Do techies lean Liberal or Conservative? (Part 2/2)

Welcome back!

As promised, we will be diving into the three points I outlined previously, and we'll examine how these positions could actually be Conservative ones rather than Liberal.

How Software Developers are Conservative

Identity does not matter. This principle applies both ways. The same way we wouldn't discriminate on basis of race or gender or what-have-you, we also would not use it as a criteria of preference. You may claim this is contradictory, and you'd be wrong. This is entirely consistent with our worldview. Only the tech matters.

This isn't important, or
even relevant.

Now, sure, I know Silicon Valley has DEI programs in place. I promise you, those are most assuredly implemented by HR, or Management who want to appease some Liberal demographic. The average techie, however, simply does not give a flying fuck.

You ask any techie, and their first question is more likely to be "what's your tech stack?" rather than "what are your pronouns?"

Innovation versus tradition. Now, earlier when I said that techies prefer innovation over tradition, that was true. It may also have given you the impression that techies are risk-taking swashbucklers, which, to be honest, makes us sound more awesome than we probably deserve.

The truth is, techies are boring and consistent to a fault. We like things to be neat and make sense. If we did things a certain way, in the past, we are likely to do so again unless there are good reasons against it. We obey coding styles and naming conventions and follow software patterns because doing so makes it easy to troubleshoot when things go wrong.

Things are done a certain
way, for good reason.

One of our greatest frustrations is when people do things willy-nilly and just "wing it" because this is messy and asking for trouble down the road. We don't do things one way because we suddenly feel like doing so - we do them a certain way because it's worked for us in the past, but we are open to changing it if there's good reason to do so. Again, this is consistent with the previous, seemingly Liberal, position.

The collective versus the individual. This next point is more true now than it was when I first started out.

Developers accomplish things in teams. Software development is a team sport. There is really no way around it in this day and age. Tech has evolved so much that there is zero chance of one person knowing everything - now this knowledge requires a team.

Functioning as a unit.

Remember I said that developers are a diverse lot? It is precisely this diversity that lends itself to building effective multi-disciplinary teams. And in this way, it is often the collective that trumps the individual.

Some parting thoughts on the Culture Wars

Even similar positions can take on a Liberal or Conservative lens depending on how one views it. This shows me that both sides actually have a lot in common, Culture Wars be damned. And this perspective today is perhaps more relevant than ever now that the Culture Wars have arrived at what I can only describe as a very odd place.

Americans on Social Media now squabble over the dumbest shit imaginable. Recently, I had the pleasure of watching Superman, and went on Facebook to check out some reviews and see how other moviegoers found the film. Imagine my surprise when I found people embroiled in intense arguments over whether Superman was an illegal immigrant. I suppose technically, he is, but don't these nerds have better things to talk about?

Apparently not! I soon came to the realization that this was bigger than I initially thought. It had stemmed from the director and producer, James Gunn, making a remark about how Superman was an immigrant. The Liberals began drawing parallels to recent treatment of immigrants in the USA. And then people were in each other's faces about how they didn't understand Superman and weren't real Superman fans if they preferred/didn't prefer this Superman.

I mean, attempting to gatekeep who is and isn't a fan of a fictional superhero character? Tell me you're a loser without telling me you're a loser.

I'd initially thought this argument was basically a bunch of loser nerds obsessing over obscure details. It turned out to be way more ridiculous than that - it was a mob of wankers on the internet all trying desperately to justify feeling morally superior to the other side. Conservatives such as Ben Shapiro started trashing Superman as "woke garbage" and bitching in bizarre fashion about how the character wasn't American enough. One Susan Sarandon went onto Instagram to make it all about Israel and Palestine.

True, being good and kind does not require athleticism or talent. Any idiot is capable of kindness, and I would have it no other way. On the other hand, it just feels like a whole bunch of untalented schmucks just decided to overcompensate for their lack of talent and real-world achievement by blowing their trumpets about "kindness and empathy" just so they could feel accomplished, or something.

And as for people like Shapiro and Sarandon... massive cringe, man. People need to understand when they've taken things far enough and it's getting absurd. It's come to a point where people can't sit down and watch a decent superhero movie without trying to score political points. 

Dysfunction, thy name is America.

Your cultured programmer,
T___T

Fare Thee Well, Skype!

It was with a fair bit of wistfulness when I read the news that Skype would be officially decommissioned by Microsoft on the 5th of May, right next month. Hard to believe that just a few short years ago, I was between jobs and on Skype speaking to interviewers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Skype is dead soon.

Skype first appeared in 2003 as a telecommunications software application, when I was still at my Desktop Support job. Back then, my Indian boss amusingly referred to it as "Sky Pee". The setup was smooth and easy, and with this software we could talk to people all over the world instead of paying some hideously expensive phone charges. The user experience just seemed to be one of the smoothest around. The installation process was simple, a joy to embark on. I remember thinking that even just the chat feature was a lot more pleasant to use than Microsoft Messenger's.

Somewhere along the way, in 2011, Skype was acquired by Microsoft. Fourteen years later, Microsoft has decided that it is no longer tenable to continue maintaining Skype.

Why did Skype fail?

Most people have heard of the Microsoft BSOD - the Blue Screen of Death. Well, it appears what we have here is the Microsoft Kiss of Death. It may seem a little unfair to Microsoft. After all, all they really did was acquire Skype. And yes, perhaps they tinkered with Skype's inner workings just a little. And... you know what, you're right, this is all on Microsoft.

I think COVID-19 provided an even greater environment for Skype to shine. In those dark days, due to the need to avoid close physical proximity, video calls became a necessity. However, COVID-19 ironically was also one of the factors hastening Skype's downfall, because it provided that very same environment for Skype's competitors to shine.

