• On Oasis, Nostalgia, and Monoculture

    Oasis was not a huge band in Canada. Wonderwall was a big hit, but they were largely just another Britpop band to all but the British people who moved here. Part of that is because they didn’t really become a thing in America, where they were more known for the antics of the brothers Gallagher than for their music. Growing up in the 90s, they could’ve easily passed me by, growing up in Vancouver, not materially more relevant than Kula Shaker or Spacehog.

    But for me, that wasn’t the case, because all my best friends growing up were *super* into them. Like, “scouring the import bins of HMV or whatever record store was in town for the B-sides” into them. Definitely Maybe, (What’s the Story) Morning Glory?, Be Here Now, and the aforementioned B-sides soundtracked many car rides and marathon Dreamcast sessions.

    In my small friend group, the release of Be Here Now, was a huge deal, even though everyone agreed that D’You Know What I Mean? was a bloated mess. When Liam finally wrote his first song, Little James, on Standing on the Shoulder of Giants, we all said “nice try.” I even knew the names Meg Matthews and Patsy Kensit without having read a single British tabloid. So despite where I grew up, Oasis was a thing in my life.

    And the funny thing is, back then, I didn’t even like their music. I’ve probably said on a number of occasions about how their songs were simple and boring, or went on about how big of a asshole Liam is. When Manchester City was relegated to Division 1, and then Division 2, I laughed so hard. And yet, I couldn’t get them out of my life. The songs off those first two records, especially Definitely Maybe, were drilled into my brain.

    Musically, trad-y rock bands just wasn’t my cup of tea, but a not-small part of my disdain for them was simple teenage contrarianism. All my friends liked them, so I’m going to go out of my way not to. But as I got into my 20s, my tastes expanded, and I grew fonder of all of those familiar songs. It got to a point where I couldn’t deny that their blend of straightforward songwriting, mind-numbingly basic lyrics, and a knack for melodies and killer choruses actually make a pretty compelling package. They don’t live up to the hyperbolic boasts of Noel and Liam, but as a mainstream rock band, they did what they do really well. I liked them enough to go see them when they finally came back to Vancouver in their later years, and genuinely consider myself a fan.

    So when Noel and Liam announced they were getting back together for a tour next year, something in me clicked, and I felt compelled to fly All Around The World (heh) to see them play their native land, where they were legitimately massive, one of if not the most representative band of an era of music in the UK that was literally named for it. There are very few bands I’d do this for. There are many other bands whose music I like a lot better that I wouldn’t do this for.

    That’s because to me, Oasis were more than a band, more than songs. Not in an “oh their music was so special to me” sort of way, but more because they were an integral part of my formative years, and the thought that I could relive a small part of it was incredibly compelling. On top of that, to be able to experience their reemergence amongst other people for whom Oasis were also an important part of their growing up, sharing OMG vibes, it’s not something I could pass up.

    Make no mistake: this is absolutely a nostalgia hit for me, one that is increased by a factor of 10, as I’ve never experience Oasis as part of a monoculture before. In my life, they were huge, but for most of the people around me (save for my friends), they were just another band. No more important than Travis or Pulp. It’s analogous to (association) football, really, where being really into it here in Canada is kind of a weird, non-mainstream thing, but totally normal and mainstream over there.

    Like if a British NFL fans goes to the Super Bowl: what if your niche interest at home was the biggest thing in the world?

    Having gotten tickets to one of the Edinburgh shows means that I get to experience Oasis with a bunch of 40+ year-olds who also vividly remember Euro 96. And I suspect my motivation is not dissimilar to many of the people who braved the ticket buying mess and scooped up one of 1.2 million tickets sold this weekend for one of the their reunion gigs in the UK and Ireland next summer.

    People didn’t fight the internet and fork out their hard-earned money in a cost of living crisis just to see some band play music that was big almost 3 decades ago. I suspect that many, like me, want to reach back in time to experience a piece of their past. It’s not (just) about the music, man.

    So all of the online takes from people with no fondness or connection to Oasis, about whether the tickets are worth it, or whether they deserve all this hype given their uneven output as a band, are totally missing the point: all of us want to go back to 1995, to a time when Manchester City sucked ass (among other things), even if it’s just for one night. Artistic merit or worthiness doesn’t even come close to factoring into why we want to see this so badly.

    It doesn’t really matter if Blur had a more consistent catalogue, or if Radiohead had a greater influence on music. They aren’t Oasis. 1.2 million tickets sold, with many more wanting to buy them, is proof that they are like no other band of that era. Being away for 15 years surely helped with the demand, but the hoopla grew organically, without much lead time or marketing. The demand is there because Oasis is just different. Don’t make this old man explain it to you. IYKYK.

    Oasis was a thing in the 1990s. A massive, massive thing. At least in the UK. If everything about the 90s are coming back now, shouldn’t the self-proclaimed biggest band in the world be part of that? And for at least for a couple of months in 2025, they will be.


