The Dark Years of COVID-19: A Software Developer's Perspective (Part 2/3)

Singapore, indeed the entire world, continued grappling with COVID-19 well into the latter half of 2020. By that point, there was a pervasive sense of resignation - that this was to be our new normal. Up to this point, cases in Singapore had remained at a manageable number. The lockdowns had lasted for a while - and mark this well, even though lockdowns were observed in various ways internationally, they were still being observed in some form or other.

A election during
COVID-19.

This was also the year where Singapore held her General Elections during the pandemic. I remember being particularly infuriated by politicians taking the opportunity to grandstand and politicize despite the fact that lives and livelihoods were at stake. That level of selfishness boggled the mind.

Singapore was being lauded by the international community for the way she had handled the pandemic thus far. But I took little pride in it. This was a highly fluid situation, and all that could be flipped on its head in the course of twenty-four hours.

All this was not sustainable. Our economy, reliant on remaining open and accessible to the rest of the world, suffered. Jobs were lost. Hiring was slow except for certain sectors, such as healthcare (big surprise there), tech and logistics.

I, too, lost my job in the month of September. By then, I had known of so many people who had suffered a similar fate, that I thought nothing of it. Even when advised by various people to apply for grants meted out to the unemployed during the pandemic, I consistently declined. Compared to people who had been jobless for months, my own situation did not seem so dire. I would much prefer Government money to go towards more deserving cases. For starters, I actually had money in the bank from years of not spending much. Further, I was from the tech industry. It was booming. With the advent of remote work, it seemed like tech firms could not get enough of developers. I predicted that by the time I got off my ass to fill out the form, I would have landed another job.

And I was proven right - within two weeks of losing my job, I was hired. This was less a testament to my value as an employee, then to the nature of my industry.

2021: Optimistically easing up.

Singapore plodded on, and mandated vaccination jabs while slowly opening up. This caused quite a bit of consternation among the general populace, though older folks were generally happy to trust the Government's direction on this. I had my own reasons for being willing to vaccinate, which I'll get into later.

Professionally, I was working from home the majority of the time. I had settled down into my work and even managed to juggle school on top of it. I was living with the restrictions just fine because they didn't interfere with my lifestyle... much.

But there was one problem - it was getting lonely. Not being much of an extrovert, social distancing was actually a good thing as far as I was concerned. Until it wasn't. As the months wore on, I began to discover that anti-social as I was, even I had my limits.

Isolation.

For that, there was the Clubhouse app. It was novel at the time; a way to connect with random strangers in the rest of the world, get updates and take solace in knowing we weren't alone in our suffering. Of course, like all Social Media, it went to shit pretty quickly because when human beings are involved, toxic behaviors are always par for the course.

That said, Clubhouse did a lot for me. I made friends and eventually visited them. Some of them came over to Singapore to visit, in turn. Listening to real-time conversations was also a good way to familiarize myself with foreign languages. It got me comfortable with public speaking, at the very least. I spent countless nights leaving it on in the background throughout. Sometimes there would be endless heat - shouting matches, drama, that kind of thing - and I would literally sleep through it all, like a baby. In the absence of my wife, this felt like I was in a room full of people.

And then the Missus came back from China, where she had been stuck for the past year. This coincided with the Singapore Government's vaccine mandate, and some of the rules were confusing where foreigners were concerned. I don't really have a problem with the vaccine mandates, but communication was often unclear, contradictory and generally inadequate. Really not what I've come to expect from the civil sector, but these were extraordinary times, I guess.

She caught COVID-19 a few months later, and to my everlasting perplexity, I didn't catch so much as a sniffle despite lying beside her every night for a week. I wasn't dumb enough to believe that I had any sort of superhuman immunity or something; this was just one of those inexplicable things.

2022: Catching COVID-19

I did catch the virus about a year later. My wife had caught it a second time, and this time my luck ran out. It should have been the Omicron variant by then. COVID-19, at this time, was nowhere as deadly as it had been when it first surfaced, and we survived it with nothing more severe than a running nose.

Was it because we were vaccinated by then? That may have played a part, sure.

Taking the jab.