Left behind in the race.

And shine they did.

Google Hangouts, Oracle Zoom, Slack, Microsoft Teams. WhatsApp. Instagram. Even TikTok. All of them provided video conference features (Instagram and TikTok to a limited degree) and it was clear that Skype was being quickly outpaced. And since Microsoft was understandably more concerned with supporting Teams, Slack had become an afterthought. 

And like most afterthoughts, Skype eventually faded into obscurity. Software has to be relevant in order to survive. And in order to be relevant, software has to evolve. Under Microsoft, Skype was dead in the water. 

Goodbye, Skype!

We had great memories together. Countless memorable conversations were had in your pale blue-and-white interface. There should be a special placed reserved for Skype in the annals of software history - arguably the first of its kind.

The Skype's the limit,
T___T

Film Review: Black Mirror Series Five (Part 2/3)

This next story, Smithereens, is set in the UK - London, to be exact. Smithereen is the name of a Social Media company owned by Billy Bauer.

As the exclamation mark icon would suggest, Smithereen produces some kind of Twitter-like Social Media product.

The Premise

Rideshare driver Chris Gilhaney takes a man hostage in an effort to speak with the founder of Smithereen, Billy Bauer. That's pretty much it; this is, in broad strokes, what takes place. The rest of it is in-character drama and backstory.

The tragedy itself is a commentary on the addictve nature of Social Media.

The Characters

Andrew Scott as Christopher Gilhaney. At first we think he's an unkempt cab driver with an unusually intense stare. We later find out that he's extremely stressed and has a hair-trigger temper, but ultimately a decent chap at heart. He's also got a fair amount of tragedy in his life which leads him to do this.

Damson Idris plays Smithereen intern Jaden Tommins as a scared kid taken hostage. He does this wonderfully too, and really elicits sympathy here. At the end, the character exhibits loads of empathy with his kidnapper Chris and even tries to stop him from killing himself.

Topher Grace as Smithereen CEO Billy Bauer. Grace appears like I've never seen him before - as a new-agey man-bunned hipster out on a "silent retreat". Pretensions aside, he's entirely sympathetic as a tech geek who begins building his product with benign intentions but ends up creating a monster.

Calum Callaghan as male cop, Damien Cullen. Slightly goofy, but the portrayal of a stodgy cop seemed entirely authentic.

Ambreen Razia as female cop, Najma Haque. Portrayed as the more on-the-ball and alert partner.

Amanda Drew is Hayley Blackwood. She is a grieving mother whose daughter took her own life, and has a one-night stand with Chris. I liked her in this role, but I'm not sure if her inclusion was necessary at all.

Caitlin Innes Edwards as Hannah Kent from Smithereen HR. Nothing much to see here, really. Honestly didn't do much. I get that the plot warranted her inclusion; she just wasn't that interesting to watch.

Maggie Bain as Maryam, who appears to be in charge of Smithereen in London. Another superfluous role.

Ruibo Qian as Penelope Wu, COO. She acts as the counterfoil to Billy Bauer's empathetic nature, mostly cold and calculating and concerned with the less human side of things.

Monica Dolan as Chief Superintendent Linda Grace, who tries to take charge but does a really bad job of it.

Daniel Ings as David Gilkes, negotiator. Another role that felt superfluous.

Quincy Dunn-Baker as Don from legal and Mirirai Sithole as Shonelle from Analytics. Fucking superfluous. FFS, they should have just combined the two roles with no loss to the story. Were they trying to set some kind of record here?

Jorge Cordova as Ernesto Cruz from FBI. Wow, this is Superfluous with a capital S. What did the character contribute here, really? Neat pornstache, though.

Adam McNamara as Harris the sniper. Alice Bailey-Johnson as the other sniper. Supremely incompetent at their jobs, considering how much they missed and how little distance it was.

Crystal Clarke does a decent job playing Tipi. Upbeat and earnest. Clarke made the most out of the limited scope of the role as the staff member sent to alert Billy Bauer.

The Mood

It looks like a typical dreary day in London but soon (after an unneccessary sex scene) the action picks up and becomes some kind of hostage thriller. Doubles as tragedy when one realizes what led Chris to take such extreme measures.

What I liked

I really enjoyed the fact that this episode was all about existing tech. Smithereen was like a real-world Twitter (now X), Persona the equivalent of Facebook or Instagram, and Hitcher like Uber. It made it all the more relatable, especially since the bleakness was a dark (or black, hur hur) mirror to the all-too-real ills of Social Media today.

The transcriber being a prude as it recorded Chris delivering a cluster F-bomb, substituting all instances of "fuck" with "duck". I probably shouldn't find it that amusing, but I did.

What I didn't

The cast just felt unnecessarily huge. There was a number of speaking roles in the episode that felt like they were there just to make up the numbers. The characterization for these roles were just flat.

The plot was bloated beyond belief. A lot of it felt like meaningless waiting. Did it ratchet up the tension? Maybe a little. But not enough to warrant sitting through a whole lot of stuff that could have been cut out.

For example, Hayley's subplot. Near the end, we see that Billy Bauer has called in to Persona to request that they give Hayley her daughter's password. But anyone who works in tech (or even has the faintest idea how this shit works) knows that passwords have not been stored in cleartext since the last decade. Basic web security. There is no way for anyone to go into the database and search for a user and simply retrieve a non-hashed password. The best they could have done was reset the password or send Hayley a link to do so.

Now, normally I could have overlooked this... if it weren't for the fact that this password was a plot point (the password apparently matched the number of the boat in a photo that Hayley and her daughter took together), which resulted in the password thing being a gigantic fucking plot hole.

