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

Food Delivery hits a PMD-shaped roadblock!

The 5th of November 2019 was when I turned forty-two, but it's not for that reason that the date was significant last month. You see, on that date, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) implemented a ban of all Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) on footpaths, ruling that users of such devices would legally only be allowed to use Park Connector Networks, Cycling Paths and Shared Paths.

This caused quite a large outcry among Food Delivery riders. Many of them had been using PMDs to make deliveries. These people are part of the gig economy pertaining to Food Delivery apps such as GrabFood, FoodPanda, WhyQ and Deliveroo. A user uses the app to place an order, and someone in a painfully bright uniform (seriously, have you seen some of those uniforms? They're hideous.) will bring that food to their doorstep. Some of these workers used bicycles, some used motorcycles, and some unfortunate ones used the now-restricted PMDs.

Benefits of the PMD in Food Delivery

PMDs are a fun activity for hobbyists. But where they really shine is as vehicles for Food Delivery.

Sleek and sexy.

Apparently, it's easier on the knees and back as opposed to cycling, and obviously cheaper than a motor vehicle. Some enterprising mothers were also seen bringing their very young children along on deliveries, in effect babysitting and making deliveries simultaneously. And, of course, it's faster than walking.

Back when PMDs first hit the market, Food Delivery riders found a new, less physically-taxing way to make fast deliveries. However, there was a snag - there were reports of fire safety issues and one man even died from a PMD-related fire. Owners of PMDs now had to adhere to safety regulations (the UL2272 certification), paying the cost out of pocket as they upgraded to the new model.

However, due to an increasing number of injuries stemming from accidents due to reckless riding, the LTA soon declared a ban of PMDs from roads and footpaths. Those who had ponied up cash for the new PMD models were now owners of an expensive machine that was severely hamstrung by the ban. Vendors of PMDs ended up with an untenable amount of immovable inventory. Deliveries slowed and income suffered as riders found themselves unable to make deliveries with the same dizzying speed as before. Food vendors, previously being able to sell more food via delivery orders as opposed to being limited by seating spaces in food establishments, found their incomes affected as well. There were even recent cases of e-scooter tourism being affected.

The people happy with the ban (or, at the very least, relieved) were those who feared for their safety as pedestrians, or those who had already been affected by reckless riders.

The Gig Economy

Food Delivery apps are one manifestation of a growing gig economy here in Singapore; indeed, worldwide. It's a new mode of working, made possible by mobile technology and the wonders of the Internet in an increasingly-connected world.

Food Delivery Apps

The Food Delivery industry, in particular, experienced a minor boom as citizens took to it. Not only is the pay pretty decent, it does not require paper qualifications or hard-to-learn skills. The barrier to entry is almost non-existent. Ergo, one could be a school dropout and still make a good living as a Food Delivery rider. And as part of the gig economy, workers enjoy a flexible working schedule and determine just how much work they want to do each day. Kind of like being a taxi driver... without the requisite license and cab rental.

A tech professional's take on the situation

Reactions have been mixed throughout the Nation. Some have stated that the riders' right to earn a living does not trump the right of the public to be safe on footpaths. Conversely, some of the riders have expressed sympathy for those injured or killed by reckless riders, but insist that it is unfair for their living to be affected by the actions of a few.

Some have even accused the upset food delivery riders of being lazy and entitled, and wanting easy, well-paid jobs, and told to take up actual jobs. 

Now, before I weigh in here, I just want to state that I have very little skin in the game. I do not use food delivery apps, choosing to either walk to buy my own, or cook, like some kind of psychopath. I don't own a PMD, though those e-unicycles do look pretty cool. I have not had any bad encounters with reckless riders, though as a pedestrian and someone who has aging parents and a very young nephew, I can certainly see why people would be concerned.

More importantly, I have never been in a situation where riding a PMD to deliver food looked like a viable career choice. I am a tech professional in an industry that will probably never see a sunset, because the only thing that makes software obsolete is other software. So I'm quite aware that me dispensing career advice to food delivery riders to suck it up and "get an actual, stable job" would come off as more than a little sanctimonious, and rightfully so. I have no aversion to sounding like a condescending prick - it can be fun and therapeutic - but if and when I do, I'd prefer it to be intentional.

Here's a stable job.

Besides, there's no such thing as a "stable" job (unless you're a horse jockey. Stable, geddit? Hur hur). Years of being affected by changes to the economy have taught me that valuable lesson.

