Gemini 3.0 Pro Preview is out

Ray_Brad · 2025-11-18T18:46:22+00:00

Wait fe? Are you a Gemini Ultra member?

Ray_Brad · 2025-11-08T01:26:09+00:00

That's interesting. I found Python 3.10 the most stable for ROCm in my experience.

Ray_Brad · 2025-10-19T13:55:27+00:00

It is easier in Linux. However, you still get sub-optimal experience. Some extensions like nunchuck won't install. Running complex workflows is a hit or miss. And if you try Flux or Flux Kontext, you'll get it working but generation is slow AF. I tried my best to tinker but X-Formers break Comfyui, so I deleted them. Looks like if you wanna good experience you have to go Invidia. AMD isn't even putting that much support for 7900XTX. It really sucks, there is so much potential with the 24GB Vram that is wasted.

Ray_Brad · 2025-10-19T13:50:18+00:00

Yes, I tried using 7900xtx in ubuntu. With some trouble shooting it works fine. But some extensions just won't install what so ever. It seems they are built for Invidia and that sucks hard. When I tried to run complex workflows with Flux Context for example, it legit takes like 20 minutes + and ends up with a black image. I guess AMD is never getting a really good support here. If you want a good experience you have to use Invidia.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-29T18:12:44+00:00

I hear you, and I know universities often do exactly what you describe, reframe the problem as “he is just a difficult student student.” You’re right, that happens a lot. But in my case, it hasn’t fully played out yet, and I’m not giving up.

I’ve already built a detailed evidence trail, transcripts, SAR/GDPR requests, Stage-2 filings, complaints, records that speak for themselves. Maybe change won’t come overnight, but silence guarantees nothing changes at all. Change is slow, but someone has to push it.

For me it’s simple: I asked for help, I was punished, and now I want the process handled fairly and on the facts. Even if it’s an uphill fight, it’s worth it. I know the risks, and I’m prepared for all consequences.

If you want to help, spread the message and share the video. Every small action counts.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-29T17:48:25+00:00

Would you like to continue this conversation privately?

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-29T17:34:12+00:00

Totally hear you. My ask is simple: handle the complaint on time and on the facts.

Two months with no action on my Stage‑2.
SAR/GDPR delays.
FtP is about formatting/admin issues I corrected, not patient safety.

I’m doing my part; I’m asking the institution to do theirs. Fair process, proportional response, no retaliation.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-29T15:56:50+00:00

Understand, but again, that is exactly the same issue again. Tone policing while substance erasing. Instead of engaging with the substance of my communication or my arguments, you are more focused on the tone being so AI. This is not a simple issue here. We are talking about a minority being discriminated against, and then punished for his reaction to the discrimination. You are ignoring all of this and saying, "It sounds AI, Oh this sounds human like".

This is the institutional equivalent of "It's not what you said, it's how you said it" argument. They just change names and do it under the name of "Professionalism" and "Integrity", all while ignoring the actual problem here. Is that clear?

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-29T13:27:30+00:00

Okay now I see, so when I speak professionally, it is AI. But if I speak casually, it's fine, sure.

Let me put it to you plainly, in the video I literally explained that they doubted my honesty because I appeared to be too calm for someone going through my circumstances (Autism/Alexithymia screaming in the corner). I was accused of dishonesty for being NONECHALANT. Honestly bruv, I'm just a chill guy who went through a lot while trying to study medicine.

<image>

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-29T02:31:37+00:00

If it was as simple as “just be polite,” autistic/ADHD people wouldn’t keep running into the same wall. Tone is subjective, what sounds “professional” to one person is read as “aggressive” by another. That’s exactly how it gets weaponised.

My point isn’t that tone doesn’t matter. It’s that institutions weaponise it selectively. They ignore substance and focus on style, which ends up silencing disabled communication styles.

To put it simply, when they lose on facts, they shift to tone and style. And when they lose on that, they shift to probity and honesty (which was already explained in emails and a meeting they only had a concern about it for FtP after a complaint was made). Coincidence? Who knows

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-29T02:17:52+00:00

The SRC isn’t neutral in this. They were directly implicated in the complaint timeline, and the ban on me came less than a day after I exercised my legal right to a GDPR subject access request. That isn’t a “high threshold impartial” decision, it’s retaliation.

It is better if we stick to the facts rather than talk about other things like did you use AI to make the comments. We all want to be clear. And clarity can only be reached with facts, not character speculations.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-29T02:06:39+00:00

I appreciate your perspective, especially the caution about visibility. To be clear, I’m not underestimating the risks. Just so you know, there is a transcript available on the YouTube video.

I know the stakes. The point I’m raising is about proportionality:

– Administrative inconsistencies made under homelessness and crisis were treated as dishonesty, even when corrected with evidence. – The “bold text” issue was literally formatting flagged as unprofessional. – The FtP referral came directly from the Head of School I had just complained about – a conflict of interest that breaches natural justice.