Cut out this entirely, and we would have eliminated Hayley and her one night stand with Chris -and- the plot hole. Though it would have been a pity because I actually liked Amanda Drew as Hayley.

All in all, this amateurish error ruined the episode for me. You want to make a show about tech, get a writer who actually understands tech. Jesus!

Conclusion

A poor, poor episode, especially since it could have been halfway decent once a lot of fat was trimmed. I liked the premise and the Aesop of the episode, but the huge plot hole and execution flaws made this one just about unsalvageable.

My Rating

4.5 / 10

Next

Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too

Singapore's Smoking Samsui Woman Controversy Through a Web Developer's Eyes

The story I'm about to talk about today, is pretty old, at least in the news cycle context. It happened more than a month back, and the incident is fast fading from public consciousness. It's taken me at least that long to come to terms with it, and understand why certain elements of the case offended me on such a profound level.

To anyone who doesn't want to beat this particular dead horse, I more than understand; go play with another ball of wool and watch some funny cat videos while I unpack this.

What happened

The owner of a building in Chinatown had hired an artist, one Sean Dunston, to paint a mural on the exterior wall. Dunston decided to paint a tribute to some of the pioneers of Singapore, the Samsui woman. To that end, he produced a work covering the wall, of a young, slender woman in the blue work clothes and red hat of the quintessential Samsui uniform, smoking a cigarette.

From Google Maps

The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) issued an order to the owner of the building to remove the cigarette from the mural, as the depiction of smoking on a public-facing wall contravened the Singapore Government's stand on advertisements for tobacco products and smoking.

The URA also cited feedback form an unnamed member of the public. In Sean Dunston's original Instagram post, this was an excerpt from their correspondence. 

We wish to bring to your attention that URA has received feedback on the mural from a member of public. The feedback received is as follows - "We find this mural offensive and is disrespectful to our samsui women. The woman depicted in this mural looks more like a prostitute than a hardworking samsui woman."

Cringe, man. Massive cringe. More on that later.

The URA then followed up by saying that the mural would have to be changed, or the restaurant which operated in this building would have its temporary license revoked.

Reactions

It was a heady mixture of scorn and disbelief that anyone could mistake a simple picture of a female laborer sitting down and enjoying a cigarette as the come-hither soliciting pose of a prostitute. There were those who opined that the cigarette, while possibly too modern (in those times, it was more likely to be of the hand-rolled variety), was absolutely a feasible historical representation of the quintessential Samsui woman.

No artistic freedom?

There were those who expressed concerns about artistic freedom in Singaporean society.

And yes, those who actually thought that the Samsui woman absolutely did look like a prostitute. This weirdness thankfully seemed to be at a minimum, though I have suspicions that these were basically just civil servants in subtle damage control mode trying to make the URA's instruction seem reasonable.

The Association of Women For Action And Research (AWARE), perhaps feeling the need to appear relevant, also weighed in with some garbage about perpetuating "a male gaze", and then backtracked later. 

What really offended me, and why

Now, the actual opinion of the Samsui woman looking like a prostitute, though I'm thoroughly dumbfounded by that, wasn't by itself offensive. I'm not offended by the fact that people have opinions, and that often these opinions don't match mine. That's a fact of life, and, where subjective topics such as art and morality are concerned, par for the course.

What did offend me was that the civil servant who drafted the URA's response, saw fit to include the feedback of that one member of the public, and acted as though this inclusion was ample justification for their decision. Who was this one anonymous person whose opinion held so much weight? Was it their own opinion which they then passed off as some fictional other person's? Was it their mother-in-law? Some random Karen passer-by? Our newly minted Prime Minister Lawrence Wong? Our President, Tharman Shanmugaratnam? Which individual, out of Singapore's population of over 5 million, has enough clout to speak for all of us on this matter? We'll never know, because the URA also decided not to disclose their identity.

Our mysterious art critic.

The fact that the URA gave such a nonsensical reason as justification, is insulting; even more insulting than if they had not deigned to give a reason at all. It smacked of the good old heavy-handed, "I have the authority to do this, just take it and be grateful I even bothered to give you a reason, peasants."

This irks me due to similar experiences I've had in web development. Clients somehow seem to think that the fact that they pay for a website entitles them to say things that don't make any kind of logical sense. Buddy, you paid for a website. You didn't pay for the ability to redefine reality.

"This color scheme makes me feel moody. This needs to be more vibrant." It's been decades, but I don't think the technology to create a website based on subjective feelings, exists in any part of the world.

"I don't like this. Let's redo it." Pretty sure that in order to get anywhere, we'll need something a lot more concrete than "I don't like it". But for some mystifying reason, people confuse web developers with mind readers.

"I asked my friend what he thought and he didn't like the layout." Again, who is this "friend"? The imaginary childhood kind? Or at least some authority in the field of web design? Also, doesn't it occur to them that the website isn't actually meant for them (or their friends), but their target audience?

The URA response was a great example of the kind of out-of-touch correspondence that reeked of arrogance. The sort of arrogance that genuinely expects not to be ridiculed for providing such a laughable response. The sort of arrogance that comes with having precious little experience in justifying oneself, or worse, offering something rather more convincing than "because I said so". The sort of arrogance so cartoonish that it borders on comedy.

The similarities of this case to my previous experiences as a web developer - vague subjective objections, feedback from anonymous unrelated person cited and all - were pretty triggering by themselves. But at the same time, I fervently hope that this isn't the quality we can expect of our civil servants.

Many Asians have older relatives that expect to be taken seriously (even when they talk nonsense) simply because they're older, dammit. The URA, similarly, seems to be afflicted with the kind of characters that expect to be taken seriously (even when they talk nonsense) simply because they're the URA, dammit. 

