Film Review: War of the Worlds (2025)

Following in the footsteps of screen marvels like Unfriended, Searching and Missing, comes a new tech thriller in the same vein. Well, "new" might be stretching the truth a wee bit. War of the Worlds was produced back in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it must have seemed like a good idea at the time, what with people being made to stay at home and all. A movie that requires very little face-to-face interaction between its actors? Holy guacamole pandemic loopholes, Batman!

Except that sadly, while the idea was decent, execution was found rather wanting. I watched this movie out of sheer obligation rather than because I truly wanted to, and this was made more apparent the more it went on.

This movie is in screenlife format, where the entire story takes place on TV monitors and computer screens. I kept calling it the "found footage format" in the past, but I guess this has kind of evolved into its own sub-genre by this point.

Warning - spoilers, I guess...

I don't even know why I bother telling you this. There are no surprises here (barring how dumb this movie is) that me saying it out here would even count as much of a spoiler. Still, you've been forewarned, if not forearmed.

The Premise

William Radford is a Government tech agent (with high security clearance and all) who is in his office when an alien invasion begins. What ensues is a series of catastrophic events as he shuttles back and forth between his job, helping to repel the invasion and keeping his family safe... all from behind the keyboard and monitor.

The Characters

Ice Cube as William Radford, a techie employed in a Government tech surveillance program. It's almost impossible to overstate how much I love watching Ice Cube on screen. Next to Samuel L Jackson and Denzel Washington, he might just be the coolest black actor ever. I'm biased, of course. From XXX: State of the Union to 22 Jump Street, his gruff angry black man persona is a joy to watch. However, even Ice Cube has his limits and his inclusion in this movie exposed them cruelly. The screenlife format of this movie basically means that for a large part of the show, we're reduced to watching Ice Cube emote close up... basically underreacting and overreacting to everything. Not his best role, that's for sure.

Eva Longoria appears in the movie as Dr Sandra Salas, who seems to be pretty useless, all things considered. She's just here to deliver footage and exposition to Radford (and us, by extension) and does nothing to make us care for her character in the slightest. Honestly, I didn't even remember the character's name, that's how little she mattered to the plot. Eva Longoria has had a long and storied career, and let's just say that this role is not something she will be remembered fondly for, if at all.

Henry Hunter Hall as Radford's son David, who's apparently a game reviewer. Radford thinks his son is a huge disappointment and loser... until he discovers that he's actually the hacker known as The Disruptor. Hall is not very interesting in that role, I gotta say. My reaction to the reveal was an overwhelming "meh".

Iman Benson as daughter Faith. Happens to be a biologist who somehow discovers how to synthesize a virus to kill off the aliens. She's pregnant during the events of this film and mostly spends her time either looking terrified or constipated. I don't know if it's Benson's acting or just the shitty writing (maybe both?) but she just doesn't come across as a particularly competent scientist... at least not at the level that would result in producing a virus that would take down the aliens.

Devon Bostick as son-in-law Mark Goodman, whom Radford might consider an even bigger loser than his son. He's an Amazon delivery guy, but even he has a role to play in defeating the aliens, though it's possibly just to add some product placement since it is being featured on Amazon Prime.

Clark Gregg is the unscrupulous Director Donald Briggs, whose insane plan to spy on every living person on Earth is the cause of all this mess. It's nice to see Gregg again after his stint in the Marvel Cinemetic Universe, but at the same time really sad to see that he's reduced to this.

Michael O'Neill makes a couple appearances as US Secretary of Defense. A very one-note role.

Andrea Savage is FBI Agent Sheila Jeffries, a role so colorless I mistook her for Eva Longoria's character a few times.

The Mood

They try hard to convey the end-of-the-world high-stakes terror of an alien invasion using the screenlife format. And it falls flat a lot. Even when Ice Cube swears right at the screen, it comes across as hilarious rather than scary. The alien robots are meant to inspire dread, but the whole effect is cheesy. I get what they were trying to do, but it just fell flat.

What I liked

The whole bio-mechanical nature of the aliens is kind of cool. Tentacles within tripod-shaped domes? Tiny bugs that are equal parts blood and silicon chips? Corny but also intriguing.

The whole thing about the homeless guy accepting the bribe of an Amazon Gift Card was hysterical. It was so stupid (and shameless) I couldn't help but laugh. Kudos!

The biblical poetry of a hacker named David fighting a Government surveillance program named Goliath, is divine.

What I didn't

In general, the plot is just silly. I'll elaborate why as we go along.

Radford types a lot of textspeak, but his textspeak doesn't make a lick of sense. He types things like "Where are U" which is just weird. I can understand, even though I loathe it, the propensity to substitute "U" for "you". What I don't understand is, if you're going to be lazy enough to do that, why would you make the effort to properly captalize the "w" in "where"? While we're at it, why would you capitalize the "u"? Actually, why not just type "where r u"? Indeed, why not "wru"?

The aliens invade Earth because they want to eat our data. Read that again, until the sheer stupidity of that statement sinks in. Data is basically just 1s and 0s. The image of a cat is data. The recording of a song is data. A hastily-typed text message is also data. A YouTube video that's been corrupted, is still data. A random sequence of 1s and 0s? You guessed it, data. If the aliens had the tech to invade Earth, they definitely had the tech to create whatever data they needed, for consumption, rather than go to the trouble of invading Earth for it. I feel like whoever wrote this story doesn't know a whole lot about tech, and just thinks it's some kind of witchcraft.

The tentacles that make an appearance when the aliens attack, are goofy AF.