No, as a tech professional, the point I want to make is that the Internet-enabled gig economy is, by its very nature, volatile. Those food delivery riders who adopted that trend so handily should realize that as quickly as mobile technology disrupted traditional services such as taxis with ride-sharing, advances in technology could just as rapidly disrupt the newly-minted Food Delivery industry. Ban or no ban, that too-good-to-be-true job was built on top of an unsustainable foundation.

Food Delivery companies are basically driven by investor money, trying to strike while the iron is hot and anticipating their investment will eventually come good. Much like bicycle-sharing companies (of which several ceased operations in Singapore since the last time I wrote about them) and the ride-sharing company Uber which also ceased operations here last year.

Riders complaining about their affected income is reminiscent of passengers griping about increased cab fares after Uber's exit. They had a good thing while it lasted, but they should also be aware that it was never going to last.

It's not about what you can get. It's about what you can keep. Whether the affected Food Delivery riders continue on their chosen track or seek career opportunities elsewhere, they should bear this in mind.

That's not to say Food Delivery riders are wrong to be upset. I've lost my job before. I get it. This situation sucks to be in. When I lost my jobs, on each occasion, I upskilled, came back stronger and landed another one. It's not my place to suggest that Food Delivery riders should do the same, but like it or not, the ban is staying until our infrastructure expands enough to safely incorporate PMDs. There's a limit to how productive railing at the Singapore Government is going to be. Get it out of your system if you must, but let it go.

Remember, one can always ask the Government to help take care of you. But no one takes care of you better than you.

Finally...

I've avoided expounding on whether the Singapore Government was right or wrong in issuing the ban. It's a moot point. They did what they felt they had to do.

For wannabe politicians hoping to cash in on some political points by politicizing this issue ahead of the next General Elections, you're wasting your time. The math doesn't add up. You could gain some support from Food Delivery riders who are upset at how the Singapore Government handled this, but for every disgruntled rider, there are at least eight citizens who support the ban.

This is not a hill you want to die on. Move on.

Some food for thought!
T___T

A Walkout Against Tech Discrimination

It never rains, but pours.

And for Google, it's been a veritable monsoon. From the Damore debacle to getting successfully sued by Oracle, Google has been facing an increasing avalanche of problems. The Silicon Valley giant found itself the subject of a massive walkout staged by its own employees all over the world last week, in response to revelations of sexual misconduct from male staff and how Google handled (or mishandled, depending on who you ask) these cases.

One particular case stands out. Andy Rubin, known as "Father of Android", was asked to leave a few years ago when the company discovered that he had sexually assaulted a colleague. The severance package was 90 million.

Now, if Google had been under legal obligation to pay that amount, this wouldn't have been an issue. But then-CEO Larry Page appeared to have covered up the entire incident for fear of negative press, and paid Rubin to keep him quiet. And in these times, the SJW culture in Google, fostered quite handily by current CEO Sundar Pichai, simply wouldn't stand for it.

Thus, the walkout.

It started in Google's offices in Asia, such as Singapore. And then those in the US and Canada joined in. Several more countries are on the list, but hell if I'm going to name them all. Employees left their desks in droves at 11 AM, gathering outside or in lobbies to protest against the actions taken to protect these sexual predators, with a specific list of demands.

Cute flyer, eh?

The Demands

An end to forced arbitration in cases of harassment and discrimination. Sure, I can get behind that. Harassment and discrimination (especially the former) is too big to be buried. Deal with it openly and fairly. Involve the law, if need be.

A commitment to end pay and opportunity inequity, for example making sure there are women of color at all levels of the organization, and accountability for not meeting this commitment. Oh, really? That kind of bullshit is ruinous. Ending pay and opportunity inequity is a fine and noble goal; artificially putting people in place based on gender and race is discriminatory... and an insult to women of color who actually earned their spot.

A publicly disclosed sexual harassment transparency report. Well and good. Easy to do, I'd imagine. Provided nobody tries to, ahem, hush things up.

A clear, uniform, globally inclusive process for reporting sexual misconduct safely and anonymously. HR would have to seriously pull its socks up, and be afforded more autonomy overall. Not easy by any means, but doable.

