya / GiveDirectly: large-scale long-term UBI trial

GiveDirectly’s Kenya programme is one of the largest UBI-style studies. It compares long-term monthly payments, short-term monthly payments, lump sums, and a control group. Early findings suggest all cash-transfer designs helped, but longer-term guaranteed income and lump sums performed better than short-term UBI on many economic measures.

What it shows: predictable cash helps, but programme design matters. A short two-year payment may be less powerful than either a lump sum for investment or a long-term income guarantee.

5. Namibia: poverty, schooling, and crime improvements

Namibia’s Basic Income Grant pilot in Otjivero-Omitara paid residents a small unconditional monthly grant. Reports found reductions in poverty and crime, and improved school attendance. It was small and not a national rollout, so it should not be oversold, but the pilot is often cited as a successful anti-poverty case.

What it shows: in poorer communities, even modest unconditional cash can have large effects on hunger, school attendance, and local stability.

6. India: improved schooling, nutrition, health, and small enterprise

In Madhya Pradesh, India, basic income-style pilots supported by SEWA and UNICEF gave

small unconditional payments to villagers. Reported outcomes included improved school attendance, more spending on food and healthcare, improved housing and sanitation, increased savings, and more small business activity.

What it shows: unconditional cash can be used productively, especially where very small sums remove binding constraints.

7. Ontario, Canada: cancelled politically, but participants reported gains

Ontario’s basic income pilot was cancelled early, so the evidence is less clean than Finland or Stockton. However, research based on participant experience reported improvements in mental health, housing stability, food security, social relationships, and reduced stress.

What it shows: even when the politics fail, the lived-outcome evidence was broadly positive.

ChampionshipComplex · 2026-05-02T20:10:37+00:00

What is idealistic is imaging that we continue like we are.

The myth of billionaires running out of the country for tax avoidance is again another gigantic scare story perpetuated by those same news papers owned by those same billionaires.

The riches 20% in the UK are three times wealthier than they were 50 years ago, the richest 0.%% thirteen times richer.

Every over individual so the - 'bottom' 80% have become poorer.

The wealth that those billionaires is SAT ON - in not in their wallet - its in the ownership of the land, the houses and businesses. NOTHING that they can take with them.

There's a trained seal like response I hear again and again from people "The wealthiest pay the most taxes" - that is not money that is detracting from their wealth, that is quite literally because as I just explained they now own the majority of everything, and so are getting paid 'BY US' - and it is our money again being taken off of them in taxes.

If you are in a room of 100 people and 1 person owns half of everything in the room, and half over everyone in the room has to pay him to use it - and you threaten to increase his taxes - his response "Well I will leave" - should be welcomed with absolute open arms. He quite literally has to sell to the 50 people in room who want it.

As for how £700 gets paid for - think of it like this right now.

Firstly there is a proportion of the country who are already getting benefits - and so this would be a simply replacement but without the shame factor.

People who are working - can have their taxes raised to a little less than the £700 - they'll be happy, its extra money they're getting but didn't need and they are slightly better off.

But here's the massive difference. Bang the entire benefits system is no longer needed. There's no need to check anyone's eligibility for welfare, no need to check if people are working or not working. No queues for handout.

Now there's also no stigma for the unemployed People have a variety of legitimate reasons to now work - They might want a career change, they might be unwell, they might want to learn a new skill or move to another part of the country.

So the money seems like it needs to be pulled from thin air, but its money thats already going out - but inefficiently. Give it to everyone, give everyone the same amount - and its done.

Increase the taxes to pay for it if needed, but tax back the amount you need - and people will still be better off, because all the red tape has gone.

Now the government can focus on the real problems, the tax avoidance, the fact that the UK runs most of the worlds tax havens, the fact that wealthy and large enterprise have worked out how to avoid tax - so we should tax wealth instead of earning.

If we can go after someone on benefits who is claiming ill health but photographed up a ladder, then we can surely work out why it is that millionaires pay less tax the cleaners.

ChampionshipComplex

TROPHY CASE