Faith was injured due to being stabbed by a piece of debris. Later on, she's seen removing it in order to "stop the bleeding". Wait, what? I could understand that if Faith Radford was supposed to be a clueless layperson. But a professional biologist?! This is some Grade A shit writing right there.

Amazon really got their claws in where product placement was concerned. Not only was one of the characters an Amazon employee, the script also had an extended sequence of Radford placing an order and having it shipped by drone. So cringe, OMG.

Conclusion

Was this movie a huge disappointment? Not really; that would have required that I had sizeable expectations for it. The fact that it disappointed me even a bit considering how forgiving as an audience I am, is testament to how little value it has. This is probably the most useless movie of 2025... and I say that both as an Ice Cube fan and someone who absolutely loves the screenlife format.

My Rating

2.5 / 10

This movie alienated me!
T___T

Googlers Fired For Protesting Project Nimbus

Google is in the news again for firing people, and this time it's a little different. Just last month, Google dismissed 50 staff members for being involved in protests against Project Nimbus - Amazon and Google's cloud computing services deal with the nation of Israel. 

For those who've been living under a rock, Israel and Palestine are at it again. The how and when are going to need more time than you have to read this blogpost, so let's move on. Suffice to say, the concern is that Project Nimbus will have military applications, even if this is not the expressed intent of Google.

Mixed feelings about the Googlers

I'll begin by saying that yes, I agree with CEO Sundar Pichai, politics should be kept out of the workplace. If you don't like what your company is doing and can't square it with your conscience, just leave. Don't be a drama queen about it. Especially, don't use the time that the company is paying you for, to work against the company itself. Amazon employees protested Amazon's involvement as well, but at least that was only in the form of a signed petition. 

On the other hand, Project Nimbus sounds all kinds of dangerous. AI to profile people in Gaza? Possible military application? Huge potential for abuse. I don't blame the Googlers for not wanting any part of it. That goes double for if these Googlers are Muslim, or Palestinian. Seriously, why would Google even think it would be OK for a Muslim to aid Israel? There's only so far you can push the concept of "professional obligation".

An ominous cloud.

All that said, while their former staff might have been behaving in a manner that was less than professional, there's this part of me that thinks Google absolutely asked for it.

All these years, Google has been painting itself as this ultra-progressive place where their work shapes the world. They hired young idealistic types with self-righteous mantras such as "Don't be Evil" and "Do The Right Thing". The very kind of people who would be expected to dig their heels in if Google strayed from their perceived path of not being evil.

And now they object to this behavior? Come on, that's bullshit. Google made that bed, and now they get to lie in it.

About this whole Israel-Palestine thing...

I've had more than one person telling me that this Israel-Palestine issue should not be characterized as a "conflict" or a "war", and that doing so is disingenuous and downplays the fact that Israel is committing "genocide". OK, let's say that this is true. Let's say that the level of fuckery going on in that part of the world is off the scale.

But the Russia-Ukraine war is still going on. Pretty sure that hasn't been settled yet. People are still dying.

There's also whatever is allegedly going on in Xinjiang, China. Western media tells us it's a genocide, though at this point I trust Western media about as much as I trust China's. But again, let's assume it's true.

And Myanmar. After that coup back in 2021, the injustices are still happening, aren't they? Myanmar hasn't been somehow liberated while we weren't looking.

War is everywhere.

My question is; why do these people talk like the Israel-Palestine thing should matter to me the most? I get that if someone is Muslim or Jewish, without question, this should matter to them. And even if they're not Muslim or Jewish, they should be able to care about this issue as much as they wish.

But why me? Why do people insist that I care about this over everything else that's happening?

Human Rights violations? It's the humane thing to do? Children are dying? Shit, one could make the same argument about Russia-Ukraine, or Xinjiang, or Myanmar. I realize that this sounds horribly cold, but what makes Israel-Palestine special? Or is this just a case of "I care because I'm a good person, and if you were a good person, you'd care too"?

And if the answer is, no, I don't have to choose, I should care about all this equally? Sorry guys, I don't have the kind of bandwidth required to study the history of all these conflicts. I actually have a job, unlike those former Googlers (low blow, couldn't resist, heh heh) and shit I need to handle. At some point, we all need to choose what to spend our time and energy on. Yes, this sounds like a cop-out, but that doesn't make it any less true.

If they want people to prioritize this, a compelling reason is needed. And no, "be on the right side of history" (whatever that dumb shit even means) does not count. You guys realize that there is no "right" side of history, right? No matter what you do, or don't do, a hundred years from now, some snot-nosed kid is going to read a history book and judge you for it. The same way youngsters are now judging the likes of Abraham Lincoln, Lee Kuan Yew, and so on.

Conclusion

No two ways about it - in this story, everyone's an asshole.

Google, not for their business dealings with Israel. Project Nimbus is pretty disturbing, yes, but they're a company and they don't owe anyone an explanation as long as it's legal. But for hiring woke and passionate people who will absolutely put their passion over common sense, almost encouraging them to act that way, and then having the unmitigated gall to take exception when they inevitably do so? Total dick move.

The people who got fired, also did their best to make it happen. Shit, how did they think it was going to go down? Did they think Google was going to cave in to the pressure and beg for forgiveness? Google's been laying people off; they were probably grateful for the excuse.

No silver lining in this cloud!
T___T

Web Tutorial: The Chameleon Site

In recent weeks, I came across this amusing story about eBay. Basically, it's about UI and UX, and how users react negatively to sudden changes in a system unless that change takes place very slowly, over time. In the story, such a change was brought about, to the site's background color.