  • On Mobile Observability, the Niche of Niches

    Hi. It’s been like 9 months since I last posted. Two young kids, one with special needs, will do that to you. But thanks to recent bed time routine changes, I have some enforced time out of the apartment and in front of a computer every night for the foreseeable future. So what am I going to do with that time? Navel-gaze. First, lets go meta, in an unnecessarily long and winding way, as is my style.

    The worst thing about ADHD for me is my incessant need to learn. No, that’s not right. It’s my incessant need to go deep in interest areas that is beyond reason for a neurotypical person. Not only do I like niches – I LOVE the overlap of niches, a good deal of that interest owing to the possibility of discovering something new, to gain novel insight simply because I’m examining well-worn paths through new lenses.

    Football finance and Watford FC? I can never hope to achieve the level of expertises as true experts in those areas, but when you slap two circles together of folks who are interested in each, the overlap you get will be tiny. And that’s where you’ll find me. Hi: I’m your Venn diagram intersection.

    This is perhaps why I do what I do for work. How well do I know Android? Decently well in some areas, passable in others. Experimentation and data analysis? I know enough to get by. Mobile app performance? OK, THERE I can claim some specialized domain knowledge. What about collecting perf and stability telemetry on mobile devices in production? Well, that’s just I’ve been doing for the last 9 year for money.

    Well. If each of those related topics are a circle, I’m at the centre of that overlap, and overlap that has its own name: mobile app observability. To say that my work experience and domain knowledge makes me suitable for the field is a given. Whether I’m good at it is up for debate. I think I am pretty OK, but I’m a bit biased.

    What’s not up for debate is that spending time exploring this niche of niches is so absolutely my jam. Measuring and improving mobile app performance in the aggregate, whole-user-base level, and deriving insights from that, is such a challenging, fascinating, and impactful problem to solve. To me anyway. Not only that, it gives me the opportunity to go DEEP in a subject area, something that, due to life circumstances, I’m generally not able to do for fun these days. So what do I do to scratch that itch to deeper than deep? Work. I’m sure my employers don’t mind.


  • On Talking About Football Finance on Social Media

    It turns out that 280 characters of not carefully worded chunks is not a great medium to talk about football finance. Specifically, getting folks to understand what you’re trying to say requires a level of precision that I’m not willing to invest when firing off takes on a mobile phone, especially when there is an opinion embedded in said takes that some folks don’t agree with.

    This began first thing Friday morning, when I checked my email to see that Companies House has sent me a notification about Watford registering a new charge. It turns out that the club had arranged loan with Macquarie in which we get an immediate cash injection secured on the remaining payments for Ismaila Sarr due from Olympique Marseille over the course of the next couple of calendar years.

    I yawned, fired off a tweet about how I was surprised we haven’t done it yet and wondered what we needed the cash for, then didn’t think much of it. This is the type of transaction we’ve been quite used to given the aggressive loan repayment schedule and our revenue and cashflow being dramatically reduced thanks to relegation. Getting what football finance expert Kieran Maguire calls “posh payday loans” is par for the course: we need cash now, so we’ll pay a bank like Macquarie a cut of those future receivables in order to get the money now so we can meet our financial obligations. It’s not great, but this is what a relegated club has to do if it wants to pay down debt as well as field a competitive squad.

    The next day, right before the Leicester game, I saw some concerns online (or what I perceived as concerns) about this, and how the club (via Scott Duxburry) said over the summer we’d be debt free by the end of the year, and taking this loan out puts into doubts the validity of that statement. I, perhaps stupidly, replied (this was someone I followed and whose opinion I respected) saying that this wasn’t a new loan per se, just exchanging future receivables for a smaller lump sum now to get additional cashflow for whatever reason.

    What followed was odd. I had a couple of people relying to me, apparently annoyed at me for saying this wasn’t a new loan. One of them was has been replying to my posts for a couple years at least, always with something critical or nit-picky to say. If you’re a Watford fan on Twitter, he might have done it to you too. He kept saying I was wrong without actually addressing my points, and then started his usual tone-policing. He even corrected my grammar on an unrelated posted for improper conjugation on a collective noun! The last straw came when he replied to another tweet I sent asking folks to mute or block me if they don’t want to see my tweets (thanks, algorithm), saying I was playing the victim card. I then took my advice and blocked him so he won’t ever have to be annoyed by my arrogance or whatever. Funny thing: his replies probably made the algorithm inject more of my tweets into his timeline, which made it more likely he sees tweets from me that he won’t like. Like Thom Yorke said, you did it to yourself.

    The other person replying was actually pretty reasonable. He said I was wrong for saying it’s not a new loan, and he’s right. I mean, it’s a new charge on Companies House, so of course it’s an new loan in the technical sense.

    What I was trying to say that it’s not as if Gino rang up Macquarie and got them to wire £10M that is secured on something we don’t want to part with – like Vicarage Road. This is a new financial obligation, but we already know how we’ll pay for it – the future transfer fee instalments for Sarr from Marseille. We don’t have to find new cash to pay for it – it’s already on the books. It matters that the security isn’t Vicarage Road. Now THAT would be a problem, as defaulting on a loan like that means the stadium is Macquaries. This? The worst that can happen is that Macquarie takes the legal rights to those instalments, which is effectively where that cash is going to anyway.