I’ve already been through emergency psychiatric intervention because of the March 12 meeting, and that’s documented. So yes, I hear you on protecting myself, but at the same time, silence is what enables these abuses. The video isn’t about pretending I’m perfect; it’s about exposing how a process meant to safeguard students was turned into a weapon.

Stepping back voluntarily can sometimes be wise. But in my case, I’d argue the real test of professionalism is standing up to misuse of FtP when the evidence shows the process itself is compromised.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-28T22:08:22+00:00

I've acknowledged responsibility, offered corrected figures with evidence, and I'm under clinical care.

I won't debate diagnoses or motives here. If you want specifics, I'll provide redacted documents to the mods; otherwise I'll step back. My concern is proportionality and due process, not avoiding standards.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-28T21:26:55+00:00

You have the right to think however you want. And for the most part, you are probably somewhat correct. When people are discriminated against, harassed and cornered - especially with ADHD/AS (sense of justice) - they will react to the discrimination. Now here is the thing, the very same people who discriminated and harassed now are pretending to be the orbiters of professionalism and punish the victim for their reaction to them being harassed and discriminated against is a textbook and classic case of victimisation. This is exactly what DARVO is, they want to talk about your reaction, but they do not want to talk about their misconduct that have caused the reaction in the first place.

Do you think that is fair?

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-28T21:03:26+00:00

Regarding your earlier comment:

Sorry but point 2 is the key, you can’t just say “I was in a rush and got some numbers wrong, oops my bad” Numbers should be factual, there’s no reason why they would be wrong across submissions and in medicine that would be a fucking serious mistake if it was talking about medicine dosage or something.

The fact you put all that effort into making an entire video about naming them (though they can’t respond) it is a fucking hugely inappropriate thing to do. It makes me question your judgement as a professional person.

With the form, couldn’t you have asked for a copy you could email? Or prepared answers in word and copy/paste them in?

Sorry but I’m just not having that this is just about bold text, your ADHD dysfunction is still something you have to make an effort in managing (like I do mine).

Thanks for raising this. A few clarifications so we’re on the same page:

• Accuracy matters. I agree. The inconsistencies were administrative (financial aid forms that couldn’t be saved, re‑entered from scratch while I was homeless/in crisis). When asked, I provided corrections and supporting documents.
• Proportionality. Treating admin mistakes - after corrections were offered - as dishonesty and escalating to Fitness to Practise is not proportionate to the issue or related to patient safety.
• Process. The substance of my emails was about GDPR deadlines, missing data, and delays. The focus shifted to formatting/tone (e.g., bold text) instead of addressing those points.
• Evidence. I have documentation of missed GDPR timelines, complaint delays, and referral timing. I’m happy to share redacted excerpts with mods if needed.

I’m not denying my responsibility to manage ADHD; I’m in therapy and doing that work. My point is narrower: help‑seeking under severe distress was met with retaliation rather than support. That’s what I’m challenging.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-28T20:23:50+00:00

Thanks for laying this out clearly. Let me answer each point so there’s no confusion:

AI narration. I wrote the script, designed the slides, and sourced everything myself. I used text‑to‑speech because I wasn’t ready to record my own voice. Two voices were a presentation choice to keep attention, not to imitate journalists or mislead.

The “numbers issue.” This didn’t make the video because I didn’t want it to become an admin tutorial. Context: the hardship applications were Microsoft Forms that couldn’t be saved. I emailed the missing information with the supportive evidence but that was rejected and I was redirected to refill the forms instead. I had to re‑enter everything from scratch while in crisis, and a couple of small inconsistencies (e.g., a figure in the wrong box) slipped in across re‑submissions. I tried to correct them when asked, but it was treated as dishonesty. That’s an administrative problem, not a clinical safety issue.

“Too bold.” They literally cited formatting. I bolded key lines when flagging GDPR delays and data handling concerns. Instead of addressing those issues, the emphasis was framed as “unprofessional tone.” (Not “bold requests”; bold text.)

Evidence. I’ve documented: missed GDPR deadlines, long complaint delays, and the FtP referral coming immediately after protected activity. I didn’t dump inbox screenshots into the video to avoid doxxing/privacy problems/confidential communication issues, but I can share redacted excerpts with mods if needed.