This story amused me so much that I just had to write a bit of code to replicate this effect. It's not spectacular and accomplishes nothing really new, but let's dive into it anyway, eh?

We first have some standard website HTML. I generated the text using ChatGPT.

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
    <head>
        <title>Chameleon</title>

        <script>

        </script>
    </head>

    <body>
        <p>
            Welcome to ColorShift! We are passionate about the power of colors to transform and enhance your world. Whether you're looking to revamp your home decor, design a striking logo, or simply add a touch of vibrancy to your digital creations, we have you covered. Our expert team is dedicated to helping you explore the endless possibilities of color.
        </p>

        <p>
            Discover a kaleidoscope of hues, shades, and tones that will ignite your creativity. Dive into our extensive color palette and find the perfect combination that speaks to your unique style. From bold and energetic to calm and soothing, we offer a vast spectrum of options to suit any mood or aesthetic.
        </p>

        <p>
            Our intuitive color selection tool allows you to experiment with different combinations, ensuring you find the harmony you're seeking. Adjust brightness, saturation, and contrast to achieve just the right balance. Create stunning gradients or play with complementary and contrasting colors to make your designs truly stand out.
        </p>

        <p>
            Whether you're a seasoned designer or a novice enthusiast, our blog is a treasure trove of inspiration and guidance. Dive into articles that delve into the psychology of color, explore the latest trends, and learn invaluable tips and tricks to make your colors pop.
        </p>

        <p>
            At ColorShift, we understand that colors have the power to evoke emotions, convey messages, and make a lasting impression. Let us be your guide on this chromatic journey. Unleash your imagination, unleash the colors!
        </p>
    </body>
</html>

Within the script tag, we create the setBgColor() function. It has three parameters. The first is maxDays, which is an integer that specifies how many days the change is going to take place over. fromColor and toColor are objects that dictate the beginning color and the end state color, each of these containing the RGB values in integers, as properties.

<script>
      function setBgColor(maxDays, fromColor, toColor)
      {

      }
</script>

When the site loads, we want to run the function. Let's first set it at 100 days, from the color white to orange.

<body onload="setBgColor(100, {r:255, g:255, b:255}, {r:255, g:200, b:0})">

Back to the setBgColor() function, we begin by declaring body as the HTML body tag.

function setBgColor(maxDays, fromColor, toColor)
{
      var body = document.getElementsByTagName("body");
      body = body[0];
}

We then declare startDate as a new Date object, and as a test, set it to the first day of this year. For this code to work, startDate should be before today's date.

function setBgColor(maxDays, fromColor, toColor)
{
      var body = document.getElementsByTagName("body");
      body = body[0];

      var startDate = new Date();
      startDate.setFullYear(2023, 0, 1);
}

Now we declare currentDate as another Date object, and it's today's date. Next, we have ms, which we use to calculate the number of milliseconds between currentDate and startDate.

function setBgColor(maxDays, fromColor, toColor)
{
      var body = document.getElementsByTagName("body");
      body = body[0];

      var startDate = new Date();
      startDate.setFullYear(2023, 0, 1);

      var currentDate = new Date();
      var ms = currentDate.getTime() - startDate.getTime();
}

And then we do some math on ms to get the number of days, assigning it to the variable days. We use floor() because days might not be a whole number, and it would be easier if it was.

function setBgColor(maxDays, fromColor, toColor)
{
      var body = document.getElementsByTagName("body");
      body = body[0];

      var startDate = new Date();
      startDate.setFullYear(2023, 0, 1);

      var currentDate = new Date();
      var ms = currentDate.getTime() - startDate.getTime();
      var days = Math.floor(ms / 86400000);
}

We declare finalColor and set it to the value of toColor.

function setBgColor(maxDays, fromColor, toColor)
{
    var body = document.getElementsByTagName("body");
    body = body[0];

    var startDate = new Date();
    startDate.setFullYear(2023, 0, 1);

    var currentDate = new Date();
    var ms = currentDate.getTime() - startDate.getTime();
    var days = Math.floor(ms / 86400000);

    var finalColor = toColor;
}

And now we set the background color of body to use the r, g and b properties in finalColor.

function setBgColor(maxDays, fromColor, toColor)
{
    var body = document.getElementsByTagName("body");
    body = body[0];

    var startDate = new Date();
    startDate.setFullYear(2023, 0, 1);

    var currentDate = new Date();
    var ms = currentDate.getTime() - startDate.getTime();
    var days = Math.floor(ms / 86400000);

    var finalColor = toColor;

    body.style.backgroundColor = "rgb(" + finalColor.r + ", " + finalColor.g + ", " + finalColor.b + ")";
}

What do we do with days, then? Well, we use a conditional statement to check if days is less than maxDays. If so, we'll alter the value of finalColor (not right now, though) but if not, the background color of body will effectively be the current value of finalColor, which is toColor.

function setBgColor(maxDays, fromColor, toColor)
{
    var body = document.getElementsByTagName("body");
    body = body[0];

    var startDate = new Date();
    startDate.setFullYear(2023, 0, 1);

    var currentDate = new Date();
    var ms = currentDate.getTime() - startDate.getTime();
    var days = Math.floor(ms / 86400000);

    var finalColor = toColor;

    if (days < maxDays)
    {

    }

    body.style.backgroundColor = "rgb(" + finalColor.r + ", " + finalColor.g + ", " + finalColor.b + ")";
}

Since it's 3rd August and definitely more than 100 days (the value of maxDays), you can see the color of background is orange!