Many people were quick to point out that vaccines aren't a hundred percent effective because people can still catch the disease after being vaccinated. Well of course vaccines aren't a hundred percent effective - nothing ever is. Vaccines weren't meant to prevent people from catching the coronavirus - they were meant to help train the body to fight it, and lower the chances of dying painfully from it.

I could say a lot more, but again, perhaps that's best left for later.

More Thoughts

It may be an oversimplification to say that Singapore emerged relatively unscathed due to good governance. I give our Government their due, certainly. It could not have been easy running a country during such trying times.

Plenty of people worried about dying. Some worried about not dying (at least, not right away) and instead suffering till their last rasping breath. I pretty much accepted this was out of my (frequently-washed) hands and focused on what I could control.

Job losses and the suffering economy were next on the list of the average Singaporean's worries. The Food and Beverage industry seemed to be among the hardest hit (though Food Delivery boomed), as restaurants started encountering Government-mandated limits on restaurant capacity. Many closed down. I made it a point to buy from hawkers as often as I could. It gave me an excuse to go out, and at the same time hopefully contribute to their dwindling coffers. 

Socially, life was a mixed bag. I was mostly hanging out with my tenants but nobody else. My WhatsApp chats were abuzz with activity and plenty of quarrels erupted. With those who were spreading unhelpful vibes and bad advice, I was particularly savage. Normally I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy, but I needed an outlet and idiots were an irresistable target.

Masks were
controversial.

You see, there were plenty of overnight experts claiming that Government directives such as mask mandates, safe distancing and vaccinations, did not work because despite their existence, people were still catching the virus. The sheer stupidity of statements like these were mind-boggling. Policies aren't like software - they don't work magically on the flip of a switch and results are not a hundred percent guaranteed. Even in the field of medicine, where there are outliers to everything, nothing is absolute. Expecting the number of cases to drop to zero overnight just because the majority of people started wearing masks, was idiocy on a mind-boggling scale.

Sure, the science may not have been entirely correct. But that's always been the nature of science - the knowledge is never a hundred percent. How do people complete a basic education and yet fail to understand this? Bizarre.

 

Next

To today.

App Review: Haunted Dorm

Think about all the tropes you've ever seen in Asian horror and even movies like the A Nightmare On Elm Street series and It. Think of all the times the characters triumphed over evil by virtue of their imaginations and teamwork.

And then download this game - Haunted Dorm, by China game company Mihuan, for a fun time.

This is a Tower Defense game with a single goal - to defeat the monster lurking the hallways before it comes for you. To that emd, you'll have all the classic tools for a Tower Defense; namely, missile weapons and resource generating items. The difference is that there is one main enemy to defeat. Sometimes there are multiple enemies, but only the demise of that one monster will win the game.

The Premise

The dorm is being haunted by a monster. You play as one kid in a group of children, going to a room and sleeping to gain enough resources. These resources will build your defences to hold off the monster's attacks, and eventually destroy it.

Once the monster breaks through the door of the room you choose, you're as good as dead and the game ends.

The Aesthetics

Haunted Dorm is rendered in what one would call "kiddy graphics". Everything looks hand-drawn and crude, like toddlers made this. It's a bold stylistic choice, though sometimes comes off as clunky.

The Experience

It's definitely a spooky experience, especially the first few days you play it. The atmosphere is haunting. The graphics are kiddy and this could end up either being comical or adding to the spookiness.

But there's also that sense of solidarity as you, the player, team up with other computer-controlled players to take down the monster.

The Interface

Drag your finger over the screen to move the avatar. Tap on buttons to perform actions. Select items to be built from menus.

It's not exactly complicated, though the execution feels clumsy.

There are also some items, like the machine gun, that you will need to tap and hold, and drag, in order to use. It's awesome, but not terribly intuitive.

What I liked

The music. It adds so much to the atmosphere, I can't rave enough about it.

Dream Hunter Mode. You get to play as the monster instead of the kids... and lemme tell you that this feature is fucking insane. Whereas in Normal Mode you had the aid of computer-controlled allies, in this mode it's the opposite - all these are working against you now. Still, what a feature!

Seven Monsters Mode. More interesting levels where you can't purchase Special Objects. This was pretty challenging.

Story Map Mode. Different rooms with different rules of engagement.

Ghost And Angels Mode. This is another mode where any allies who die, become a ghost as well. Good, chaotic fun!

