A Tech Professional's Takeaways From Coldplaygate

Everyone's probably heard of Coldplaygate by now; certainly it seems like everyone's talking about it. The scandal involves tech company Astronomer, and its then-CEO Andrew Byron and HR Kristin Cabot. While it does qualify as a tech story in the sense that Astronomer is a DataOps tech company, I've put off talking about it up to now.

Why? Because, well, there were just other, more compelling things to talk about. I mean, the scandal essentially revolves around two high-ranking colleagues Byron and Cabot having an extramarital affair. It's basically two people at the workplace getting into trouble because they couldn't keep it in their pants. Nothing terribly new or original about that, is there?

What happened was that on the 16th of July at a Coldplay concert, frontman Chris Martin was shouting out concert-goers that the Kiss Cam picked up. And the Kiss Cam just happened to fall upon Byron and Cabot in the audience.

It would have been less awkward if the two of them had been in a chest-to-chest bro hug. No such luck; they were in full-on Titanic pose. Byron could have claimed he was giving Cabot the Heimlich, except his hands were entirely too high up, doing his best imitation of a Victoria's Secret underwire product, for that to be a feasible excuse.

The two of them scattered like Flat-earthers confronted with facts, and within twenty-four hours, the Internet identified the two of them as colleagues who were married... to other people.

All in all, a shitshow for Astronomer.

My takeaways to this entire thing aren't moral. Everyone seems to already be on that dog-pile, and there's no real value in me joining in. Also, I'd like to keep this about tech, or at least about the professional space.

Decision-making

Sure, obviously, the entire thing is unprofessional AF. And also kind of dumb.

Cheating on your spouses is one thing; doing it in a packed and very public stadium and expecting nothing to go wrong, is both stupid and reckless. Not exactly the kind of decision-making that inspires confidence in a Board of Directors.

Decisions, decisions.

I'd expect the CEO of a company, whose decisions affect the livelihoods of employees of said company, to make better decisions. Then again, I'm just a software dev, what the hell do I know about decision-making, right? Well, for one, I wouldn't make the decision to put myself in a position where I could be caught live on camera using my hands to keep my sidechick's mammary glands warm.

The faked apology

Soon after the incident, there was an apology posted by a troll account, pictured below. It appeared to be a post from Andy Byron addressing the events of Coldplaygate.

This fooled many people.

This was debunked fairly quickly, but apparently a lot of people were convinced it was real, and it spread like wildfire. Andy Byron was being roundly mocked for being both tone-deaf and an idiot. Unfairly, in this case.

But here's the question: why did it seem so real?

The reason, dear readers, is disheartening. Too many people in positions of authority, when called out for behaving badly, post insincere-sounding apologies like this one. Usually along the lines of "this is not who I want to be" and "I am a work in progress", and even the shade thrown at Coldplay at the end did not appear out of character simply because it happens so often. That level of entitlement is all too real, even if the post wasn't.

The simulation was, if anything, too on-the-nose. There was no A.I and deepfake involved in this deception; the troll account wasn't even trying that hard. This is deeply concerning.

LinkedIn Profiles

On Kirstin Cabot's now-inactive LinkedIn account, she described herself as "a passionate people leader known for building award-winning cultures from the ground up for fast-growing startups and multinational corporations. An influential leader and fearless change-agent, I lead by example and win trust with employees of all levels, from CEOs to managers to assistants."

Just reading that made me throw up a little in my mouth. If you want your LinkedIn profile to sound as cringe as possible, you could do worse than take notes from this one.

Word salad.

Can someone say "word salad"? What is the term "fearless change-agent" even supposed to mean to anyone? What's even more disturbing is, this is supposed to be a HR professional. Is this the kind of garbage that impresses HR? Or is it just some kind of SEO for A.I-powered recruitment? Either way, if this is the new normal for both job-seekers and hirers, we are so screwed.

Much of the sniggering has been about how someone with such a self-aggrandizing LinkedIn profile could turn out this way, but honestly, I've never held such profiles in high regard. If you're someone that would be impressed by fancy words on a LinkedIn profile that a thesaurus could vomit out, that's on you.

Conclusion

I wouldn't be too hard on Andy Byron. Not everyone can handle being in a position of power. Tends to go to ones head, you know? Both of them, in some cases. Heh heh.

Also, Kristin Cabot. Sure, call her a skank, homewrecker, whatever. But her being HR aside, what's she really done that's so different from every other woman who ever cosied up to the Boss?

