The Case of the Awkward Tech Interviewee

It's been a while since I attended a job interview. As an applicant, anyway.

Recently, I was on the other side of the interview, reviewing candidates for a tech position within my company. The interviewee in question was a nervous-looking Malaysian. There wasn't anything that really stood out, except for his awkwardness. Which, in itself, was a problem. You see, for tech positions, sometimes one can get away with not being able to communicate that well. The stereotype of socially-inept but brilliant techies exists for a reason.

Brilliant but
awkward?

However, this particular position was for a leadership role. And lack of communication skills just wasn't going to fly. I could tell that my co-interviewer had already written our applicant off and was about to call it in, but I persisted. We'd already scheduled and allotted the time; I figured that I might as well develop the muscle memory I needed for being an interviewer.

Besides, it could have been just nerves. Some people have told me I can be intimidating, a statement I consider laughable. Please, look at this face. Nothing about me is remotely intimidating.

Either way, I decided to give him a question he could answer. I asked him to explain what he would do to combat SQL Injection. His answer, predictably, was "Stored Procedures". My follow-up, probably just as predictably was why Stored Procedures? What do Stored Procedures do that normal SQL queries don't?

He stammered. Hemmed. Hawed.

After a few minutes, I put him out of his misery. I told him to Google the term "paramterized queries". And then told him that in future, if anyone ever asked him a question like that again, he should refer to that, rather than simply say "Stored Procedures". It would be a better, more complete, more correct answer. And more importantly, it would be an answer that instilled confidence in the asker of the question, confidence that the answerer knew his shit.

After we were thanked him for his time and bade him goodbye, my co-interviewer turned to me and asked me why I'd spent so much time on this guy. Did I see some potential that he'd missed?

I replied, simply, that we obviously weren't going to give him the job... so I might as well give him something.

People commented on my perceived generosity, or at least, on me "paying it forward". I don't think either is true. This was decidedly not about making the tech industry a better place, or even giving back.

Back then...

Upon further reflection, something similar happened to me in the days when I was the applicant. There were times when I sensed I had failed the interview, and when the interviewer asked if I had any questions, I ventured out of the box.

I asked for advice. And this paid off in spades. They proceeded to tell me more or less where I'd gone wrong. We all knew I wouldn't make it past this round, but they at least thought I deserved a fighting chance... somewhere else. They wanted me to succeed, again, somewhere else. I guess it helped that His Teochewness has such a winning personality.

Seeking answers.

I think that helping candidates along is a very natural instinct on the part of any tech interviewer who takes their job seriously. Of course, it helps if the applicant doesn't piss them off. One may object on the grounds that this helps applicants cheat on their next tech interview. That's only true if they get asked the exact same question next interview. Also, let's be real, answers are all over the internet.

And from a cynical point of view, even if it's true that you're enabling inferior candidates to "cheat", they'd likely be "cheating" at the interviews of your competitors. Nobody really needs me to explain this one now, do they?

It's probably also true that techies generally like to look out for other techies. Some little tribal instinct there. Us geeks against the laypersons.

To conclude...

Interviews need not be an adversarial exercise. Your interviewers want you to succeed, or at least not turn out to be a total waste of time. Selfishly, because they already invested the time and energy into prepping for this interview, and conducting it. From that point of view, they get nothing if you turn out to be a dud.

Therefore, they don't need to love you. They just need to not severely dislike you. And the rest takes care of itself.

Without question,
T___T

JavaScript's non-existent relationship to Java

Despite the fact that I can no longer, by any stretch of the imagination, be referred to as a "beginner" where my career is concerned, I sometimes do like to read beginner books on tech. It's oddly soothing. There's also plenty I can learn in terms of how to communicate tech concepts and ideas, from the authors of such books, if not the actual tech itself.

And this is one such book that I picked up from the neighborhood library recently - How to be a Web Developer, by Radu Nicoara.

This book.

Now, this isn't one of my Reference Reviews - I didn't finish reading the book and this would be dishonest. Radu Nicorara probably knows his way around the building blocks of the World Wide Web and has, again, probably done a whole lot more than I have. After all, he published a book. And I give him all the credit in the world for even attempting it.

However...

...once I got to Page 60 (or thereabouts), I encountered a statement that was so egregious that it took me out of reading the book entirely. Not that I ever found the book all that engaging in the first place.

This passage shocked me.

JavaScript is a scripting language (meaning the code is not precompiled) that's derived from the Java programming language, hence the name.

I was in complete disbelief when I saw this. Just to be sure, I sent a photograph of the page to MetaAI, and MetaAI being the nice little bot it was, it described the passage as "a bit misleading".

A bit misleading?! Try "completely false".