So yes, I'm dismayed at the URA's response. I'm also annoyed that it took Dunston raising a stink on Instagram and the subsequent public outcry, for the URA to get their collective heads out of their asses. 

Epilogue

The mural of the Samsui Woman was allowed to remain unchanged; however the owner of the building was fined a modest 2000 SGD for contravening the regulations. This seems like a good compromise. 

And hopefully, the URA has learned a PR lesson from this; or better still, properly educated the civil servant in question. Singapore can do better; indeed, if we want to continue punching above our weight, we need to.

Your moural authority,
T___T

Meta's new platform: Threads or Threat?

I've never wanted a Twitter account. Back in the day, the thought of maintaining yet another extension of my online identity held little appeal, especially when all I could seemingly expect in return was yet another platform of celebrities airing opinions that they seemed to think I should care about, or non-celebs making those proclamations as though they were celebs. And, of course, thread after thread of shmucks with too much time on their hands people trying desperately to sound cleverer than the next guy, or just outright hurling verbal abuse when they thought they could get away with it.

Heck, if that was what I was after, I already had Facebook for that.

Thus, last week, when I saw an Instagram notification that told me some of my friends had already started posting on Meta's spanking brand new Social Media platform Threads, I was momentarily tempted to just hop on the bandwagon. Momentarily. Until I did a little homework and it turned out that Threads was basically a spiritual clone of Twitter less a few features.

Now, if I already had zero desire to have a Twitter account whether or not Elon Musk was in charge, why would I want Threads?

The case for Threads

The ad-free experience? Come on, now. We all know that once Threads hits a certain critical mass in terms of user base, Mark Zuckerberg is going to monetize the hell out of it. It's just business.

More moderation, less toxicity? Sure, right now Threads is a nice friendly place with content moderation. However, once enough users join this platform, the same thing is going to happen that happens everywhere - the name-calling, the endless virtue-signalling, the constant pseudo-intellectual bullshit. People are trash, and they don't stop being trash even if you intend to implement a level of censorship that would cause China to sigh with approval.

Censored!

It's also tempting to sign up for Threads just to spite Elon Musk, though in all honesty, a lot of that is his own fault. This techbro billionaire basically paints a target on himself every time he gets online to spout some outrageously trollish bullshit. He's a billionaire and the average Keyboard Warrior can't even begin to touch him... but they can affect his bottom line and dent his ego by going over to his competitor now that he has one. I like to think I'm above these levels of pettiness, though the simple fact is that my laziness precludes me from it.

Competition is good for the market, generally. Threads represents just that. Some might say we already have way too many Social Media platforms. I say that's only the case if one intends to sign up for all of them. As someone whose fortunes aren't being intrinsically tied to public recognition - such as, say, actors and artistes and influencers - I have the privilege of not giving a shit, one which I intend to exercise with extreme prejudice.

But back to the issue of competition. It's important to keep these guys in check. And if the world's governments can't, perhaps these competing platforms will keep each other in check. Think about it - even without a monopoly, platforms like Facebook, Twitter and the like were abusing data confidentiality and unevenly applying moderation policies. How much bolder would they get if they had a monopoly? That, my friends, is entirely unthinkable.

The case against Threads

I don't actually have anything against Threads specifically. At least, not any more than I have against Twitter and all the platforms that attempt to imitate it. It just doesn't offer me any value that would entice me to partake; I have no ambitions to become an influencer of any sort, and I certainly don't think my opinions require a Twitter-like soapbox to air them from.

Why, Zuck?!

But sure, let's take a look at the data that Threads wants to collect. That's quite a list: location, personal, health financial, web browsing... check out the screenshot, or check it out yourself on your App Store. Even by the standards of Social Media, this seems excessive. Now, being a complete nobody, I'm personally not all that concerned about data privacy. People who feel differently about the issue may beg the question: why in the ever-loving Zuck do you need all that data, Mark? Sure, these are mostly optional. But still, it's a little concerning.

There's also the issue of your Instagram account being tied to your Threads account. Apparently, once you install Threads, you can't delete your Threads account without also deleting your Instagram account, which just feels really tyrannical. I expect them to fix this at some point, though.

Lastly, there's the buzz that Threads lacks certain features that Twitter has, such as Trends and Spaces. But let's not kid ourselves, all people really need is a platform to air their opinions, exchange news of dubious veracity and argue with complete strangers. You don't need those extra features for that.

So... Threads or Threat?

Whatever one may think of Meta or Mark Zuckerberg, the move to create Threads and attract the Instagram user base was nothing short of brilliant. Already, Threads has unsurpassed rapidity of user growth and avoided (sort of) the growing pains of most other Social Media platforms. It came at an crucial time when Elon Musk seems to be struggling as Twitter's owner, and his increasingly unpopular decisions have left Twitter's user base crying out for an alternative.

Will Threads be Twitter's death blow? I sure hope not. Not that I'm a fan of either Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk, but the last thing we need in the Social Media arena is a monopoly. The existence of a flailing Twitter has given rise to the creation of Threads, and the existence of Threads should in turn hold Musk's feet to the fire. Already, we have news of an impending lawsuit. Good times!

Thread carefully, Elon Musk!
T___T

Film Review: Missing

A spiritual sequel to 2018's Searching is here. I actually wrote a review on it back then, as I'm going to do now!

The movie is titled Missing, and in terms of format and plot, it's almost identical. There are a few tweaks here and there that break away from it being solely in found footage format, and now the process of finding clues is a lot faster because the protagonist is a tech-savvy teenager rather than a bumbling Boomer. Other than that, it feels pretty much the same. It doesn't count as a direct sequel because the plot has almost nothing to do with Searching, other than a reenacted sequence at the start (which serves to confirm it as having happened in the same universe, if nothing else).