The comments made when you steal stuff from other players, are amusing. Especially the awkward English translations of what was obviously Chinese text to begin with.

This solar beam is awesome beyond belief. Not only does it pinpoint the Monster's location, it deals damage and earns coins! And you can even upgrade it for bonus damage. Talk about overkill.

The entire game was ridiculously easy to play. Even with comically bad English translation, it was a breeze to just tap my way around and try shit out.

What I didn't

Unless you have the Trampoline, there really does not seem to be any way to escape what I call the Ghost Hole attack, or just spam-filling every square inch of the room, which can be super-tedious if you chose a large room.

The menu tends to go out of the screen sometimes depending on where you tapped the button. It's a layout issue and annoying AF. Do better!

Amy Can't Die Mode seemed like a waste of time. You basically sleep in one room with a bunch of other kids and you use your combined powers to hold of wave after wave of hostiles until you finally assemble a weapon strong enough to kill the Boss. It was an interesting concept, but the execution was so weak.

When there are objects appearing around the corridor, it's always a crapshoot as to what you'll end up grabbing before the others do. There's just so little time to react. At least give players and option to pick something else other than what they initially picked up!

I don't understand this game's obsession with frogs and toads. At all. It can be a little off-putting.

Conclusion

Haunted Dorm is simultaneously campy and goofy, and deliciously creepy. I found Normal Mode quite addictive and all the other features combined should provide great replayability. This is a game that doesn't take itself at all seriously, always a plus. One definitely could do worse than give Haunted Dorm a shot.

My Rating

6.5 / 10

Not spooktacular, but damn solid!
T___T

The day Microsoft stood still for CrowdStrike

It's unclear exactly when the term "BSOD" entered the public consciousness. More than a decade ago when I was working as desktop support, I knew the term to mean "Blue Screen Of Death", alluding to Microsoft's infamous default screen which warns users of a system crash. Thus, it was a little strange to see the term "BSOD" being bandied around the last couple week.

Suffice to say, the term "BSOD" has found its way into several conversations over the course of the past few weeks as Microsoft systems around the world crashed in a cacophony of azure-colored screens. The outage was caused by cybersecurity vendor CrowdStrike, as a consequence of their security program Falcon pushing a faulty update to the Microsoft branch. Once the update was downloaded and installed by roughly 8 million machines worldwide, it resulted in those systems crashing.

The fix, according to CrowdStrike, was to reboot the machines in Safe Mode, remove the file, and then reboot the machines in Normal Mode. Nothing fancy if you've ever worked in desktop support, but perhaps a little out of the grasp of the average end-user. The desktop support personnel of these affected companies would have been on high alert especially during the initial weekend. 

Damage

It's all very well to say "8 million machines crashed", but it would be far more illuminating to know ˆ those machines were doing and ˆ they were deployed. For the most part, home users who had no compelling reason to install CrowdStrike's Falcon program, were spared the outage. It should also be noted that China, having long moved on from the days where a significant portion of the country was using Windows, was unaffected (to my knowledge thus far) by this outage.

For significantly larger corporations in USA and Canada, large swathes of Europe, and India; however, this was a different story.  Airline queues were jam-packed as systems went down. Healthcare and emergency services were similarly impacted as hospital IT systems using Microsoft 365 crashed. And banks - easily the biggest item on the list. Minutes of lost service could translate to millions of dollars in transactions gone, potentially, and in terms of these outages, we're talking days. 

This was seen a lot.

The irony here, of course, is that CrowdStrike was employed by these companies for the express purpose of guarding against malicious attacks much like this outage. Though this is one case where we should attribute the cause to incompetence rather than malice.

CrowdStrike's error was a null pointer exception, if the Internet is to be believed. These are fairly common; not really high-level stuff. From testing procedures, deployment practices and just good old due diligence, the number of potential shortfalls in any of these areas could have resulted in the faulty update being pushed.

Silly comments

Social Media has been rife with glee from Apple fans gloating that we should all stop using Microsoft products because this was the greatest outage in history, and that Apple has never been affected to this scale. That's ridiculous when you consider that the conditions that led to these outages - cybersecurity threats, third-party cybersecurity vendors, faulty software updates - would be present in all modern operating systems regardless.

Use Apple products
instead!