Elevate the Chief Diversity Officer to answer directly to the CEO and make recommendations directly to the board of directors. In addition, appoint an employee representative to the board. Oh, fuck off. A "Chief Diversity Officer" sounds like a stupid idea in the first place. Why the obsession over diversity? Google does not need less men or more women; they need more employees who don't disrespect their colleagues, period. And they need management who will enforce the rules effectively with neither fear nor favor.

How did it get to this?

First off, let me just say that the prevalence of males over females in the tech scene is more a Silicon Valley problem rather than a specifically Google one. But hey, we all gotta start somewhere.

Next, a company of Google's size notoriously difficult to police, and it ought to be. Sure, they can have policies in place. Fat lot of good it did with Uber, if you recall. As long as higher management disregards these rules at any point in time for whatever justification, it's all moot. Larry Page' actions have come back to bite Google in the ass, and I can't say I'm sorry about that. Sure, my disdain for the SJW culture in Google is well-documented, but my antipathy towards those who abuse their authority to coerce colleagues into sexual favors is far greater.

Google did not get themselves into this position overnight. It was built up over generations of hiring the wrong kind of people, and lax enforcement of mutual respect in the workplace. No amount of hysterical SJWs clamoring for justice is going to change that unless higher management changes their approach, prioritizing employees over the company's pristine (well, now not so pristine) image and PR. I've said it before - Google is a profit-driven corporation trying desperately to appear socially conscientious while struggling with issues such as alleged pay disparity between males and females, gender discrimination and now sexual misbehavior. My opinion is that they tried too damn hard to maintain that image, even at the cost of their ethics, and it backfired. Spectacularly.

What now?

Sundar Pichai is coming off as placatory in his statements, and it's hard not to feel a little sorry for the guy. Sure, he didn't make things better, but let's be fair - he inherited the situation in 2015. He didn't ask for any of this, and whatever changes he might have wanted to make would have to pass the Board of Directors, whose main concerns are profits and the aforementioned PR. That SJW culture he seems to have tacitly encouraged during his tenure is now rising up to put an end to the charade.

This is just coming from some nobody software dev from the tiny island of Singapore, but I say - practice what your motto preaches. Do The Right Thing - over and over - and the rest will slowly but surely follow. For now, of course, ol' Sundar can only hope to survive the fallout from this. There are no quick fixes.

That's all from me. Over and (walk)out!
T___T

Where To Find Work (Part 2/3)

When we talk about tech companies, names like Google, Microsoft and IBM come to mind. But tech companies cover a wide range - from infrastructure to software. They also come in a large variety of sizes and service models. It's best to examine your planned career path and make your decisions based on those.

Tech Start-up

Companies that have yet to turn a profit or arrive at any kind of critical mass.

Company Size. These are typically really small, numbering less than ten employees, though large startups (such as Uber) aren't unheard of. We're, at this moment, speaking of the really tiny operations.

Service Model. B2B or B2C.

Pros

Experience. If you're starting out in your career, this is an excellent way to get your feet wet. The ungodly working hours and the tendency of the employer to throw everything your way will ensure that - as long as your attitude remains positive. Also, mentioning that you've survived "startup culture" is almost always a positive with potential employers. If nothing else, you've proven you can weather storms.

Importance. Companies like to say "everyone is important in our organization". This is bullshit. There's always dead weight in corporations above a certain size. But in a tiny startup, this is true because there's no way for it to be false. Every person actually matters. It's a minimal headcount. This is a huge chance to make a difference.

Sauntering to
work like this!

Informal. There's little to no red tape because it's more trouble than it's worth at this point. Sure, there are rules... but also a great amount of flexibility. If you need to take urgent leave or even just a couple hours off, there's generally little to no paperwork and the approving party is more amenable to it. And the lack of a dress code basically means you can waltz in rocking your shorts and slippers every damn day.

Cons

Pay and benefits. Typically not great. It's a startup and they're surviving on raised funds. This means belt are always tightened.

Environment. Along with belts being tightened, being in a startup also typically means that your office is going to look like somebody's storeroom.

Workload. If you're a fan of coming in on time and leaving on time, don't count on it with a startup. Here, due to lack of manpower, everyone gives way more than the prescribed eight working hours a day, bosses included. Working in a startup is hell for your work-life-balance.

Stability. Or lack thereof. A company that is in danger of going under anytime due to lack of funding, isn't the safest bet in the world. You've been warned.