Looks like they got (cold)played,
T___T

The Curious Case of the Oddly Fragile Software Engineer

Earlier in the week, I happened to come across this article on Substack. It was titled The Manager I hated and the lesson he taught me by one Stephane Moreau. I was immediately intrigued because I am a software developer and I've worked for people I hate.

Well, actually, hate is a strong word. It's hyperbolic. Do I like them as people? Not at all. Do I wish physical harm or financial ruin on them? Not really either, no. In all fairness, if they were on fire, I might hesitate only a full five seconds before rushing over to help them like a decent human being by stamping on them as hard as humanly possible - to put the fire out, you understand.

When someone's on
fire, stamp on them.

Most of all, I'm a proponent of the idea that you can learn things even from people you don't like. Sometimes especially from people you don't like. Like, how many of such people have I learned from, how not to be a jackass? Countless!

But I digress...

The intention today was to discuss Stephane Moreau's thoughts on the manager he hated. His larger point I have no issue with - what I found really interesting was his description of what caused him to hate that Manager.

From what I saw, it started with a code review in which the Manager had this to say.

Over-engineered. Too many moving parts. Refactor.

This seemed pretty straightforward to me. A statement, an explanation, and an instruction, all in three short sentences. Moreau, however, didn't think so. This is what he had to say...

That was it. No "nice work". No "good attempt". Just a hard stop.

I sat there, fuming. I thought, "Does this guy enjoy tearing people down?"

Getting shot down.

Gee, I dunno. This seemed a bit much. I thought the Manager's comments were clear enough. What had Moreau been expecting, an essay? I didn't understand the part about "tearing people down" either. In fact, I feel like if the Manager had prefaced it with "nice work" or "good attempt", it would have felt patronizing. Which is perhaps worse than being curt. I don't need to be treated like I'm special. I do need to be treated like a professional, and that cannot happen if the Manager is feeling the need to (metaphorically) pat me on the head and throw me a bone.

This is why I can't relate

There was another line which Moreau took exception to, and at times described as "brutal".

This is fragile. What happens under load? What's the rollback plan?

And this.

You're thinking like a coder, not an engineer. Build things that survive failure.

I have received feedback like this before from my then-CTO. I was told that I approached things like a coder, and he expected more. I had no problem with this feedback, and would not have described it as "brutal". 

What baffles me is that the only way the Manager could be seen as "tearing people down" was if Moreau had seen himself as being above that kind of criticism. And in contrast, I've never seen myself as anything but mediocre. Frankly, from reading Moreau's stuff, my perception of him is that he's a humble and chill kind of guy, so perhaps he was merely relating a story from when he was young and dumb.

Like a kid with crayons.

Know what's brutal? Having your work torn to shreds and being told you write code like a toddler who just got crayons. Outright questioning what you contribute to the company. That's what I got from the above-mentioned CTO. Honestly, if Moreau had received that kind of feedback, I wonder how he would have wilted. The entire article just made Moreau look fragile, like some kind of snowflake.

Perhaps the culture in the Southeast Asia is just a lot different from the UK. Perhaps the general problem is that we're just not such a warm, nurturing environment. Here in sunny Singapore, I have the memory of being conscripted into the Singapore Armed Forces at the tender age of 19, and being yelled at by platoon sergeants on my first day... and my first thought was: Bitch please. You're think you're scary? I have a Cantonese mom.

In summary

Moreau made a whole slew of valid points in his article. I don't actually disagree with any of it. What I do take issue with, is the examples he used. As far as I'm concerned, those weren't put-downs from his then-Manager. If he wants put-downs, I've got some really savage ones.

Nice work, TeochewThunder. Good attempt!
T___T

Artificial Intelligence Experts join Meta... but it's not about the money? Really?

It was with some amusement that I spotted this article in recent times. In it, Meta head honcho Mark Zuckerberg is reported to have debunked the suggestion that A.I experts aren't joining Meta for money.

For context, Zuckerberg has been luring top A.I experts from Apple, Google and OpenAI. Interesting news, though not exactly noteworthy now, is it? Big Tech firms poaching from other Big Tech firms; nothing to see here, move along.

Meta catching those flies.

What was noteworthy was Zuckerberg's reaction to the suggestion that these new hires are joining for more than just the monstrous paycheck. He said these people were joining Meta for the opportunity to build superintelligent A.I systems without all the red tape and shit. Obviously, I'm just paraphrasing here, but you get the gist!

Wow, Zuck. Just wow. 

Just to be fair, while that statement elicited incredulous laughter, there have been reports that some companies in the A.I race have been less than enthused about A.I research for the sake of A.I research, seeing it as more of an avenue for profit. The thinking of business people, basically. 