Covert to MacOS to avoid outages? Absurd.

Such deranged comments are ultimately the province of mere fanboys allowing emotion rather than logic to guide the words that come out of their mouths. I'm inclined to be forgiving here; I'd be less understanding if those words came from actual tech professionals.

Finally...

It's early days yet. The fallout is still being felt around the world, though much of the initial damage has been, hopefully, resolved. Still, this is not something we'll all be forgetting anytime soon.

Over and outage,
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

Meta's new platform: Threads or Threat?

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

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

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

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

The case for Threads

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

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

Censored!

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

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

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

The case against Threads

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

Why, Zuck?!

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

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

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

So... Threads or Threat?

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

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

Thread carefully, Elon Musk!
T___T

TikTok Congressional Hearing: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (Part 3/3)

Now we go onto the ugly! Not literally ugly, even though some of these faces won't be winning beauty pageants anytime soon. No, this section is reserved for the truly astounding levels of either ignorance or bad behavior.

The Ugly

Kat Cammack

Kat Cammack of Florida is the quintessential occupant of this section. There have been other members of Congress, such as Richard Hudson, that were, in my opinion, unfairly raked over the coals of Social Media. Cammack was not one of them. She was belligerent beyond the point of necessity, interrupted constantly, and as she kept talking, I wondered - who the fuck let this Karen in here?!

There was also this segment where she threw out accusations and as Chew Shou Zi tried to answer, she kept talking over him, answering her own question with "Yes. Yes. Yes." I detest these theatrics, and Cammack really piled it on.

"You damn well know that you cannot protect the data and security of this committee or the 150 million users of your app because it is an extension of the CCP."

Also, and I realize that this is completely subjective, her face and constant finger-wagging annoyed me. This lady did not need to be here. She needed to be in a McDonalds somewhere chomping on a cheeseburger and demanding to see the Manager.

Gus Bilirakis

Gus Bilirakis of Florida (what is it with Florida?!) is another deserved inclusion in this section. He spoke with a slur and I was almost convinced that he was going to slip into a coma at some point. Like some others before him, he kept droning on and insisting on "Yes or no?" even as Chew Shou Zi tried to give detailed answers. Not only was this guy insanely annoying, he was useless, which is arguably worse, and came across as supremely sanctimonious as he detailed the case of Chase Naska, a teen suicide.

"Your technology is literally leading to death."

No Mr Bilirakis, your school shootings are doing a much better job of that.

Bill Johnson

Bill Johnson of Ohio was a surprise inclusion into this category. The moment he introduced himself as an I.T professional, I was pre-conditioned to receive him positively. Unfortunately, he did himself absolutely no favors with his particular brand of douchebaggery.

"You've been evasive in many of your answers. I'm going to talk to you in some language that maybe you'll better understand - ones and zeros."

Like wow, Johnson really took the term "condescending asshole" to a whole new level there. Chew only appears evasive because your fellow idiots are asking for "yes or no" answers when he's trying to give detailed ones. Something which I'm now sure is deliberate. Well played.

"Here's the truth. In a million lines of code, the smallest shift from a zero to a one on just one of thousands of versions of TikTok on the market, will unlock explicit CCP censorship and access to American data."

Here's the truth. Johnson is a know-nothing masquerading as a know-something, and I'm sick of his bullshit.

Did this guy say he'd been in I.T most of his life? How in the ever-loving fuck does a shift from a zero to a one, accomplish that much? That could certainly work if it was just a configuration object, but the code to do what he claims, would actually have to exist in the first place. This guy talked about code like he'd never written a line of code in his life. Seeing as it's a Federal crime to lie during Congress (or so they kept reminding us ad nauseam) he could be one of those guys who think they know shit just because they own a tech company or two, and have never been in the metaphorical foxholes like us grunts. I've certainly encountered plenty of those.

"...can byte code be manipulated? We’ve talked a lot about source code. What about the byte code? The ones and zeros that actually execute on the device?"

Even assuming this was true, what could be gained from asking this? Would the CEO of a tech company necessarily know this? The CEO, not the CTO. And even if he could answer the question, how many others at the hearing or the audience would understand? This was performative politics, nothing more. At some point Chew was even seen smiling as if to say, wow, this guy. I think Bill Johnson would benefit greatly from observing Jay Obernolte from the "Good" section. Take note, Mr Johnson - this is what a real tech professional should sound like. This is what you might sound like with some genuine expertise and a lot less hot air.