Warning - spoilers, spoilers and more spoilers

There are big twists in this movie, and I'm not skilled enough as a reviewer to avoid spoilers. Also, I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't read movie reviews before watching them, so I don't actually care enough to avoid spoilers. Proceed at your own risk!

The Premise

While on vacation with her beau, Grace Allen goes missing. It's up to her rebellious Gen Z teen daughter to piece the clues together and locate her parent. This eventually leads to a whole series of twists as assumptions are challenged and theories disproven, until the climatic end where a rather predictable twist occurs.

This is an inversion on the plot of its predecessor Searching, which told a story of a parent trawling the internet for clues to the whereabouts of his missing child.

The Characters

Storm Reid as June Allen. She was OK in the role. I didn't hate her. She's no John Cho, but to be fair, no one is.

Nia Long as Grace Allen. She did the whole loving-Mom-trying-to-move-on bit with ease. It's only towards the end when the question pops up... moving on from what exactly?

Ken Leung as Kevin Lin. Last saw him in Old. He was awkward or earnest when he needed to be, and has this look of a really crafty, weaselly SOB. In other words, he was perfect.

Tim Griffin is superb as James, June's long-missing father, presumed dead. He switched from sweet dad to abusive husband with terrifying ease, though there were times he kind of went over-the-top.

Amy Landecker is Heather Damore, Grace's heroic lawyer who dies trying to protect the Allens. It strikes me as sad that she died alone and in the most horrific manner.

An uncannily gorgeous Daniel Henney plays FBI Agent Elijah Park, June's ally in the FBI. Other than bits of exposition here and there, he didn't have all that much to do. Honestly, his good looks were a distraction, and I'm saying that as a straight guy!

Megan Suri as Veena, the annoyingly perky BFF of June. She does a good male impersonation and has a good vibe with Javier. Other than that, pretty much peripheral to the plot.

Joaquim de Almeida as Javier Ramos. A kindly elderly man who's a TaskRabbit gig worker. He turns out to be incredibly helpful, becoming June's eyes, ears (and hands and legs) in Colombia. He also gives June a bit of perspective from the viewpoint of a parent, being estranged from his own son.

Lauren B Mosley as Rachel, an aspiring actress who's hired as Grace's body double. Bewildered and clueless. The character, I mean. Actress did just fine.

Tracy Vilar has a couple scenes as Detective Gomez. Overacted a whole lot in the brief scenes she was in. Did not enjoy watching her.

The Mood

It was pedestrian for the first hour, but the tension really kicked up several notches from the time Grace went missing. I was kept on my toes around the last half hour expecting a jump scare every other minute.

What I liked

The updated tech used. Back in Searching, it was mostly Facebook and YouTube. Now, five years later, the internet has exploded with all manner of apps. June is seen using things like Instagram, TikTok, Google Translate and tourist destination live cams... even the fictional dating app Luvly!

It's really difficult to tell the entire story in second-hand footage format. They managed to pull it off, though there were times it felt like people were trying just a bit too hard. Credit where it's due!

Towards the end, the survival of the characters was never assured. I did not know for sure that either June or Grace weren't going to be killed off.

I liked that little plot point about June reacting to Grace's "I love you" message with a thumbs up (and Grace trolling her with it at the end) because that is absolutely a relatively recent feature of chat apps.

June's desktop screen is so messy. This is so relatable it almost feels like a personal attack.

What I didn't

The part where June goes through the Instagram messages to actually play the clips, and finds out that the woman in the clip is not her mother. OK, that was kind of awesome, until you remember that this thread was meant to act as a false trail for June. Why would Kevin include a clip that wasn't of June's mom?

At times, especially towards the end, the plot just got a little too much. The charm of Searching was that most of the plot's premise was easily believable. Missing required a hell of a lot more effort.

June uses a colorful MacBook but her mother Grace uses Windows?! Wow, way to age-stereotype!

Conclusion

I had a good time. This was a decent follow-up. Things threatened to get a little stale, but the movie navigated that well enough, keeping things relatively fresh with a few new visual effects. I retain a certain fondness to its predecessor, but this new offering wasn't as bad as it could have been.

Still, there's this feeling that this particular format of movie-making has just about run its course. I was OK with this movie, but there better not be another sequel! Quit while you're ahead, yo.

My Rating

7 / 10

I love you, guys! 👍
T___T

Film Review: Black Mirror Series Three (Part 1/3)

Black Mirror has grown! Series Three is a whopping six episodes, and today we are going through just three of them because, y'know, my mental bandwidth is limited.

We have Nosedive, Playtest and Shut Up and Dance. All good in their own way, and as usual, centered around how tech can ruin your lives.

Warning

The language can be pretty spicy, and obviously there will be spoilers. So let's forge on ahead!

The Premise

The first episode, Nosedive, revolves around the life of Lacie Pound in a world where social approval and clout has become everything. We see how her life rapidly derails after a series of incidents which see her approval rating, er, well, nosedive.

The Characters

A chunky Bryce Dallas Howard as Lacie Pound. She put on thirty pounds to play the role of the insecure chubby girl, and man, that's dedication! Gotta say, the role was very well performed too. We get to see Lacie put on a fake face for approval, her desperation for social climbing and her occasional nastiness which slips out. Howard is superb! I've seen her from films like The Village, Spider-man 3, Terminator Salvation and Jurassic World, and this lady can be such a chameleon.