The error

For anyone who might be tempted to repeat this, JavaScript is not derived from Java. Aside from the fact that they may both be described as programming languages (coding pedants may insist that in JavaScript's case, it's a loose description) they don't actually have anything to do with each other.

JavaScript began life as a loosely-typed client-side language meant for browsers to interpret. Java was (and still is) a strongly-typed compiled programming language. The names are similar, and the syntaxes are similar. But that's where the similarities end, and even these similarities can't be used as evidence for JavaScript's relationship to Java.

In fact, JavaScript's original name was Mocha. Yes, as in the coffee. It was changed to "JavaScript" as some kind of marketing ploy to mislead people into thinking it was a child of Java. Well, guess it worked!

Fancy a cuppa Mocha, luv?

This reminds me of an encounter on the Clubhouse app where I heard some American woman make the ridiculous claim that in the Chinese language, "the words for danger and opportunity are the same".  John F Kennedy, the 35th President of the USA, was the first to say this back in 1960, and he was wrong. In Chinese, danger is "危机" and opportunity is "机会". Both words contain the word "机", but "机" is also a suffix commonly used to describe machines such as "飞机" (flying machine, a.k.a aeroplane), "手机" (hand machine, a.k.a mobile phone) and "耳机" (ear machine, a.k.a earphones). At the risk of stating the painfully obvious - aeroplanes, mobile phones and earphones have fuck-all to do with danger or opportunity, just as JavaScript has no relation to Java.

Which tells us a couple things - just because two words sound the same or contain subsets of each other, does not make the things they are describing, related. Thus, just because Java and JavaScript both contain the words "Java", it doesn't follow that they're related in any way. The second thing this tells us is, if you don't speak a language, maybe keep the witty quotes to a minimum unless looking stupid brings you deep emotional satisfaction.

As for syntax, both Java and JavaScript's syntax is based on C. Curly brackets, semi-colons, function declarations and so on. But this similarity is not confined to Java and JavaScript. Several other languages such as PHP and C# also have great syntax similarities with Java. In terms of similarity, C# is even closer to Java than JavaScript is.

All in all...

It's not my intention to jump on Nicoara for this error. Whomever his editor was, shares the blame for this. And this glaring factual error aside, what little I read of his book seemed sensible. Therefore, I didn't contact Nicoara and inform him of this boo-boo. What good would it do? It's not like one can un-publish this book.

Besides, I'm not exactly perfect. Early in my blogging days, I probably made my fair share of factual errors. Though, in all fairness, it's not like I'm profiting off my blog, or asking people to pay for it.

All that aside, I used this as a teachable moment. Even if that little piece of programming history I taught was dryer than a nun's coochie.

Java nice day!
T___T

Spot The Bug: The Textbox That Refused Validation

Hello, dear Bug-hunters. Time once again for some elusive bugs!

And here we
go again...

Today's episode of Spot The Bug is about form validation. Specifically, HTML form validation.

I had a mailer form, like so, and I wanted to verify that this message box was filled before submission. I just added required in the HTML attributes. Simple, right?

<body>
  <h1>Contact Us</h1>
  <form method="POST">
    <fieldset>
      <legend>Email</legend>
      <input required name="txtEmail" type="email">
    </fieldset>
    <br />
    <fieldset>
      <legend>Subject</legend>
      <input required name="txtSubject">
    </fieldset>
    <br />
    <fieldset>
      <legend>Message</legend>
      <textarea required name="txtMessage" rows="5"> </textarea>
    </fieldset>
    <br />
    <button>Send Mail</button>
  </form>
</body>

So here was the form. Each form input element had the required attribute, which tells HTML5 that they cannot be blank.

What Went Wrong

You see that little tag come on when I fail to fill in Email and click Send Mail.

And if I fail to fill in Subject, and click Send Mail.

But when I leave Message blank and click Send Mail, the form attempts to submit. The form submission went through without a hitch. It wasn't supposed to - because I hadn't entered anything in the Message text box. Or so I thought.

Why It Went Wrong

See this? You probably won't spot it right off the bat, but... there is a single space between <textarea> and </textarea>. Innocuous? Not quite, because that would mean that the text content of the HTML element, registers as a single space! Which also means, that it's not an empty string.

<textarea required name="txtMessage" rows="5"> </textarea>

Which, of course means that the validation passes!

How I Fixed It

I changed it to this. Now there would be no content in the texbox by default.

<!-- <textarea required name="txtMessage" rows="5"> </textarea> -->

<textarea required name="txtMessage" rows="5"></textarea>

And attempting to submit with this box left empty, would trigger the error message!

Moral of the Story

It can't be stated enough, that what you see onscreen isn't necessarily what's happening in the HTML. In this case, it was being reflected on-screen, except that, it being a space and all, was pretty hard to visually detect at a glance.