Earl Carter

I wanted badly to like Earl "Buddy" Carter of Georgia. With his thick accent and his jovial demeanor, he exuded a certain Southern charm. But to be fair to the others, he unequivocally belongs in this section due to some of the astonishingly clownish things he uttered.

For example, he was questioning why the American version of TikTok had dangerous challenges while Douyin didn't.

"Do you know whether they have these kind of challenges like this over in China? Because it's my understanding they don't,"

And when Chew said no, he wasn't sure if Douyin did, Carter went:

"And, and you don't look at any of your other competitors or look at anything similar to yours."

Chew had already mentioned that Douyin is used in China, and TikTok is used outside of China. They're not competitors because they have to exist mutually exclusive of each other. They do not operate in the same market segment. This would be like calling Weibo a competitor of Facebook. There was no reason for Chew to be checking Douyin out at all. Was Carter taking the piss, or just dense?

There's also that back-and-forth where Carter badgered Chew about pupil dilation or some shit like that, but at that point, I was convinced I was listening to the ravings of someone either drunk or stupid. Perhaps both.

Chew was starting to explain how TikTok determines the age of their users.

"We rely on age gating as our key age assurance. Age gating, which is when you ask the user what age they are, we have also developed some tools where we look at the public profile to go through the videos that the post..."

And Carter was like,

"Well that's creepy. Tell me more about that."

What's creepy about going through a public profile?! Can I suggest that Carter hire an entire audit team to check the stuff that comes out of his mouth? Because this guy is a bona fide liability.

Entertainment value aside, Carter was a complete waste of the time spent listening to his drivel. I'm firmly convinced that while he's a likeable guy due to the informal and buddy-buddy way he talks, someone like him does not belong in Congress, for the same reasons someone like me does not.

Debbie Lasko

Around the four hour mark of this hearing, we got some more posturing from Debbie Lesko of Arizona.

"Mr. Chew, do you agree that the Chinese government has persecuted the Uyghur population?"

I'm frankly perplexed that anyone thought this was anything but irrelevant. Would it have mattered if Chew had said yes? Would it have mattered if he said he believes in Santa Claus or Jesus Christ? I know what Lesko was trying to prove, but Chew was not going talk shit about any government, never mind the Chinese government. Hell, there was so much shit he could have said about the USA government (and a lot of it would absolutely be relevant in this hearing), but he held back!

Aside from that, Lesko also performed the tactic that many of these politicians seem so fond of - interrupting, talking over, and badgering. So performative. So puerile. In other words, she earned her place in this section.

August Pfluger

I have no words to describe what a tool August Pfluger of Texas  was during his time.

"Does TikTok support genocide?"

Like, this has to take the prize for useless questions. Aside from that, he was argumentative and full-on spoiling for a fight. And at the end of the exchange, he had this to say in reference to Project Texas.

"Please rename your project. Texas is not the appropriate name. We stand for freedom and transparency, and we don't want your project."

Guy probably thought this was a mic drop. If I could roll my eyes any harder, they'd be doing a Neymar Jr. I even saw Chew Shou Zi crack a smile at this. Pfluger, if you're under the impression that you're witty, no, you really aren't. If it's any consolation, you are pretty comical. Unfortunately for you, American Congress is not the place. Or maybe it is, I can't tell anymore at this point.

Morgan Griffith

Morgan Griffith of Virginia. Whoo boy, this guy. Originally, I was feeling charitable and put him in the "Bad" section, but as his five minutes wore on, his theatrics got worse and worse. He kept badgering Chew Shou Zi to tell him the political affiliations of his employees.

Sir, I thought it was illegal to ask your employees what their political affiliations are, being that this is the USA, the land of the free and all that. Dude was grasping so hard, it was just sad.

Will TikTok be banned?

That's not a question I feel equipped to answer. A better question would be: do I give a shit? No, I really don't.

TikTok is installed on my phone, yes. But I can't remember the last time I used it, much less surrendered an entire hour to it. Sure, a whole bunch of teenagers will lose their favorite toy, and several people who currently make a living off it will have to go out and (gasp!) get jobs. Would it really be so terrible if there were a few (or several) less Social Media influencers in this world? Not from where I sit.