Alice Eve plays the Alpha bitch Naomi Jayne Blestow with aplomb. The last I saw of her was from Iron Fist Season Two, and Star Trek: Into Darkness. This role fit her like a second skin.

James Norton as Ryan Pound, Lacie's brother. This actor did great with what little material he had. The character was a slacker, and snarky, but also genuine in his misgivings as to what his sister had become in her pursuit for public approval. And the character had great lines. Like, really zingy. Guy nails every scene he's in.

There's sugary and then there's fucking diabetes.

Michela Coel makes a brief appearance as an unnamed airport service counter officer. Saw her recently in Wakanda Forever. The scene here lasts a few minutes, but she does well. That eyebrow game is strong.

Alan Ritchson as Paul Mathesen. I watched the first season of Reacher right before I watched this one, and almost did not recognize him right away. There's just not much meat to the role other than to look hunky and act borderline gay with his best bud, Ant.

Daisy Haggard overacts as Bethany or "Bets". Or maybe she was supposed to be over-the-top and Haggard did too good a job... I can't decide which.

Kadiff Kirwan as Chester, who looks pathetic and ready to burst into tears in every scene. That's the character, not the actor. Actor did just fine.

Cherry Jones as Susan. I first got a sinister vibe when she was introduced, but that was the episode gaslighting me into taking her 1.4 rating seriously. No, she turns out to be pretty all right, if a bit kooky, with a tragic backstory and all that should have served as a warning for Lacie.

Colin Moss as Paul's bestie, Anthony, or "Ant". Frat boy shit. Nothing to see here, move along.

Andrew Roux as the car booth attendant. It was a short appearance, but the eye-rolling snark was delicious!

Sope Dirisu plays the black dude who's Lacie's jail mate. Good-looking, well-cuffed, foul-mouthed. A delightful package for such a short appearance.

De-wet Nagel as Reputelligent consultant Hansen Davis. As someone who's studied Data Analytics, I had a real kick out of watching him explain Lacie's popularity stats to her.

The Mood

The atmosphere is relentlessly colorful and bright. In fact, it's artificially so, as if someone's trying just a little too hard. This is deliberate; to show the viewer just how fake and garish all this is. Everyone laughs, smiles, giggles... and is way too nice for it to be real. The episode looks like a moving stock photo in parts!

What I liked

The whole clout-chasing thing reminds me of how people Follow each other on Clubhouse and Instagram. It's very on the nose.

The look on the cabbie's face as Lacie squeals and giggles in the back seat, is to die for.

The cars. So pretty!

The booth attendant is obviously watching porn when Lacie interrupts him. While we can't see it, the sounds coming from his earbuds are pretty telling.

The way the smile on Naomi's face fades when her groom and best man are hugging it out, is a delectable nod to some social dynamics. Adds depth to the episode.

Despite having put on thirty pounds to play Lacie Pound (wow, talk about apt names!), Bryce Dallas Howard still looks yummy without that dress on. No, no pics, you pervs.

The jail cell bars are glass (probably bulletproof) or plastic with air holes. Nice touch!

Lacie's traded insults with her cell neighbor are pretty creative. And the sheer glee behind the vitriol they spit at each other, is a joy to watch.

What I didn't

I know that scene was necessary, but watching Lacie rehearse her speech was just so cringe.

Lacie just asks a guy if she can borrow his bike, and he just lets her have it? How?! Before, it was shown that road users are really dicks who will kick you when you're down. Pains were taken to show that Susan was a rare exception. Plus, I don't think the guy even got his bike back!

Conclusion

This was such a typical Black Mirror storyline. Tech and Social Media fucks lives up. But yes, thoroughly enjoyable. Sure didn't hurt that they had some of the most watchable faces in cinema in this episode - Bryce Dallas Howard, Alice Eve and Alan Ritchson.

It's a strong start to Series Three, that's for sure!

My Rating

9.5 / 10

Next

Playtest

How I Became a Married Software Developer (Part 1/3)

His Teochewness is a married man as of 2018.

By now, most of my friends (and readers of this blog) would have received the news, though if it comes as a surprise to those reading this, it's probably because I didn't update my marital status on Facebook or post pictures on Instagram the moment it happened. I mean, what's the point? So I can let the world know that somebody wants me? Lame.

Reactions were fun to watch, though. My colleagues were left scratching their heads at my business-as-usual attitude towards it (please, people get married in Singapore every damn day) and any friends I told the news to, had to pick their jaws off the floor.

Me: Oh, by the way, I'm married.
Them: Yeah yeah we know, you're married to your job.
Me: Uh, no... I'm married to a woman. (cue dumbstruck looks)

Part of their surprise was due to the fact that I've always been a natural-born bachelor. I don't actively shun female company or seek it, nor am I the type to get lonely. Much of my free time is spent cooped up in my apartment writing code and generally doing very boring (not to me, though!) geeky stuff. They didn't even know I was dating anyone... again, because I just don't advertise this shit on Social Media. Whatever for, right?

So anyway, my fourth wedding anniversary is coming up and I thought, what the hell, I should write this down for posterity. Because the long arduous road to marriage was quite intimately tied to the winding rocky road of my tech career.

Before I begin, I should warn you that this is not some grand love story (though probably still a better love story than Twilight) and you may be bored shitless.

How it began

Back in the year 2015, I had just been laid off and I was spending my days in the neighborhood coffee shop, reading emails and scrolling through LinkedIn ads. The crowd was mostly familiar friendly faces - retired old geezers, grandmothers, working men and women, and the like. One of them was this girl from mainland China who worked around the area and had lunch at this coffee shop daily. Occasionally, she'd join the table I was at, and we'd talk until she had to get back to work. She was pleasant enough, but not really on my radar at the time.