Till the next Spot The Bug,
T___T

Film Review: Black Mirror Series Seven (Part 3/3)

Up next, we have Hotel Reverie.

The Premise

Brandy Friday signs up for the lead role in a movie reboot which is a computer-generated simulation of the original. This involves transporting her consciousness to a computer-generated environment.

The Characters

Issa Rae has an enjoyable outing as Brandy Friday. This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I think she absolutely nailed this role, especially when her character is playing the role of Dr Alex Palmer. There's an easy charm about that smile, that just looks so effortless. And her portrayal of an actress who wants to break out of gender stereotypes, is pretty compelling.

Emma Corrin plays Dorothy Chambers with a certain wistful sweetness that fits the story to a tee. A closeted lesbian who put herself into her roles on-screen. When I found out she also played Cassandra Nova in Deadpool & Wolverine, and Anna Harding (the pregnant wife) in Nosferatu, I was knocked for a loop. Corrin is so versatile, I didn't even recognize her!

Awkwafina as Kimmy. A fun role, though I feel like Awkwafina could have done so much more. Kimmy is basically the desperate and harried film exec who wants to get a movie made. I don't ever recall -not- enjoying watching Awkwafina on screen, but let's be honest, she was criminally underused here.

Harriet Walter brings a certain dry wit to the role of Judith Keyworth, owner of Keyworth Productions. She's occasionally snarky and delivers reality checks in straightforward, unvarnished style. I really dug her delivery of the line "NFI - not fucking interested".

Stanley Weber as Dorothy's onscreen husband Claude. Mustache-twirling villain.

Farid Larbi as Inspector Lavigne. Another one-note role.

Elaine Claxton as dog owner Madame Roban. Played this Karen in a black-and-white movie. She was fun to watch, in small doses at least.

Elliot Barnes-Worrell is in this episode for a few minutes Brandy's agent Quarterman. He's played as cavalier, snarky and dismissive... and he looked like he would be a nice addition to the cast. Except, after his first few minutes, we never see him again.

Charlie Hiscock as bumbling techie Jack. Hiscock plays him as a competent but complacent techie who gets whiny when he's stressed, and delivers some tech exposition.

Enzo Cilenti as Ralph Redwell. He's mostly seen in flashbacks, the typical beefy suave protagonist of black-and-white film. Cheesy, but effective.

Tessa Wong as Asian girl writer, Crystal. She plays a comedic role, at one point seeming more concerned with getting writing credit than saving Brandy's life. That was cute.

Magnus Brunn as Dieter. He's the guy who reads the romance meter. Kind of useless, to be honest.

Danielle Vitalis as black girl tech, Mika. Maybe it's just me, but it felt like she was making up the numbers. This is her second bit part in the Black Mirror series. The first was in Joan Is Awful, and this time round the role feels even less relevant.

Natalia Kostrzewa as nnamed delivery girl. It was an entertaining few seconds as she went all fangirl on Brandy only to reveal that she was actually more interested in her male co-star.

The Mood

It's a little humdrum at first, but soon we enter the black-and-white environment of the movie and ironically, things get pretty colorful from here as we switch rapidly between that environment and the "real world".

The narrative tension is raised towards the end, because this is Black Mirror and we're never completely sure who survives the episode.

What I liked

The interracial lesbian relationship between brandy Friday and Dorothy Chambers. Yes, I know, I've complained in the past that Black Mirror seems to insist on shoving interracial relationships down our throats, especially of the black-white variety. And this isn't even the first black-white interracial lesbian coupling, the first being San Juniperio. But this one was different. The lesbian part was actually an integral part of the story. Brandy Friday's identity as a black woman was actually acknowledged by the plot. It didn't feel like yet another box-checking exercise and giving us an interracial lesbian couple just for the sake of it. If anything, it felt like this episode was taking shots at Hollywood for its overeagerness in race and gender swapping in its reboots.

The concept of ReDream. It is pretty neat, and fits into the concept of generative AI as we know it today. Not exactly, but pretty damn close! What with the main character's consciousness being implanted into a computer-generated simulation and all.

This was one of those shows where the women had the most to do, and the men were either relegated to useless minor roles, or portrayed as incompetent buffoons. I should be annoyed, but in truth, I barely noticed it, even after watching the episode twice. It only just occurred to me, when writing this review. I mean, if any movie or show wants to go this route, they should absolutely take a leaf from this episode's book. It was done so masterfully, so subtly, as to be almost unnoticeable. Or maybe I'm just oblivious.

What I didn't

Dropping the USB device was relevant to the plot, because it resulted in Kimmy explaining things to Brandy (and to the audience) what ReDream does. But really, why bother when they could have Kimmy do that anyway, without that little plot device?

If ReDream could do all that, why would they even need an actual actor? Or actress? This part was never made clear.