So, no. I really have very little skin in the game, and thus I'm answering this as objectively as humanly possible.

Let's face it - if Tiktok does get banned, people are not going to stop being trash on Social Media. They're just going to flock to other platforms and be trash there. Maybe that was the entire point of the exercise, eh? I mean, if the concern was data getting mined and sold, the problem would be a lot bigger than TikTok. If the concern was objectionable content, there's a whole lot of it elsewhere as well. So maybe the real concern is that American-made Social Media platforms just don't want the competition.

Is it possible that China really is using TikTok as a tool for espionage or propaganda? Sure, anything's possible. I may even go so far as to say it's probable. Is a TikTok ban going to help? I'd say that ship has sailed, wouldn't you?

Finally...

Firstly, some acknowledgements are in order. I referenced this link extensively so I could copy-paste rather than manually transcribe. Though there were parts where the transcript was off, it's nevertheless saved me a lot of labor and it's much appreciated.

Secondly, I understand that my comments may be hurtful and sound unprofessional. I suspect the American politicians who got roasted here will sleep just fine; I'm neither an American citizen and have no voting rights, nor do I have millions of Followers that I can influence in the USA. In other words, like a lot of people, I'm a complete non-entity with an opinion, or several.

Lastly, this was my first time watching American Congress. Not impressed.

What a Shoudown!
T___T

TikTok Congressional Hearing: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (Part 2/3)

The next section focuses on the congressmen and congresswomen who could have done better. Some of them had a good idea but flubbed the implementation. These are the ones that didn't exactly cover themselves in glory. They were bad, yes, though not to excruciating levels - that's for the "Ugly" section.

I'm not going to hit below the belt and base this on pronounciation, even though it was painful to hear them mangle Chew Shou Zi's name, or the names of Douyin, or Zhang Fuping, or even TikTok. Let's give a little grace. Despite the USA's reputation as a melting pot of cultures and races, roughly 80% of Americans speak only English, and some don't even speak it that well. Thus, expecting them not to slip up is grossly unfair.

Besides, we have more substantial things to focus on.

The Bad

Cathy McMorris Rodgers

The Chair, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, definitely qualifies for this one. Right off the bat, she set the tone for some heavy-handed hypocrisy with this...

"I do want to remind the guest in the audience that the chair is obliged under the house rules and the rules of the committee to maintain order and preserve decorum in the committee room. I know that we have deep feelings on these issues and that we all may not agree on everything, but I ask that we abide by these rules and be respectful of our audience members, our viewers, and our witnesses."

...and then this.

"Your platform should be banned. I expect today you'll say anything to avoid this outcome. Like you are 100% responsible for what TikTok does, that you suddenly endorse a national data privacy standard. That Project Texas is more than a marketing scheme, that TikTok doesn't harm our innocent children, or that your ties to the Chinese Communist Party through ByteDance is just a myth. We aren't buying it."

That was not only disrespectful to the witness, more importantly, it was  unprofessional. Talk about playing to the gallery. I'd expected better from American Congress. Maybe I shouldn't have.

"Can you say with 100% certainty, that ByteDance, the CCP cannot use your company or its divisions making content to promote pro CCP messages for an act of aggression against Taiwan?"

"The question is, are you 100% certain that they cannot use your company to promote such messages?"

"I wanted to hear you say with 100% certainty that neither ByteDance nor TikTok employees can target other Americans with similar surveillance techniques as you did with the journalists."

You don't need to have technical know-how to understand that in any system run or used by human beings or by algorithms created by human beings, "100% certainty" is a statistical impossibility. Thus, answering a question like this basically forces the answerer to lie or say "no". This was not stupid; it was malicious. The only reason why this lady is not in the "Ugly" section is because I acknowledge that unlike many of the speakers, she had an tricky job to do as Chair, and thus I'm going to cut her a little slack.

Bob Latta

Bob Latta of Ohio started out OK, but at some point he got ridiculous, repeatedly pushing "yes or no" despite the complexity of the questions he posed, kept interrupting like a petulant child. He gave me the impression that he was entirely superfluous to this hearing. Like, what value did he really provide to the hearing? He seemed to have already made up his mind; why was he even here?