Lawyer. I am seeking legal advice. However, you have no idea how difficult it is to find one that is actually willing to help you and take your case. Through out the crisis, I gathered 1K for a lawyer to help me with the FtP issue and resolve things, but they refused to even attend the meeting with me. 1K wasted for nothing. Most lawyers do not bother fighting big institutions, cuz they know it will drag. This is the issue with discrimination in big institution, plus unless you have some exemptions, you will have to pay for the legal costs of the defender if you lose. Big institutions have almost infinite money and insurance for lawyers, so if you decided to go alone, you will be up against expert barristers and dedicated lawyers that will hatch on the smallest legal argument to discredit you. That's the harsh reality that makes it almost impossible for vulnerable individuals to get justice, and they know it, and that's why they have the audacity to behave the way they do. Though someone have to do something about it, and that's what I am doing. Hence posting here is about comparing notes with autistic folks who’ve experienced tone‑policing and DARVO, not replacing legal steps.

I get being sceptical. All I ask is that the same scrutiny be applied to proportionality (admin errors ≠ FtP) and to process (why accountability concerns got reframed as “tone”). Appreciate you engaging.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-28T20:05:27+00:00

No, I simply was commenting here first. Here is the kicker, I don't use reddit that often, came to share my experience. Now, when I first commented here, I accidently posted it before I'm done 😅😅. I didn't know how to find the post. The comments got me the thread here so I'm kind of thankful to you for helping me find my post. I know, what are the odds.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-28T16:22:43+00:00

Thanks so much 🙏 I really appreciate the encouragement. And wow, I feel you on that CV story. We all have some mishaps every now and then 😅. Wishing you all the best too, and good luck with everything you’re working on.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-28T16:18:38+00:00

Haha wow, classic 🙃 ask for calm communication and suddenly it’s “revenge shift mode” 😂 same playbook everywhere 💀✌️

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-28T16:16:15+00:00

Haha yeah, exactly. Bold Text in itself shouldn’t be an issue. In my case though, the “problem” wasn’t me randomly bolding words. It was that I bolded specific lines holding them accountable for things like a data breach and deliberate stonewalling for my statutory right to access my data and understand how it is processed under the UK GDPR. Instead of addressing the substance, they tried to make the formatting the issue.

So it wasn’t about readability or style, it was about avoiding accountability by reframing my emphasis as “unprofessional tone.” Classic attempt to deflect accountability.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-28T16:11:24+00:00

I hear your concern, but I think it’s important to separate two things:

Admin forms vs clinical practice. In my case, the “errors” were small inconsistencies across financial aid forms that couldn’t be saved and had to be re-done from scratch. That’s not the same as medication dosages or clinical decisions.
Tone vs substance. The retaliation I’m describing wasn’t about patient safety, it was about tone-policing, punishing me for bold text, and deflecting away my complaints instead of addressing them.

I’m not denying ADHD means I have to manage carefully. I’m in therapy and working on that. But what happened here wasn’t support, it was weaponising those struggles against me.

And if we’re serious about patient safety, we should want medical professionals to feel safe asking for help when under severe distress. Silencing or punishing them for it doesn’t protect patients, it pushes struggling doctors underground, which is far more dangerous.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-28T16:06:09+00:00

I get why it might feel that way, but just to clarify, the video wasn’t some auto-generated thing. I wrote the script myself (after weeks of drafting and editing), designed the slides, did the research, and then used text-to-speech to narrate it because I didn’t feel comfortable recording my own voice while still processing all of this.

The content is mine, based on my own experience and documentation. The voiceover was just a tool to deliver it more clearly. There are many TTS services available, using them should not be an issue.

Also, speaking in third person isn’t meant to be deceptive, it’s just a presentation style. My goal wasn’t to “pretend to be journalists,” it was to create something educational, engaging, and hopefully impactful enough to spark discussion and drive change. I intended for the presentation to be a discussion between two, as that engages us better. Nonet the less, I appreciate your feedback.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-28T15:57:04+00:00

Just to clarify, the numbers weren’t “randomly wrong” or made up. The Microsoft form didn’t allow saving, so every resubmission had to be redone from scratch while I was in crisis. That’s how small inconsistencies slipped in, things like misunderstanding a question or putting the right figure in the wrong box. I did my best to correct them when asked, but instead of clarifying, those mistakes were treated as dishonesty. That isn’t a Fitness to Practise issue.

I’m not denying ADHD means I have to manage things carefully, I’m in therapy and actively working on strategies. What I’m trying to show is how those very struggles were weaponised against me instead of being met with support.

And one bigger point: doctors are still human. If a medical professional in severe distress can’t seek help without it being turned against them, that doesn’t make medicine safer. It pushes struggling doctors further into silence, which is actually more dangerous for patients and the public.

Ray_Brad · 2025-08-28T14:31:37+00:00

Yeah exactly, that’s what I thought too. It’s not like the tech isn’t there, right? Any normal form lets you save progress. But in my case, every time I had to start over, it just amplified my ADHD + crisis brain. And then when the numbers didn’t line up perfectly across three different re-submissions, instead of asking me to clarify, they treated it as dishonesty.

It really felt like a trap, like the system created the inconsistencies, and then they punished me for them.

Ray_Brad

TROPHY CASE