Verdict. Try this at least once in your career. Especially early in your career. If the start-up fails, you'd have gained valuable experience. If it succeeds (and that's a tremendous if) you can take a healthy chunk of credit for bringing it past startup stage. Either way - much to gain, fuck-all to lose.

Software Vendor

These are small companies that make software or websites for other companies. They may have gotten past the startup phase, but survival is a constant struggle.

Company Size. Small or medium.

Service Model. B2B

Pros

Responsibility. Everyone manages clients and builds software at the same time. This is really good for leveling up different aspects of your game simultaneously.

Informal. There are rules. Those rules are also negotiable, because at this point, the company hasn't grown large enough that making occasional exceptions on a case-by-case basis would pose any sizeable problem. That said, it really depends on who's in charge. Some SMEs have a serious case of Chinese Towkay Syndrome and like to act like they have a few thousand employees under them.

Domain Knowledge. Doing work for several different clients, all from different industries and backgrounds, can make the developer well-versed in a large variety of industries. This is always useful, particularly in the event that you want to consider being a software developer in that particular industry.

Direct contribution to profits. Since the profits come off doing lots of low-margin work, your value is determined by how many clients you manage to bill on your watch regularly.

Cons

Repetitive work. Doing different versions of the same thing day in, day out, can make you feel like you're stuck in a Hamster Wheel of Doom.

Standard of work. By that same token, doing work for so many clients invariably means that the projects are small. And simple. Things you'll eventually outgrow.

Pay. The pay is not that much better than that of a startup. The company can pay more, but you have to constantly prove yourself because your performance is directly linked to profits. This can prove exhausting in the long run.

Like a very leaky boat at sea.

Stability. They're more stable than the average startup, which doesn't mean much. A bit of upheaval in the tides of the economy will see them scramble to cut the dead weight.

Verdict

A decent (but entirely optional) training choice early or in the middle of your career. Don't stay beyond a few years. Get the experience you need and move on.

Tech Multinational Company

These are typically the big players whose head office is often not in Singapore.

Company Size. Large. Sometimes huge.

Service Model. B2B or B2C.

Pros

A great environment.

Environment. Big spaces, janitorial services, posh business locations.

Pay and benefits. Your remuneration is likely to be competitive. You may even get dental.

Professional visibility. Google. Facebook. Microsoft. These ring a bell? They should, because they're B2C and just about everyone has heard of them. If they're purely B2B, like Cloudflare or Atlassian, then maybe not. But those in the tech industry would have heard of them, and that's no small thing. Working in a tech MNC opens new doors.

Stability. Big tech companies tend to be big for a reason. They've weathered storms, and in all likelihood, will probably be around long after you're gone.

Cons

Politics. At any large corporation, you get people jostling for position and all that juvenile shit.

Your expendibility. Again, in a large company, your contribution doesn't have as much impact. Their attitude is more along the lines of "you're lucky to be working for us" rather than "we're lucky to have you on board". There are small companies with the same attitude; then again, we aren't talking about those wannabes, are we?

Red tape. A company of that size doesn't have the luxury of making exceptions for extenuating circumstances. Everything will be strictly by the book, unless you're personally very important to the organization.

Verdict

Move on when the time is right, but this makes a great addition to any resume. If you do decide to stay for the long haul, there's always the chance of a promotion and increased benefits.

Next

Now for the non-tech companies...

Microsoft's Acquisition of GitHub

Holy crap!

It's come to my attention that Microsoft is in the process of buying GitHub for USD 7.5 million. Like, why? Wasn't LinkedIn, Skype and Nokia enough?

Apparently not.

GitHub, within the software development industry, needs no introduction. It is a code repository company and service which developers use to store their code online. The service is free, as long as users adhere to open-source conditions.

What could Microsoft want with GitHub?

Microsoft buying over GitHub would seem an odd move considering that Microsoft hasn't exactly endeared itself to the open-source community since 2003. On the other hand, it's been over ten years, and things change just like that. Perhaps Microsoft has gone with the inevitable and embraced open-source. Hey, stranger things have happened.

Developers could be forgiven for thinking this is bad news. After all, Microsoft is pretty much synonymous with the word "proprietary", which in layman's terms, means, "you use my stuff, you pay for it". Which actually sounds pretty reasonable in any context outside of software development.