"It's impossible for me to conclude that the video is anything different than the type of propaganda the CCP requires Chinese companies to push on its citizens..."

Sir, it's impossible for me to conclude that you're anything but a waste of the last five minutes. I'm gonna move on.

Richard Hudson

Sad to say, Richard Hudson of North Carolina belongs in this section even though most of the internet might opine that he belongs in the "Ugly" section. The clips of him asking Chew Shou Zi about whether TikTok can connect to his WiFi have gone viral and he's been the target of much derision.

But here's the thing - while his question might have come off as moronic clumsily phrased, I believe he had a larger point to make about TikTok potentially being able to access other device in the network. While that's certainly possible, that is also currently in the realm of science fiction. If this is a real and present danger; forget TikTok, shut down your entire goddamn internet.

To be fair, that segment aside, he was serious as a heart attack and didn't resort to theatrics. This was professional, no matter what you think of the WiFi question. I don't think he deserves to be in this section with the likes of, say, Bob Latta; alas, there are only three categories.

Brett Guthrie

Brett Guthrie of Kentucky is included here not because of his behavior. He conducted himself properly. By my standards anyway, which sadly seem to be higher than those of American Congress. However, he slipped up by constantly harping on how different the content is between China (Douyin) and the USA (TikTok). Even when Chew Shou Zi tried to let him off the hook by gently suggesting that this was a less meaningful comparison than against other Social Media platforms in the USA, he insisted on walking right into it.

"What's the difference? I'm sorry, I'm out of time, but what's the difference in China? And here?"

And Chew finally just let him have it.

"Let me give you an example, Congressman. In my home country, Singapore, there is almost no illegal drug content because Singapore has very strict drug laws."

Wow, the sheer shade. Brett Guthrie moved on pretty quickly from that one. Yeah, you better run.

Mr Guthrie, content on Social Media is a reflection of the laws of the land. If drug content is not present in China and Singapore, that is because these countries have no tolerance for that content. It's not that TikTok needs to do better (although they certainly do), but that America herself needs to do better.

Tim Walberg

Tim Walberg of Michigan's main questions were about data access by the CCP. It was hard to follow this conversation. This dude was giving off the impression he barely understood English, much less tech or business. Waste of five minutes, moving on.

Gary Palmer

Gary Palmer of Alabama. Tried to shut down Chew multiple times with the tired old "yes or no", and failed quite amusingly. Blustery, pompous and a real windbag. I would have put him in the "Ugly" section, but he didn't merit even that much recognition.

Greg Pence

Greg Pence of Indiana did the whole "old man shaking his fist at technology" routine and frankly it was funny AF.

"...this is the 32nd hearing we have held about privacy and big tech. Each hearing I've been part of, we've heard the same stories about our constituents' experience, and the same promises for big tech to do better."

Did this dude just whine about doing his job on National Television? The only thing this tells me is that if so many hearings have gone by and nothing has been done, some people just aren't doing their jobs. If this was supposed to convince me that it's all TikTok's fault, it sure wasn't very successful.

Troy Balderson

Troy Balderson of Ohio was not especially pugnacious, and I do feel a little bad about having to put him in this section with some of these losers, but some things he said bothered me strongly on a logical level.

"Can you explain to parents back in my congressional district why it should be their burden and not to set up that guardian parental controls for their children so that they do not view content, which is encourages eating disorders or committing suicide?"

Now, I'm not a parent. Partially because I recognize that it's a lot of work. But this should be a no-brainer - Social Media is not anyone's parent, let alone TikTok. Therefore it is not the job of Social Media to filter objectionable content from the young. It is the job of parents.

Russ Fulcher

Russ Fulcher of Idaho just made a five-minute speech and asked zero questions. Like, seriously, dude.

"And the whatever is what bothers me. And I'll use myself as an example again, if for whatever reason I became a target in this, I became somebody you didn't like. And I know that'd be hard to believe cuz you gotta like me. But let's say you didn't or a company didn't, or for whatever reason I became an app, app target, that artificial intelligence algorithm could be shared or spread selectively to a targeted audience that with negative information that maybe they has been paired up with that knowledge and that app to make me look really, really bad."