Coffee and job search.

Soon, I got a job at a startup and stopped spending my days at the coffee shop. I would still see her around on weekends.

Life at the startup kept me busy until the startup tanked in 2016 and I found myself out of a job and spending my days at the coffee shop once again. Yep, twice in the space of a year. Life sure wasn't looking good for me, eh?

The First Date

The woman and I started talking again, and this time, she was complaining about having nothing to do because the shop she was working in was closed during Chinese New Year, and getting a plane ticket to fly home for the holiday was just too much hassle. I waggled my eyebrows, put on my sleaziest expression and suggested that maybe the two of us could go somewhere romantic.

Please note that at that time, I was joking. I was freshly out of a job for the second time within twelve months, and chasing skirts was absolutely the last thing on my mind. I was fully prepared for her to laugh it off. So imagine my befuddlement when she said "OK" without missing a beat and asked me where I was going to take her. Now I was in a spot. If I'd confessed I was only fucking around, that would have been embarrassing for both of us.

So we made a date for East Coast Park. On the day itself, she had gone to visit her cousin and I was supposed to pick her up and take her there. The sky was overcast, and it had drizzled in the morning.

Beach stroll.

We got to East Coast Park, took a nice long stroll along the windy beach hand-in-hand like some sweet young couple, had a late supper of handmade noodles, after which I sent her home.

And that was it. A perfectly run-of-the-mill first date.

Afterwards

As the days after that date went by, we started hanging out. I was still jobless, but we took nice midnight strolls around the gardens peppering the neighborhood. We might even have snogged a couple times. She kept me going through this phase, and eventually, I landed a job, where I was paid more money than I'd ever been. And once I got busy with work, our midnight strolls decreased in frequency.

Months after starting that job, I began my course in ACTA, and soon had even less time. I don't remember if I ever mentioned this, but I've dated several women before; and each time I was a crappy boyfriend, obsessed with my work, obsessed with learning more. It looked like old habits were resurfacing, but unlike the others, she actually seemed to like it.

And then she left Singapore. Her employer had forgotten to pay the levy for her employment permit, and promptly, it was cancelled. She had to return to China within a month. After she left, I got on with the task of earning my ACTA while holding down my job. We kept in touch regularly via WeChat, and I realized, to my chagrin, God damn it, that I kind of missed her. I missed the roundness of her face, the smallness of her hands, the way she'd spit the bones of her food out on the table, or pick her teeth with her fingers in front of me.

I know, I know, it's objectively gross. Don't judge me.

Use a toothpick, woman.

When she returned, a couple months later, it was by securing another job a lot further away from my place. This meant that we didn't see each other as often as we used to, though we still hung out on weekends.

Though at this point, I'm not sure why she still bothered. She had often pondered getting married here in Singapore because it would make working here a lot less troublesome, while I was quite adamant that I'd remain a bachelor till the end of my days. Up to this point, I hadn't even thought of her as my girlfriend, though in hindsight, for all intents and purposes, she was pretty much that.

Next

How we ended up getting married.

Google moves to 2FA!

Around the beginning of this month, I received an email from Google services. There was a big header that said Soon you’ll sign in with 2-Step Verification, and a message.

After you enter your password, you'll complete a second step on your phone. Keep your phone nearby when you sign in.

2-Step Verification will be turned on automatically on December 8. You can turn this on sooner if you want - your account is all set.

What this basically means

Google implemented Two-factor Authentication for its users. For those who don't know what that is, I wrote an informational piece about it back in 2018. Instead of just having to key in a password to access your services, there is an extra step - the second authentication method - of having to key in a response when a notification is sent to your mobile phone.

And sure enough, on the 8th of this month, when I tried to access my GMail account, after keying in the password, this appeared on screen.

Additional
authentication step.

And this appeared on my phone.

Mobile
confirmation.

Google is by no means alone in this. Microsoft already has support for 2FA for its services such as MS Outlook and MS Teams, though that feature is, for now, largely optional.

How I feel about this

Damn, this is a pain in the ass. But oh, so necessary. Security has become a pressing concern (more so than usual, anyway) with people losing control of their accounts due to hacker intrusions and theft of passwords. Adding to the concern is a general lack of paranoia in the user base.

What Google has done, is balance necessity against convenience. Of course it would be a lot nicer to be able to access our accounts without that hassle. But things have arrived at a point where this is no longer a viable option. This ramping up of security protocol is one-way - there is no going back from this, and as intruders up their game in future as they undoubtedly will, even more stringent measures will be required.

This moves also excludes a small percentage of users - namely, those who have a Google account but not a mobile phone. Unthinkable in this day and age? Yes, very. But not entirely out of the question. Still, Google seems to have decided that it is a risk worth taking.

What's in store?

Who's next? Google has taken that step. It isn't at all far-fetched to think that the likes of Twitter and Instagram are far behind.

Yes. This is really me.
T___T

When Zuckerberg Met(a) Facebook

What in the world just happened? Facebook is changing names!

Last month, in what feels like it should have been more of an earthshaking moment, Mark Zuckerberg announced in a series of public conferences, that Facebook would now be named Meta Platforms, Inc. It was not to be just a cosmetic name change. The change went deeper than just a name and logo.

The existing Social Media and communications platforms - Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp - will take up half of Meta. The other half will be dedicated to the construction of a metaverse. Just what in the heck is a "metaverse", you may ask? Tt is a virtual world where, if Zuckerberg achieves his vision, users can interact with an augmented or virtual reality environment in real-time. Hence, "Meta".

A metaverse!