Perhaps Microsoft has finally cottoned on to the fact that a sizeable chunk of the world's developers, perhaps even a staggering majority,  all benefit regularly from open-source code. And that hoarding shit might have been the way to go in the past, but is looking ridiculously outdated now. A move like this, properly done, could go a long way in restoring some measure of trust and respect.

Or, Microsoft might have simply decided now that so many developers are depending on GitHub, a really profitable dick move would be to take over GitHub and start charging fees. Which is pretty much what many developers are thinking. This is silly because while GitHub could possibly be the world's most popular code repository, it's still one code repository out of many. Finding an alternative, for cheap bastards like myself, isn't that big a deal.

Does this mean GitHub is no longer free?

Well, this was one of the reasons we all loved it, right? It enabled us to share our code with the world, collaborate with each other, and lowered the barrier to entry. You didn't need to buy a lot of expensive software or attend expensive courses just to learn how to code.

In order to provide the service to us free, the assumption was that GitHub probably could afford it. But in the evidence of its impending sale to Microsoft, maybe not. You see, this could be the case of GitHub going the way of Uber. Uber was giving ultra-cheap cab rides to users without turning a profit (To this day, I'm pretty sure Uber still hasn't turned a profit yet) in return for a huge consumer base, popularity and a supreme level of visibility. But these things aren't sustainable, and at some point the buck has to stop somewhere.

Perhaps GitHub has reached that point, though no one can argue it hasn't achieved the same things Uber has, albeit within the software development community. GitHub has played quite a central role in software development over the years. 

Microsoft says that GitHub will remain free for use, and it has no plans to change that. I'm gonna have to reserve judgement on that one.

Will you be deleting your GitHub account, or migrating your code?

What, to prevent the eventuality of Microsoft abusing their power to snoop through my code and steal it?

Dude, my code is really basic. It's there for anyone who wants to use it, but honestly, it's so rudimentary that I'd be flattered if someone wanted to grab it. So, unless your code is so revolutionary and life-changing that tech giants like Microsoft must never get their hands on it, I'd suggest staying put.

That's it for now. Git outta here!
T___T

A very unsexy sexism scandal for Uber

In the past two weeks, Uber has been in the news for the wrong reasons.

Susan Fowler, former site reliability engineer at Uber, now working for payment gateway company Stripe, released a blogpost which detailed an unpleasant account of the sexist treatment she received while working for Uber. You can read her story for yourself - it's a pretty absorbing tale. I'm just going to paraphrase some of the injustices she allegedly suffered.

- Fowler was sexually propositioned by her superior on her first day at work.

- Upon reporting the offence to HR, HR decided that the offender would not be penalized because he was a high performer and it was his first offense.

- Fowler was offered an option to transfer. However, if she opted to remain, she would risk a retaliatory bad performance review from her superior, and this review would be considered legit because she had refused the option to transfer. (Are you rolling your eyes at this crap? I am.)

- Subsequent complaints about the offender from other colleagues were similarly covered up with the "first offense" excuse.

- There's also some weird shit about leather jackets...

- Her Manager threatened to fire her because she reported his Manager to HR.

- Her performance reviews were altered negatively, blocking her chances for a raise, bonus and transfer.

Do I believe Fowler? I'm inclined to. It seems to be consistent with the overall "frat-bro" culture I've been hearing about at Silicon Valley. But just because I believe her doesn't automatically make her allegations true - and until this is confirmed by the other party, they remain allegations.

In all fairness, we don't have Uber's side of the story. And it's pretty hard to get at the moment considering CEO Travis Kalanick declared that he was going to conduct an internal investigation concerning Fowler's allegations, and said investigation is still ongoing. Coming from a guy who once described his company as "Boober", this strikes me as rather ironic.

But if - if Fowler's allegations are true, this is nothing short of disgusting.

Now, I've never been under the illusion that Human Resource was on the employee's side. I've long accepted that HR is on the side of management in most cases, and the sooner one comes to terms with this reality, the better. Even so, there ought to be limits. Covering up outright wrongdoing crosses that line twice. It's not so much that the offender in question was a hotshot who delivered consistently and that Fowler was just one of many engineers. This would have been as great a travesty if Fowler had been a janitor.

What are the consequences of this bad press?

As long as Uber continues to deliver quality services, I'm not about to support the #DeleteUber. campaign. Not that I think users shouldn't delete the Uber app - I think users should do whatever they damn well please. My objection to Uber's employment practices are not moral in nature. I don't care if Uber hires perverts with weird deviant fetishes in their spare time, wife abusers or utter assholes. As long as these people are good at what they do, all's well and dandy.