And of course, being able to play with fancy new toys with almost unlimited resources is always nice. I imagine the "no red tape" thing was icing on top of a substantial cake.

But to say it's not about the money? That's a load of Facebook-shaped cap and we know it.

Facebook-shaped cap.

While I will concede that money probably isn't the only motivation, the fact remains that it's a pretty sizeable one.

Everyone, in some shape or form, is doing it for the money. Anyone who isn't, is either already unimaginably rich or just nuts. Meta's recent acquisition of Apple's top A.I engineer is costing them USD 200 million a year. That's not chump change, chum. (Say that three times fast, I dare you!) Apple declined to meet that price. Yes, Apple! 

What about the claim of building a superintelligence? Well, that requires context. For intelligence, what are we comparing against? The idiots currently raging on Social Media about Sydney Sweeney's jeans? The ones busy politicizing the death of Hulk Hogan? That's not a terribly high bar, really.

Final thoughts

All this is not to say that these AI experts shouldn't take the money. Au contraire, they absolutely should. A.I could be the thing of the future, that much is true. But it's hard to tell because that's what they all once said about NFTs and the Metaverse. Meta was even named after the latter!

Therefore, these A.I experts should make hay while people are still willing to pay them that amount of money, on the off-chance that this doesn't last. As history has proven, tech can be a fickle mistress.

"It's not about the money, money, money"... really?!
T___T

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

Do techies lean Liberal or Conservative? (Part 1/2)

Since the day I became aware of the Culture Wars over in the good old US of A, there's been a nagging question in the back of my mind. What side do techies really stand on? I'd like to think that we aren't a slave to any ideology - especially coming from Singapore, we're a pragmatic people who believe in whatever works in the most efficient way possible.

Silicon Valley does appear largely Liberal, or at least, that's what they would have us think. Jeff Atwood of Coding Horror, founder of Stack Overflow, actually jumped onto the anti-Trump bandwagon. However, after the recent electoral victory by the Republicans on the 5th of November last year, Big Tech has quite handily changed their tune. As I've often suspected, that's not the tech part speaking; that's the business part. That the appearance of Liberal domination in Silicon Valley was a veneer, and ran no deeper than that.

Nothing deeper than that!

And thus the question was begged. The answer, of course, that software developers, like many people, identify with both. They have some positions that are Liberal, and some that are Conservative.

The funny thing is that I identified three positions that could be considered both Liberal or Conservative, depending on one's perspective.

How Software Developers are Liberal

Identity does not matter. Software development is a field where logic reigns supreme. At some levels, it does not even require a particularly high I.Q, just the ability to do basic math and thick logically. Gender, race and sexual orientation don't determine an individual's ability to do math, and as such, are irrelevant when it comes to the ability to code, test and deploy software. A software developer is not going to automatically think that another software developer is competent based on identity.

Software
development isn't
just mens' work.

In fact, one of the most baffling (and frankly insulting) things I have heard as a developer is being told that I should be better at the job because I'm a man. What, and my years of hard work count for nothing? I'm naturally supposed to be better at it because God made boys engineers by default? Well, that's not what this tech thinks, and any male tech who tells himself that kind of rubbish, does himself (or anyone) no favors.

Innovation versus tradition. Don't get me wrong, we do have our traditions. But technology itself is a result of innovation and experimentation; daring to try new things. Thus, you will never hear a software developer saying that we should do something this way just because that's how we've always done it. That kind of argument holds no water for us. It runs counter to everything that drives a techie.

Tradition has its
charm.

We may respect tradition, but we are not slaves to it. There are no sacred cows. Tradition has its place, but tradition should also know its place.

We have tech innovations today precisely because we dared to go against tradition. We dared to challenge the pre-existing ideas of what was possible, or acceptable. What separates us from the herd is the willingness to ruthlessly drop tried and tested methods in favor of demonstrably better methods.

The collective versus the individual. Skillset-wise, you will never see a more diverse group. That's because in the tech landscape where there are very frequent changes and new things to learn, people end up learning across different (but often related) tech disciplines or going deeper into existing ones.

Tech skillsets come in all
shapes, sizes and colors.

There are no unifying standards as to what makes a techie, though there's been no shortage of would-be gatekeepers trying to keep things neatly classified. It's a lost cause.

Take any two developers, even from a broad collection of, say, back-end developers, and you may end up with one mostly trained in Java and one trained in Python. Take your two developers from a less broad group of Python developers, and you might get one who's more of a web scraper and one who's more of a data analyst.

Yes, tech itself is a huge domain, and evolving as I write this. Consequently, its practitioners are similarly varied.

Next

How we're Conservative.