Now in the If block, declare ratio. It's the result of dividing days by maxDays, which will give you a value less than 1 because days is less than maxDays.

if (days < maxDays)
{
    var ratio = days / maxDays;
}

Next, we declare rDiff, which is the difference between the r property of toColor and the r property of fromColor.

if (days < maxDays)
{
    var ratio = days / maxDays;

    var rDiff = toColor.r - fromColor.r;
}

Same for gDiff and bDiff.

if (days < maxDays)
{
    var ratio = days / maxDays;

    var rDiff = toColor.r - fromColor.r;
    var gDiff = toColor.g - fromColor.g;
    var bDiff = toColor.b - fromColor.b;   
}

If rDiff is greater than 0 (which means there is a difference), we alter the r property of finalColor to be the r property of fromColor, plus the ratio-ed value of rDiff! So the closer days is to maxDays, the closer the r property of finalColor will be to the r property of toColor.

if (days < maxDays)
{
    var ratio = days / maxDays;

    var rDiff = toColor.r - fromColor.r;
    var gDiff = toColor.g - fromColor.g;
    var bDiff = toColor.b - fromColor.b;    

    if (rDiff != 0) finalColor.r = fromColor.r + (Math.floor(rDiff * ratio));
}

Yes, we can do the same for the g and b properties of finalColor.

if (days < maxDays)
{
    var ratio = days / maxDays;

    var rDiff = toColor.r - fromColor.r;
    var gDiff = toColor.g - fromColor.g;
    var bDiff = toColor.b - fromColor.b;    

    if (rDiff != 0) finalColor.r = fromColor.r + (Math.floor(rDiff * ratio));
    if (gDiff != 0) finalColor.g = fromColor.g + (Math.floor(gDiff * ratio));
    if (bDiff != 0) finalColor.b = fromColor.b + (Math.floor(bDiff * ratio));
}

Let's test this! Change the value here to an entire year.

<body onload="setBgColor(365, {r:255, g:255, b:255}, {r:255, g:200, b:0})">

It's now 3rd August. That's 212 days after 1st Jan, right? 212 over 365 is 0.5808219178082191, give or take. So the color should be 58% orange!

Change this to an even bigger number...

<body onload="setBgColor(3650, {r:255, g:255, b:255}, {r:255, g:200, b:0})">

And you see the color gets closer to the "original" color, white.

Conclusion

I hope the logic was clear. This web tutorial is a little light on functionality, but it was fun to do. Which is the reason why I do anything on this blog.

Don't fade away on me now!
T___T

Big Tech Layoffs In Progress!

Microsoft. Google. Amazon. Apple. FacebookMeta. Twitter. What do all these companies have in common? They're big tech, and since last year, they have been engaging in massive layoffs. Ostensibly, this came about because they all massively overhired in preparation for a tech boom that did not come to pass. And now that reality has hit, these companies are jettisoning employees like it's going out of fashion.

Microsoft has announced huge cuts. So has Amazon. And if you recall me discussing the situation at Twitter, that was just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Getting dumped by Facebook.

Google and Meta have not been slacking in that department either. Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg, respectively, went on record to say, that they "take full responsibility for this decision"  and take "full responsibility for the decisions that led us here". I'm not sure what "full responsibility" here entails, but OK. A lot of that vaunted "full responsibility" going around. Google's severance packages seem pretty great, so that's something.

What does all this mean for the tech sector in Singapore?

Well, for starters, big tech offices in Singapore are also cutting back on hiring. Fresh graduates dreaming of getting a start in big tech will probably not be realizing those dreams anytime soon. Other than that, this changes very little.

Tech is still booming. Companies both big and small, across all industries, all need tech and those that aren't recently-started outfits are going into a process of digitalization. It's no longer a luxury; the fact that tech is pervasive in many areas of life, has turned it into a necessity. The pay may not be quite the same, and the value-add on the CV isn't all that sexy, but opportunities are there.

Tech is everywhere.

People need to remember that tech is not just big tech; it's everywhere. Finance. Logistics. Healthcare. Entertainment. The possibilities are endless. Tech professionals who let go of this perception that career success only means working in big tech, will get on just fine. As for the rest? They'll sort themselves out, or show themselves out.

Personally...

When I was a young web developer, like many others, I dared to harbor dreams of one day making it into big tech. The closest I ever got was being an agency contractor to one such firm. Looking at the way things are now, perhaps that's for the best. This is not to gloat at the misfortune of those who have been laid off, but to marvel at how well I've been thriving in spite of not "making it". The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but in all honesty, I can't complain.

Would my life have been far more interesting if I had succeeded in being part of the movers and shakers of the tech industry? Perhaps. I'll never know.

Dreaming about
big tech.

I do know that, notwithstanding the generous severance packages, I'm probably in a better position than those who are in limbo right now. Sure, they have big tech on their resumes and that's always a plus. But how would that benefit them? Like, using it as a bargaining chip into another big tech company which is probably also laying staff off? They could apply at smaller outfits, but even if they were willing to take that hit in both remuneration and status, what company would risk taking on employees who are used to "bigger" things?

So many questions.

The takeaway

It's not the end of the world. Not even close. It's not even the end of the tech industry.

Demand for tech is not going down, but as far as big tech is concerned, the demand was grossly overestimated in the first place. And now that the growth has been found to be not as great as initially projected, the layoffs are taking place to cut costs. Nothing to be alarmed about. Unclench those buttcheeks!

Don't be evilunemployed,
T___T

The Big Tech Fallout From The Capitol Riots

It has been a crazy few weeks. Well, for the world at large, with the threat of COVID-19 and all, the entire year of 2020 and beyond has been nothing short of insane. But for the USA, things went a little extra nuts with that riot on the Capitol on the 6th of January.