And no, I certainly don't give a flying fuck that Uber didn't participate in the taxi strike by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance in protest over the so-called Muslim ban by the Trump administration, which was the entire catalyst for the #DeleteUber campaign. Not everything is about Donald Trump, dammit!

No, my objections are from an ethical and professional standpoint. It is unethical to discriminate in terms of anything but ability. It is unprofessional to subject your co-workers to sexual harassment, which by any objective standard is a huge no-no. Nobody works in a vacuum. Nobody is that good. And when somebody unwilling or unable to play nicely with others, gets put in a position of power, everyone suffers. The company eventually suffers. No matter how good you are, it's only half the picture. The other half of the picture is all about how well you work with others.

By that measure, Uber has failed. Not as a service provider, but as a company. And I won't be shedding any tears if they do go down due to talent leaving, because based on this account, it's nothing less than they deserve.

However, users don't care about all that. And neither are they required to. Uber's user base does not look likely to significantly decrease. They may suffer a dip in profits, but this won't be a deal-breaker for their continued sustainability.

The real fallout is likely to be in employment. If Uber doesn't review the way it treats its employees pronto, they may find real difficulty in retaining current talent, and hiring future talent. No self-respecting engineer wants to be rated on anything but ability. In fact, the average engineer probably will not thrive in a toxic environment where playing office politics is required to get ahead.

I don't generally take cabs, so deleting Uber from my mobile is a moot point. But assuming I was an Uber user, this would not cause me to delete the app. I would, however, not want to work in Uber at all.

Having just a fraction of Fowler's ability and experience, I doubt Uber would be interested in hiring me (though I might make a pretty good janitor) but even if they were, I think it's safe to say I won't be touching that cesspool with a ten-foot pole. There are few things I detest more than a tech company that doesn't even attempt to treat its employees fairly. I've worked for enough of these companies to feel a severe antipathy towards such practices.

Damage Control

Richard Levick, founder and CEO of Levick, suggested that Uber could repair the situation by hiring more female engineers.

Are you fucking
serious?!

Firstly, hiring based on gender rather than ability is just more sexism. Not what Uber needs right now.

Secondly, hiring females just to appease the public is insulting to both the hired personnel and the people being appeased.

Thirdly, until Uber's macho-shit culture is improved and Human Resource practices put under severe scrutiny, they have no business hiring any female.

Yep, something smells fowl at Uber, all right.
T___T

Film Review: I.T

Now with Internet of Things being a, well, thing, this movie was just begging to be made. I.T is a techno-thriller (no relation to the horror thriller, Stephen King's It) that lives up to its billing, albeit barely.

The synopsis sounded promising - rich dude pisses off tech support guy and techie gets his own back through an escalating series of IT-related pranks. Also, as an ex-desktop support office drone, I felt compelled to check this out. Plus, it starred Pierce Brosnan! How bad could it be?!

Well, I was about to find out...

Warning - many spoilers ahead and possibly objectionable content!

I'm going to shamelessly spoil this one, because the plot is so utterly predictable you could see every twist and turn a mile off. No shit; the plot could have been written by a primary school punk, it's that simple. Trust me, I'm doing you a favor and saving you the money.

Also, if profanities and partial nudity offend you, sod off from here, you oversensitive wanker.

The Premise

Mike Regan is the head honcho of a large tech corporation, husband to Rose and father to teenager Kaitlyn, whose troubles begin when he makes an enemy of his IT guy. His smart home, wired with gadgets of all sorts and run with computer intelligence, becomes a ripe battlefield for the wronged techie.

The pranks begin harmlessly enough with the sound system blaring music in the middle of the night, appliances turning themselves on and off, etc. But they soon progress to the malicious (falsifying evidence of corruption via forging emails sent from the company's server), the sadistic (falsifying Rose's mammogram report results and making viral a video of Kaitlyn diddling herself in the shower) and the outright psychotic (taking control of Mike's smart car while he's driving).

Mike needs to fight back, and does so by engaging his own security expert who helps him take his life back, bit by bit.

This culminates in a showdown as the enraged nerd breaks into his home with a gun...