Conclusion

This was actually pretty good. There was the risk of the whole virtual reality angle being played out in the Black Mirror series, but they somehow managed to make it feel refreshing. Never have I found a black-and-white setting so utterly compelling.

My Rating

9 / 10

Thoughts on Black Mirror Series Seven so far

I was blown away. I haven't felt this much optimism since Series Four. This feels like a return to form. Each episode so far, has been classic Black Mirror stuff. It started with the gut punch that was Common People, took a slight dip with Bête Noire, then came back strong with Hotel Reverie. The first three episodes of this series have so far trumped the entirety of Series Five and Six!

I'm TFI! Totally Fucking Interested!
T___T

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

This next episode, the rather pretentiously titled Bête Noire, deals with gaslighting. Tech? Well, there's plenty. Maybe even too much.

The Premise

Maria starts to question her reality when ex-schoolmate, Verity, joins her company Ditta (which had a brief mention in the previous episode; fun fact!). She soon finds out that reality is being manipulated with the intention of driving her to suicide.

The Characters

Sienna Kelley is Maria Skinner. She delivers one hell of a portrayal of an argumentative control freak who always needs to be right, the not-so-reformed bully who instinctively reverts to form once the conditions present themselves. It's sometimes subtle, but Kelley pulls it off. It helps that the argumentative control freak personality is absolutely a thing, and I know more than a few people like that.

Rosy McEwen is Verity Greene. It's also a compelling performance from her, perhaps even more so considering the rather unbelievable premise. She's a victim of bullying who finds near limitless power but decides to spend it tormenting her former bullies. I find this thoroughly unrelatable because in her shoes, I'd be busy exploring so many possibilities and cementing my position. Despite this, McEwen manages to elicit sympathy.

Ben Baily Smith as Gabe, the boss. I found his portrayal as a laid-back hill boss, utterly watchable. Gabe bikes to work and comes off as chummy and sensitive, and tries to be reasonable and tolerant. Which can be tough if you have a pushy mofo like Maria as a subordinate. Just saying!

Michael Workéyè plays Kae, Maria's boyfriend. He's nice and goofy, and really quite the emotionally available guy. Another guy who tries to be reasonable with Maria and puts up with her bullshit. I'm starting to see a pattern!

Ben Ashenden as Nick, from the Graphics department. Comes across as enthusiastically friendly where Verity's concerned. Perhaps even over-friendly. Later on, he pushes Maria's buttons in very annoying ways. Overall, a rather immature character, but the actor looked like he had fun.

Elena Sanz as Camille, focus group tester. She reminded me a little of Gemma from M3GAN. Thought she'd have a bigger role here, but it was not to be.

Hannah Griffiths as Luisa. There's this running gag where people constantly steal her almond milk from the fridge. It druves her nuts, and ties into the story.

Amber Grappy as Yudy, the kitchen head. She always has this confused look. I don't know if that's by design.

Ravi Aujla has a brief appearance as Ditta. Good-looking distinguished silver fox guy. Not really interesting otherwise.

The Mood

The episode is bright and colorful, and the closeup visuals of chocolate and confections sure add to the artistry. Later on, this does not change, though the mood takes a turn for the sinister, which somehow gets worse considering everything is so visually... cheerful. In effect, the entire episode looks very polished visually.

What I liked

The storyline concept was pretty creative, even if it strained credulity at times. The themes of bullying, gaslighting and arrested development are pretty relevant and dare I say, timeless.

I like the visuals where they tell us what day of the week it is. It's just so artistic.

The actual gaslighting was pretty good! It started off subtle, with this foreshadowing shot that it was Barney's rather than Bernies... also, there are apparently two versions of this episode being aired, with this as a gag!

... to something like this, removing nut allergies from existence! And using Google to reinforce it, is just too precious!

What I didn't

Of all the titles they could've gone with that would have actually made sense, "Bête Noire" doesn't exactly stand out as a solid choice.

Unlikeable characters. Both the protagonist and the antagonist are anything but likeable, and that's even before the reveal at the end that Maria was Verity's bully. Maria is pushy and argumentative. Verity comes off as a tragic victim of bullying who's unable to move past the trauma and as such is in a state of arrested development. No main character comes even close to being sympathetic here.

Unbelievable tech. I mean... something as limitless as the tech that Verity is using, basically runs on what looks like a mini server farm? I suppose it's marginally more believable than that little "quamputer" we saw in Joan Is Awful.

The scene where Verity alters reality so that Maria has always spoken "Chinese". Honestly, if she's "always spoken Chinese", she should speak it a lot better than the garbage gibberish that came out of Maria's mouth. Badly-spoken Mandarin has always been a pet peeve of mine in Hollywood. Couldn't they have used Japanese, or Korean? Something arguably less easy to get wrong? Geez!