I've avoided talking about it till now, because I firmly believe that as a Singaporean, it's not really my place to comment on USA politics. After all, I happen to find it extremely stupid and off-putting when non-citizens presume to tell Singaporeans what to think about Singapore's Government. Thus, I try not to do that. Until it begins affecting my industry. Then all bets are off.

The result of the fiasco where then-President Donald Trump was accused of inciting the mob to storm the Capitol, was that he was subsequently removed from Twitter and Facebook. Up to now, that "inciting" part is a bit of a mystery to me. I read a transcript of that speech and it just about put me to sleep.

Trump banned for
egging people on?

But anyway, back to Trump's removal from Social Media.

In related news, Social Media app Parler also had a rough time of it. Admittedly, I'd never heard of them until recently. Apparently, they were the destination and gathering point for all the extremist Right-wing groups, and their numbers surged when Twitter and Facebook began to purge those from their platform. Despite calls do do so, Parler refused to do likewise and purge these groups, citing Freedom of Speech or somesuch. However, this was soon brought to an end when Apple and Google removed the app from their respective platforms so that no one could install the app from those platforms. And then the nail in the proverbial coffin was introduced when Amazon, Parler's hosting provider at that time, withdrew their services citing Parler's refusal to remove content that incited violence.

In effect, both Donald Trump and the extreme faction of Right-wingers were pretty much cut off from Social Media. True, there was still e-mail and internet, but they no longer had a voice. Or, at least, they no longer had a platform from which they could spread their message.

Tech platforms taking sides?

It didn't take long for Left-wingers (and Trump-haters in general) to gloat that tech appeared to have finally chosen to side with them. Or their counterparts, the Right-wingers, to decry big tech for exactly the same thing. And indeed, it did appear that Twitter, Facebook, even Pinterest, had dropped all pretense of impartiality and done what they've been dying to do all along - embrace their Leftist base.

Taking sides.

I think these deluded children have forgotten one fact. These are tech businesses. They're not interested in your politics beyond what they can do to make money out of it. Nor should they ever be. Alienating roughly half your user base in order to pander to the dramatics of the other half, is a poor business decision.

There have been cries as to how tech is practicing censorship and stifling the oh-so-important Freedom of Speech. With all due respect, Freedom of Speech refers to Government action. These are private entities. As such, Twitter, Facebook and Amazon, among others, were perfectly within their rights - whether legally or ethically. Also, Donald Trump didn't leave Twitter and Facebook much choice in the matter here. Trump's speech, as insignificant as it may have been to me personally, undeniably meant something else to his base. And allowing him to keep stoking the fire in light of what happened at the Capitol, would have been highly irresponsible. So no, I don't think what they did was wrong. But it does raise some troubling questions.

Who to entrust with that kind of power?

Trevor Noah, one of my favorite comedians, has openly criticized big tech in the clip below. No, not for doing what they did, but for doing it too late.

What he said stood out to me, and as much as I enjoy watching him, it wasn't entirely in a good way.

"I think it's really funny how Social Media companies say they don't have a magic button to stop hate online, but then when Trump lost, suddenly they were like, oh we do have that button, here it is! So what - now these companies want a cookie for doing the right thing too late?"

On one hand, the dude has a point. Things should never have gotten as far as they did. And the fact that these companies seemingly waited till Donald Trump was soon to be no longer President, to act, does look an awful lot like cowardice.

On the other hand, what constitutes the right thing? Some might say - supporting causes that should be supported, and not tolerating causes that don't deserve your support. But who gets to decide that? These things are highly subjective. Do we really want Apple to decide which apps can or can't be online? Do we really want, say, Twitter, deciding what people can and can't read in public discourse? Sure, Trump-haters might be all for it now, but forget Trump. Look beyond petty grievances, and you'll realize how scary this is if big tech can be politicized to this extent.

Already, we have articles like these claiming that the Capitol riots should not be confused with the violence of Black Lives Matter or the HongKong protests that took up much of 2019. That's a matter of perspective, and highly subjective. What is an objective fact, is that laws were broken and public property was damaged, and lives were lost. Tech companies can, of course, be trusted to make decisions according to objective fact. It's when they are called upon to make subjective moral value judgements on behalf of their very diverse user base, that we might want to start worrying. What if Amazon one day decides that they don't want you to exist online? If you can't go to Amazon to host your app, where else could you go that has the same reach? If you can't build a Social Media presence on Facebook or Twitter, could you simply go elsewhere? Technically, you could, but options are slim to none.

Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, et al, cannot and should not be faulted for having the huge user base they have today. But the fact remains that the recent banning of Trump and the deplatforming of Parler has laid bare the scary amount of power they do hold. It's a mind-boggling amount of power to have, and nobody wants that responsibility. Remember the case of Matthew Prince and The Daily Stormers roughly three years ago? Back then, Prince said something similar to what Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, is saying today - no one should have that kind of power, and decisions like these set a dangerous precedent. Already, Twitter has the nigh-impossible task of enforcing its own rules consistently. Is it fair to expect them - or anyone, for that matter - to be the Moral Police? Sure, last week it was Donald Trump that got the short end of the stick. Who cares? He deserved it, right? But see... what happens when the big tech companies decide someone else deserves it? Someone you actually like? One day, it's the President of the USA, albeit an outgoing one. What's to stop these big tech companies from denying service to, say, Singapore? What if for some reason or other, Facebook suddenly decides that Singaporeans don't deserve Social Media?