The Characters

Pierce Brosnan as Mike Regan. Something of a technophobe who ironically owns a tech company and wants to launch the aviatory version of Uber. He has trouble with basic IT security and yet wires his entire mansion with all manner of gadgetry. He's portrayed as a bit of an asshole (Getting your IT guy to do free work for you on the weekend? Really?) who wears his power way too easily. Also, the first time Ed broke the employer-employee boundaries and the way Mike put him down, was unnecessarily high-handed. Made it hard for me to sympathize when the techie started getting his revenge. Still, he's also portrayed as a devoted family man who stops at nothing to protect his wife and kid. Pierce Brosnan's a fine actor with one hell of a resume. I've been watching him since his days as James Bond, and flicks such as Mrs Doubtfire and The Thomas Crown Affair. He projects the layers which make up Mike Regan, quite effectvely. Affable tycoon? Sure. Arrogant bastard? Oh yeah. Aplopetic rage? No problem. Loving husband and father? You know it. Alpha male? In spades, brother. Unfortunately, he's also let down by a really crap script.

Anna Friel as Rose Regan. Other than looking worried and fretful, she didn't have much to add to the plot. It wasn't too believable anyway. One moment she's greeting Ed cordially and next moment, she looks concerned when he shows up. Doesn't add up at all. The producers must have sensed this, because they seemed to be getting her to contribute more near the end of the movie, with gratuitous cleavage shots.

Stefanie Scott as Kaitlyn Regan, the bratty daughter. Having seen Stefanie Scott's restrained performance in Insidious: Chapter 3, I believe she can do way better. Why she would even bother with this movie is a mystery to me.

James Frecheville as Ed Porter. Guy overacts. To be fair, with a script this bad and a character this stereotypical, he might as well have fun and really ham it up. He did a credible job portraying dorky friendliness, cool intensity, neurotic fragility... and really ramped it up when putting on the "psycho face". Eye candy for the ladies - big on the jaw and kind of pale, but tall and well-built, a right pretty boy.

Michael Nyqvist as Henrik. He's the guy Mike turns to when he needs a tech security expert to counter the hostile actions of the geek he pissed off. And counter Henrik certainly does, with a composed, grandfatherly air reminiscent of Albus Dumbledore. I almost expected him to break out a wand at some point. Nyqvist is a pretty versatile actor and I rate him higher than even Brosnan in this cast. Which is why, though he nails the damn role with near zero effort, I can't help but think he's really slumming it here. This is the guy I watched in The Millennium Series, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and John Wick? He's far too cool for this shit.

When I was watching him, however, it occurred to me that he and Pierce Brosnan have something in common. Both have had movie franchise characters taken over by suave, macho Daniel Craig - in Nyqvist's case it's the role of Mikael Blomkvist in The Millennium Series, and in Brosnan's case it's the role of James Bond.

The Mood

This was supposed to be a techno-thriller. They got the "techno" part down, but the "thriller" part? Yawn city. The miserable excuse of an utterly unimaginative plot didn't raise my heartbeat a tick. All I felt was disgust. I didn't care what happened to Mike, Rose and Kaitlyn. Whatever, kill them all. They suck.

What I liked

Production was slick, man. Gorgeous visuals of the Regan home and the surrounding scenery, and the glass tower office. Insane lightning and grimy feel when around Ed's crummy apartment.

Michael Nyqvist was a welcome presence. He just somehow made everything less depressing simply by being there.

What I didn't

Ed being a psycho with a history of mental instability, abused as a child, etc. Real original, dudes. You think only psychos could pull this shit? Guess again, morons. The average computer nerd has the ability and connections to make your life utterly fucking miserable, given enough motivation. Sure, a non-psycho wouldn't (intentionally) put you in harm's way, but the rest of it? All too possible.

The progress of Ed and the Regans' relationship from trusted employee to outright hostility went too fast to be believable.

What's up with Kaitlyn's Stars And Stripes bikini? Gaudy much?

I'm supposed to believe that an old rich fuck could consistently beat up taller, younger and buffed dude?

Conclusion

Could have been better. Way better. For a movie that dragged on almost two hours and boasted a cast consisting of Pierce Brosnan and Michael Nyqvist, I sure expected a hell of a lot more than tech-guy-makes-dick-boss's-life-miserable-because-he's-a-nutcase. Again, save your money. Watch something more interesting... like paint drying or grass growing.

My Rating

4 / 10

This film needs to be de-fragged, pronto.
T___T