Cynically, of course, one could see this as a matter of branding for Zuckerberg, nothing more. If he's to be believed, this was the direction they were heading all along and the name change is just meant to reflect that. The problem, according to him, is that Facebook is currently seen a a Social Media company. (No shit, really?!)

This move might prove to be worthwhile for Zuckerberg. After all, the abovementioned platforms all depend on mobile technology for propagation. That makes Facebook, as a company, vulnerable to the rules imposed by Google and Apple. And we all know Facebook has faced strong opposition to both entities in the recent past.

But what if Zuckerberg were able to pivot Facebook to a new kind of platform, one which wasn't dominated by Google and Apple? I'm not even gonna front - the possibilities are, to say the least, intriguing.

The Meta-conclusion

Honestly, I can't see the name change sticking. We're talking about over ten years' worth of inertia at this point. And let's be real here - "Meta" isn't exactly catchy or original. And the less said about the sheer lameness of the logo, the better. Seriously, were they maybe hoping to be as unimpressive as possible?

What's more pertinent, however, is the nature of Facebook's - ahem, excuse me, Meta's - business model. If they are truly pivoting to virtual reality, that is a huge deal if they manage to pull it off. Will they? The technology is there, but how much of it could truly permeate a market where internet strength can be spotty at best? Your guess is as good as mine.

It's been real,
T___T

App Review: Clubhouse

Remember the days of IRC, where you could meet people all over the world and communicate with them via text chat? Well, the world just got a whole lot cooler.

Clubhouse is a Social Media audio app - basically the voice-based version of IRC. You create or join rooms full of other users, hearing their voices as they speak. How awesome is that?!

Clubhouse is available on both iOS and Android, and the features may vary on each platform. Today, I will only be covering the features on Android.

The Premise

In Clubhouse, users congregate in rooms - open, closed or Social. These could be standalone or under a club. There, they speak to each other, Follow accounts the same way one might in other Social Media like  Instagram or Twitter, and generally communicate. The functions are simple.

As a user, you can join and leave rooms, create them (in which case you become a Moderator of that room), and do the same for clubs. You can schedule rooms and add other users as co-hosts. Users can send text messages to other users, or groups of users.

As a Moderator, you can bring people on stage, send people off the stage or even out of the room, mute people on stage and end the current room.

The Aesthetics

Cream, white, green and a dash of orange. These are the basic colors used by Clubhouse's user interface. It's not pretty, but it is clean and that is arguably more important.

The Experience

Audio Social Media as a whole, can be pretty addictive. The app? It'll last you a while, for sure.

The Interface

The icons are generally intuitive and the screen elements such as buttons and selectors, don't require a great deal of cognitive load to identify and use. In other words, the interface is simple enough to navigate even if one adds on Moderator functions.

What I liked

App logo. The phone app icon changes every now and then, incorporating the faces of some well-known personalities. I like it!

The Backchannel feature is a very simple messaging component for you to send messages to other users. You can include links and emojis, but not pics or videos... so far. Good thing too, or it'd be dick pic city. Being able to archive threads is a nice touch as well.

Clubhouse relies a lot on standard emojis for illustration and this is probably deliberate - while not exactly sleek-looking, the familiarity users have with emojis will play into how easily they learn to use the app.

The creators of this app have kept the interface relatively simple, and that is invaluable. An app being easy to use is one of the contributing factors towards user retention.

Frequent updates. The creators of this app take feedback seriously and keep making improvements. By the time I release this blogpost, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the things I don't like about it (see below) have been addressed.

What I didn't

The Block feature is cumbersome and complicated, and quite frankly, open to abuse. Currently, if you are on Stage in any room, that room is invisible to those you have Blocked. And if the Blocked user is in a room, that room is hidden from you unless you scroll allll the way to the bottom of your Hallway and click on the Show Hidden Rooms button. This is clumsy AF.

Adding clubs. The plus buttons to add clubs only appears at the end of the list of clubs you are a member of, in your profile. If you have membership in many clubs, that's a lot of scrolling to do. Besides, it would be nice to have all your clubs listed in a section without all that horizontal scrolling.

Button placement can be problematic in some places. For example, it's way too easy to accidentally open a Private room with other users even when your intention was to scroll through the list of current active users or reply to a message.

In addition, as a Moderator, it's easy to accidentally kick someone off-stage if you're trying to do something as innocuous as reading their profile. It's also easy to accidentally give Moderator status to a troublemaker on stage when you're trying to kick him or her off-stage. The former is a mere annoyance, but the latter is a disaster waiting to happen, and it's all due to the placement of the buttons, all right next to each other.

Co-hosting a room is another potential minefield. When scheduling a room, the user can add anyone as a co-host... without his or her explicit permission. The co-host may be offline and not even aware of it. Now, what if the title of the room was something contentious, like "Black Lives Don't Matter" or "Women belong in the kitchen"?

Speaking of scheduling rooms, it's all well and good when you only want to schedule a one-off room. But what if you want to schedule a daily or even weekly room? Going through the process every single time is a pain in the ass.

It would be nice if we could change the titles of the rooms we open, without having to shut down and restart the room. Sometimes, typos happen. Conversation topics change.

Notifications and pinging can be a pain in the ass, especially if you're the one getting the pings or the notifications.

Conclusion

There's a lot to like about Clubhouse. There's also quite a lot not to like about Clubhouse. Certainly plenty of room for improvement, but the good news is that most of it is fixable by designing the interface carefully.

The idea behind Clubhouse is certainly innovative, but it's by no means the only one of its kind right now. Already, knockoffs of this app are saturating the market. Whether or not Clubhouse can stay afloat in a world full of copycats, remains to be seen.

My Rating

6.5 / 10

Leaving quietly and landing my plane,
T___T