Finally...

Some will tell you that these tech companies are private entities, and they can conduct business as they see fit. They aren't obliged to be consistent, or owe anyone any explanation regarding their decisions. And they certainly don't owe anyone a platform.

I'm not disputing any of that; it's all absolutely true.

But bear this in mind - business relationships are built on trust. If a company cannot be trusted to be transparent and act with some logical consistency, and instead is seen making arbitrary decisions based on internal or external pressures, that's bad for business. Something I suspect these companies are all too aware of.

Beware that slippery slope,
T___T

The Point Behind The Question

The first month of 2020 kicked off with a Parliamentary tussle when Minister Chan Chun Sing provided statistics on how employment in Singapore had increased by nearly 60,000 between 2015 and 2018. MP Pritam Singh challenged him to provide a breakdown across all industry sectors in the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs); and furthermore, to provide breakdowns for the data between Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) because up to that point, Singaporeans and PRs had been categorized under a single group. Minister Chan responded with the following (rather defensive) rebuttal, which, incidentally, led to an amusing slew of memes around his retort "what is the point behind the question?"

"We can get you the numbers. But let me say this. What is the point behind the question? First, has local unemployment increased with all these efforts? The answer is a resounding 'no'. Our people are getting good jobs. Are our wages going up? Yes, and it's faster than many other countries. Those are proof points to show that we are doing right by Singaporeans.

But I'm always very cautious about this constant divide, Singaporean versus PR. The insinuation seems to be that somehow Singaporeans are not benefiting."

While I probably wouldn't have put it that way, I'm inclined to agree that while a breakdown would certainly provide more information, it's pedantic at best for the purposes for which this data was intended - to track how well the ITMs are doing. I assume that MP Pritam Singh was making the request out of purely academic interest, and admittedly viewing that data for the Infocomm and Media sector would be very interesting for me personally.

There is also the small matter of the other point that Minister Chan raised. Singaporean unemployment had gone down. But seeking the data in order to establish whether or not PRs were benefiting more than Singaporeans comes across as - dare I say it? - petty and small-minded.

Foreigners in the tech sector 

In certain segments of Singaporean society, there's been a fair amount of resentment towards foreigners due to the perception that they steal jobs that rightfully belong to "true-blue born and bred" Singaporeans. Hence the inclination to check if more higher-paying jobs are being occupied by foreigners than locals.

And you know what? They probably are. So what? Do people honestly imagine that these higher-paying jobs could be just as easily done exclusively by local talent? Without a certain amount of foreigners coming in to fill those positions, the global tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, IBM and Microsoft would have significantly less incentive to set up shop here. And that means the opportunities I've had for the past few years would be non-existent. I would probably still be sweating it out for cheap local bosses - you know, the kind who pay you just 3,000 SGD a month and expect your immortal soul in return.

Modern-day slavery.

Sure, I may not be earning as much as many foreigners. But I'm earning way more than I used to. Sometimes, comparing what you have now with what you used to have, makes a heck of a lot more sense than comparing it with what others have. With the former, you at least see progress. With the latter, you'll never be happy because your aspirations (what others have) will exceed your abilities (what you can get).

Simply put, I don't care who's doing better than me. I only care that I'm doing a lot better than I used to.

In my workplace 

When I tell people that I'm the only Singaporean developer in a team full of foreign developers, they're quick to jump and point to unfair hiring practices and foreigners being favored over locals, and that someone like me is being hired only to satisfy the quotas for local workers and increase the allotted quota for foreigners.

Firstly, that's rubbish. The foreigners I work with are on Employment Passes, which are not subject to foreign headcount quotas at all.

Secondly, Singaporeans have been interviewed for the job before. Exceedingly few of them made it. And if I'm an example of a Singaporean who survived that interview process, I shudder to think how shit unqualified the others must be if they didn't.

Thirdly, administration-wise, it is actually easier to hire a Singaporean than a foreigner. Employment Passes take time to get approved. And if candidates need to go through Government security screening, foreigners take roughly twice the time it takes for a local.

Lastly, of all the Singaporeans who actually got the job, very few stayed past one year. Apparently it was too much work for too little pay. I happened to have come from worse conditions; ergo I was happy to stay. Also, many Singaporeans have been conditioned to look down on contract positions and any position that has no potential for them to rise through the ranks. It helps that I've never wanted a higher-ranking post, because accepting that increase in responsibility for just a little bit more pay just never made any practical sense to me. I suspect quite a few people want those jobs not because they actually want them, but because they've been conditioned to think that they should want them. Because of "Career Progression" or some such bullshit.

So, no. In my organization's case, it's not that companies don't want to hire locals. It's more that locals are either disinterested or unqualified for my position.

Now, the Fair Consideration Framework isn't perfect, not by a long shot. But it's a heck of a lot better than nothing, which is pretty much what we had before 2013. The Government actually exceeded my expectations here. Instead of simply incentivizing companies that did adhere to the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, they actively went after companies that tried to circumvent those rules.

Sure, there are always going to be people who deride this news, and label it Wayang. And they do have a point - it seems to be the smaller companies that bear the brunt of the investigations.

But you see, it is precisely these smaller companies that flout these regulations because they have a more intense need to. The bigger ones - the really huge ones - have too much to lose by not following the laws of the land. And they're less concerned about squeezing every drop of blood and sweat from their employees. Facebook is more interested in invading our privacy for profit. Google is more interested in tracking our every move and appearing not to be evil. As for Apple, they've got child labor in China sweatshops - quite legally too, as it happens - why would they waste time screwing over a relatively paltry number of Singaporeans on this tiny island?