Tried to slip a joke in there somewhere. I appreciate that. What I didn't appreciate was that five-minute speech he could have given literally anywhere else but a hearing that was set up to elicit information from Chew Shou Zi. Fail!

The following are those who were both combative and useless. A potent combination, though not quite enough to bump them to the "Ugly" section.

Neal Dunn of Florida.
John Joyce of Pennsylvania.
Raul Ruiz of California

The following are reluctant additions into this section. They tended to be inflammatory though not over-the-top rude. Again, I didn't necessarily disagree with anything they said; that's not why they're here. They're mostly here because I don't think they raised any interesting points. At worst, their presence did not strike me as being particularly useful.

Paul Tonko of New York
Tony Cárdenas of California
Marc Veasey of Texas
Randy Weber of Texas
Angie Craig of Minnesota
Rick Allen of Georgia
Diana Harshbarger of Tenessee
Jeff Duncan of South Carolina

Now do bear in mind that these aren't always outright condemnations. Some of them were just very middle-of-the-road and it didn't feel fair to place them in the "Good" or "Ugly" section. As such, I've generally tried to be very restrained in my criticism. I haven't started getting savage yet.

Next

The Ugly

TeochewThunder: Year Eight (Part 1/2)

2022 so far has had me working from home, just like 2021. The main difference that my wife has been back from China since the last quarter of the previous year. And my efforts to acclimatize to the inevitable changes in my lifestyle could fill an entire book, never mind a blogpost.

Suffice to say, my blogging and coding time has met a few roadblocks, because there are times my duties as a husband take precedence. As they should. I'm happy to say, however, that I've managed to stay pretty constant, even though the average length of my blogposts has significantly decreased. Part of that could also be due to a conscious effort towards brevity. Honestly, I take no pleasure in droning on like some pompous, oblivious jackass.

No more commute!

This is the third year in a row I spent the majority of my time working from home. This gave me greater freedom to blog, or at least research new ideas. At least, the time I saved on commuting definitely contributed.

As soon as the workday is done, I can go right to coding, or blogging, instead of waiting to get home, and probably getting physically drained from the commute. It can't be overstated how much this has improved my work on the blog.

Trello

If anything good came from the utter shitshow that was my job at this company, it was that I took careful note of all the tools they used, and adopted those practices as much as I could. One of these tools was Trello. It's no exaggeration to say that it practically runs my life now.

I have written a blogpost about how I use Trello outside of the workplace. It helps greatly in keeping consistent, which is a giant step in trying to achieve any kind of success, no matter how small. Perhaps I'll elaborate on this sometime later in the year.

My blogging and coding tasks are now scheduled via Trello. I'm having a blast, though a one-man experience for Trello probably is not conducive to training for a real team environment. Still, it's something.

Audio Social Media

A large part of last year and the entirety of this year was spent weaning myself off of Facebook and using the app known as Clubhouse. And to a lesser extent, LinkedIn. If I'm to be perfectly honest, my distancing from Facebook began more than a few years back, and my introduction to Clubhouse pretty much accelerated the process.

On Clubhouse, I've found myself moving in several circles - American, African, Japanese, Chinese and Malaysian - and the subsequent conversations I've had, have spawned a multitude of ideas. These ideas sometimes translate into blogposts (see Ten Lessons From The Art Of War Applied To Software Development and Ten Pieces Of African Wisdom In Software Development) or code projects (notably The Japanese Language Trainer App). Upon the relaxation of border controls, I've even had friends from Clubhouse come to Singapore to meet up offline.

All in all, my time on Clubhouse has been pretty fruitful, despite it often looking otherwise.

LinkedIn

As mentioned previously, there has been a conscious move from Facebook to LinkedIn. A large part of this reason is audience.

While I used to share completed blogposts on Facebook, at some point I began to realize that I was preaching to the wrong crowd. Facebook users pretty much just want to watch funny cat videos and share memes. The content of my blogposts can sometimes be very technical, and consequently pretty dry. I've found that sharing my blogposts on LinkedIn, where the majority of my connections are professional rather than personal, have gained greater traction.

Now, when I have blogposts that add value to my professional profile, I share them on LinkedIn. My rather more spicy rants about employers have been confined to Facebook, where they gain plenty of traction on their own.

Next

Let's take a look at how popular some of this year's blogposts were.