So, if one of these mega-corporations doesn't want to offer you that cushy five-figure salary, it's probably not because they have any preference towards foreigners. It's more likely that you're just not good enough. These huge tech companies have very stringent acceptance criteria, and it's rarely a case of where you're from, but how qualified you are. More often than not, that describes a foreigner. And they're hardly going to break a sweat over losing prospective hires to employment regulations in Singapore, because there's an exceedingly long line of talented people who want to join their ranks.

Talent in various shapes and forms.

The other reason I want these mega-corporations around, is because I have relatively recent, very unpleasant memories of working for local employers with an exceedingly strong affliction of The Chinese Towkay Syndrome. Back then, in the tech sector, it was an employer's market and these bosses were as exploitative as they come. The presence of large multi-national tech corporations with a plethora of employee benefits and higher wages, keeps these guys honest because they're no longer the biggest or only game in town. And if this means that a big chunk of higher-paying jobs are going to foreigners, so be it.

Why employers seem to prefer foreigners 

The common misconception seems to be that foreigners are better workers - more diligent, more knowledgeable, more accommodating, more everything. And, of course, cheaper. Undoubtedly, some of them are. But that's not where their true value lies.

Foreigners are generally only able to work in Singapore if issued a pass of some sort - a Work Permit, S Pass or Employment Pass. When employment ends with an organization or the pass has expired, they have a limited time to stay in Singapore to find another employer willing to take them on. Things get complicated fast if they have family here, perhaps children studying in local schools.

Therefore, since their continued employment exists at the pleasure of their employers, foreigners are generally more obliging. Also, if they're here alone with not many family and friends, there's not much for them to do in their spare time and they're usually more than happy to take on extra work.

Eat shit, and like it.

Simply put, a foreigner will put up with demands that a local won't. They'll eat shit, and smile while they do it. Locals are far more likely to walk away if it gets too hot in the kitchen, because we can. Foreigners simply don't have that luxury.

So for those who like to complain about the lack of Home Ground Advantage, this is your Home Ground Advantage. And it's no small one. In fact, its so big that many companies would rather not deal with it. If you need proof of this, take your average docile foreigner and issue him or her PR status, and see how swiftly their attitude changes when their stay is no longer directly dependent on the goodwill of their employer.

Should the data be released to the public? 

Absolutely! Do it!

Assuming that disgruntled Singaporeans actually find evidence that more PRs are occupying higher paying jobs than Singaporeans, just what are they going to do about it? Move out of Singapore to greener pastures? If they actually had the ability to thrive elsewhere, I suspect they would have done it already, as opposed to squawking on Social Media.

Just go.

No, this is Singapore and we are a nation of Champion Grumblers. The late great Lee Kuan Yew said so himself. The Government should have faith that we'll accept the reality of the situation and get back to work. We complain excessively, of course, but when push comes to shove, we ultimately choose the most sensible and pragmatic option. Let's not ever change that.

Those that don't want to accept the reality of Globalization have the option of leaving. And they should. At the very least, it will give them a taste of what it's like to be a foreigner somewhere else and be the ones eating shit while those countries' locals complain about them for a change.

In closing 

Singaporeans are a competitive lot. We hate losing. And we especially hate losing out. That's a good thing.

However, being competitive is meaningless if we are not also competent. Aim high by all means; though if something is out of reach, better yourself in order to reach it. Demanding that the Government make things easier ("fairer") for us is one thing, but let's not abandon our responsibility for our own career development.

Does that mean I think that the noise-makers on Social Media clamoring for more transparency from the Government ought to tone it down a notch, then?

Oh heavens, no. Not a chance.

Sure, the Government's job would be a lot easier if we all simply went along like mindless sheep, but here's the thing: governance isn't meant to be easy. Anyone going into governance thinking that it's easy is under a severe delusion and needs to be disabused of it ASAP. Governance requires character of sterling quality. Running things for a few million loud complainers isn't easy... but neither is maintaining good standing and friendly relations with countless other nations with far larger populations and longer histories, some of whom have nuclear warfare capabilities. If a would-be Governor can't cope with the former, he or she has no business at all attempting the latter.

So keep holding their feet to the fire, you lovably noisy malcontents. Just don't forget to help the Government do their jobs by keeping yourselves employable. Because if all we're good for is raising a fuss on Social Media, Minister Chan Chun Sing's stated dream of locals one day taking those high-paying jobs may never come to fruition.

Pointedly,
T___T

Shopify stands steady

Earlier this month, Shopify, one of the world's most visible online shopping platforms, found itself in a bit of a quandary. This was due to them hosting Breitbart News Network's online store the same way they had hosted so many other online stores. Customers are pulling out and Shopify is facing pressure from activist groups to cease doing business with Breitbart by way of the #DeleteShopify campaign. Even internal staff are voicing their concerns at the company being associated with Breitbart.

Some background

Breitbart News Network is an Alt-right site that plays host to very unpopular opinions, such as how climate change is fake, how President Trump will be a great President, how women in tech suck at interviews and should stop blaming sexism for their lack of success...

And their online store features inflammatory merchandise like this. Admittedly, that's pretty offensive to certain people.

In the wake of the 2016 US Presidential Elections, the USA has been hugely divided. Hardly a day goes by without some unsavory news about Trump being published, along with the inevitable moral outrage. This has led to Shopify being pressured to discontinue their association with Breitbart. Kind of alarming when you consider that Shopify, as a business, isn't even based in the USA - it's based in Canada.

What do I think?

I think it's sad. No, scratch that. I think it's a goddamn tragedy. I've always thought that tech existed to serve people. The bits and bytes don't care what color you are, what gender, what sexual orientation, and most pertinently, what your political affiliations are. As long as what you do is within the bounds of the law in the country you are operating in and do not contradict the company's mission statement, tech serves you merrily with neither fear nor favor. Self-righteous zealots, in their frantic fervor, in their intolerance towards all things Trump and all things even tangentially connected to Trump, are threatening to subvert that.

I don't have a particularly high opinion of Donald Trump. For that matter, I'm not especially fond of Shopify either. As for Breitbart, they don't have a leg to stand on where boycotts are concerned, not if you look at the one they orchestrated last year against Kellog's.

But, my personal biases aside, this is abhorrent. I can handle Shopify's customers leaving if they don't want to be associated with a platform that also serves Breitbart. I don't mind Shopify's employees leaving if they no longer feel comfortable working for a company that serves Breitbart. They are all well and truly within their rights. What irks me is the attempt to browbeat the company into giving in to the noisy demands of this rabid mob.

Bullying is bullying. And the fact that it's meant to hurt an even bigger bully, does not make it right.

Shopify's response so far

I'm heartened to report that Shopify is sticking to its guns. Amazon and Facebook have faced similar pressure, but aren't backing down - for the moment, anyway. Then again, Amazon and Facebook are the big boys. Shopify, in comparison, is the new kid on the block.

CEO Tobias Lütke has been unequivocal in his commitment to continue serving Breitbart News Network despite claiming to dislike it, and I applaud that. Because if you give in to that baying mob even once, where does it end? Tech platforms should be free to serve without being forced to take sides. Tech is about logic. We don't deal in feelings.

Way to go, activists. What a Breit idea.
T___T

Denial of Service Attack on Dyn!

Boy, that does sounds like the title of a sci-fi flick.

Anyway.

I'm sure many of you have heard about the massive DDoS attack on Dyn by now. You know, the one that caused several Internet services to be unavailable for extended periods of time? Services like PayPal, Amazon and Twitter? It happened just around the third week of last month and caused quite a stir.

Dyn themselves released a statement on this attack. The details are interesting. Apparently, while Dyn employs safety and security features such as load-balancing and malware protection, the attack that occurred was of an unprecedented scale and sophistication, and actually caused them some concern. Dyn is a Domain Name Server (DNS), which basically means they help map URLs to numbered IP addresses, the kind only computers can read without great discomfort. And the attack caused those addresses to go AWOL for the duration.

OK, so what's a DDoS?

For those who aren't sure what a DDoS is, it stands for Distributed Denial of Service. What happens is that attackers make use of several computer terminals to send requests over the Internet to their target, flooding it with traffic and eventually causing it to stumble (or even crash) under the load. Mothers would probably understand this one - imagine feeding a  baby, talking to the mother-in-law on the phone while five other kids clamor for your attention. Now imagine juggling five babies, ten phone conversations and twenty kids. And then multiply that stress level by several millions.

That's what Dyn's servers had to deal with - a motherload (pun intended) of spam in one go, drowning out the legitimate users of their services.

Now, while the attacks were of an extensive scale, the nature of the attack was DDoS, which has existed for as long as - well, let's just say that DDoS ain't the new kid on the block. If I were to say it has been around for 30 years, that wouldn't be stretching the truth.

Yep, older than this.

The mode of attack wasn't new - it was the implementation that gives one pause.

The Internet of Things

Unlike the old days, in this particular assault, venues of attacks weren't restricted to computer terminals with an Internet connection. Now many things have Internet connections - mobile phones, copiers, webcams, smart toasters, the list of devices goes on. Now with the Internet of Things being in vogue, Dyn was under siege from all manner of devices. And that's a scary thought. Imagine Twitter being brought down by your refrigerator.

A group that calls themselves New World Hackers has claimed responsibility behind the attack, and stated that it was their intent to bring awareness to the vulnerability. Whatever their intentions really were, I say bravo - it certainly accomplished that. A great many people have been shaken out of their complacency.

I think many people constantly underestimate just how dangerous the Internet is. It's a useful tool, yes, and at times an untamed and unpredictable one. Who's to say the device you're reading this blogpost on, isn't at this moment being compromised for nefarious purposes? You think that nifty new antivirus program you bought last year, or even last week, is bulletproof? Please. As long as you're connected to the Internet, you're vulnerable. Don't ever forget that. The worst thing is, dependency on the Internet is growing as we speak. Can't log into your computer without a Microsoft account? Gotcha. When's the last time you used your phone for, I dunno, making a call instead of surfing the net?

If you've gone this far without any obvious signs of having been compromised, it's not because you're good, it's not because you're well protected, it's not because God is smiling on you after you gave up your seat to the old lady on the train today, and it's certainly not because hackers are afraid of you. It's because you've been lucky. Simple as that.

Ya feelin' lucky, punk?

There anything you can do about it? Sure. Don't use the Internet. But please don't heed my advice, because that would eventually put me out of a job.

Seriously, though.

The Internet is a useful tool (did I just say that twice in one blogpost?) but don't ever let it be more than that. Exercise due caution. Don't get over-dependent on it, because I'm pretty sure this historic attack isn't a one-off thing. I mean, really, do you absolutely need a smart toaster? The capability is in place, and the potential to do a great deal of harm on a massive scale is there, and has been there a while now. This attack shouldn't have surprised anyone. It was a matter of when, not if.

At your (denied) service,
T___T