    What I *should* have said instead is that in my opinion, this new loan isn’t something I’d be overly concerned about given this specific charge will be settled by payments owed to us from a Champions League club over the next two years, which is pretty safe IMO given that Macquarie is also willing to accept it as collateral.

    The reason I said what I said is because if someone concerned about the club’s financial situation reads that “Watford has borrowed £10M from Macquarie”, they might have a bit of a panic. And rightfully so if this means we are adding to our financial burden materially. But knowing that we are a club that has cash obligations greater than what we bring in, partly due to debt repayment to this very bank, I’m not surprised that we need money due to us in 2025 right now.

    I was expecting this, in fact, given Scott said we’d be “debt free” by this year’s end, which I take for clearing the refinanced consolidated loan from Macquarie that was once worth £50M, and it doesn’t include payables or Gino’s loan. The club, like me, was imprecise with their language, and as a result, has drawn the ire of some fans, much as I have, to a much, much smaller degree.

    So what did I learn? Be very, very precise when talking about technical details of something that people feel passionately about (Watford FC). If someone can blow pass your general sentiment and focus on aspects that you have verifiably gotten wrong, they will, especially when they disagree with your general sentiment, which I’d much rather they focus on instead. Whether this is or isn’t a loan isn’t the crux of what most people will have a problem with – whether we should be worried that Gino will piss this money away instead of paying down debt and effectively add to our future financial burden is.

    For me, I’ll need to see more to be worried about this, like splashing out £10M+ for players in January, or refinancing the existing Macquarie loan to extend the payment schedule. If those things happen, then I’ll inch closer to the panic button.


  • On 23/34, Success, and Expectations

    Let’s get my spiciest prediction out of the way: if Valerien Ismael keeps Watford in mid-table or above and stays out of the relegation fight all season, he will finish 23/34 as the club’s Head Coach.

    I could very well be proven wrong before Christmas, but the vibe I get is that expectations from Gino are at the lowest it’s ever been since he and his family took control of the club. Recruitment has been sensible and frugal, focused more on the out-goings than the in-comings, and there’s been no insinuation of promotion being our ambition this season. Ben Manga talks about having a 5-year contract and hoping to be in the Premier League by the end, so this doesn’t seem like a one-year project for him or Gino.

    This is why I believe that success this year for the club from management’s perspective won’t be defined by whether or not we are promoted. Given that, I think Ismael will be given more slack than any previous Watford head coach under Gino in terms of achievements on the pitch. It’s not that the owner’s trigger will be any less quick – it’s just that the criteria that he will judge Ismael by will be a lot different. Simply put, I believe mid-table will be good enough this year if his other expectations are met.

    What may those be? Perhaps consolidation in the league with a lower budget? A distinct playing style? Growth of young players? A star emerging that can be sold for a big fee? Not being in a relegation scrap? Look, I can’t read their minds, but for me, while I don’t dare expect these things, whether or not we achieve them will be how I define success this year. And the single biggest litmus test for success this year for me may be this: if Ismael is in the dugout at the Riverside on May 4th for our last match of the season, it would almost certainly have been a successful season to me, one that must have resulted in some manner of progress for the club and the players.

    But no, I don’t expect that we achieve most of these things. My only expectation is that Watford plays at least 48 league and cup matches. Aside from that, I can see us achieving none of these things given how the last two years have gone. Part of me knows it’s not rational, but I’m just steeling myself to be hurt again. The first match against QPR, the one that all the pundits have us winning handedly? I think it’ll be a draw. Not because of some thorough analysis of squad strength or how our tactics match up, but just pure, unbridled pessimism.

    jdsfdjhaf;dasjhf;dafdksfkdasjfkdahfkdsjflkadjsfldajfdasj;f!!!!!!

    Phew. That feels better. With Watford’s Championship season kicking off merely hours away, I’ve purged my bad vibes with this post. I’m ready to be hurt again.

    Come on you ‘orns!


  • On Hollywood Diversity and Authenticity

    That Oppenheimer has generated a lot of discussion from the Very Online should not be surprising. It is a treasure trove of delicious imperfections that can be ripped open and expounded on. Much of the discourse centre around Nolan and what he chose to include or exclude about the life and work of a, shall we say, “complicated” figure. Setting aside the fact that it’s an adaption of an opinionated biography, which provides a scaffold on which the film was built, who Nolan is and what his film-making tropes are should give you a pretty good idea of what the movie is going to be.

    Justifiably, folks have pointed out aspects of that period of history that were glossed over and the pro-Oppenheimer point of view the film takes: the existence and treatment of local indigenous people who were displaced by the Manhattan Project, the suffering of the Japanese people as the direct result of Oppenheimer and his team’s work, and the problematic behaviour of the titular man himself. I even read a tweet about how it takes 20 minutes into the movie before a woman speaks, which is then quickly followed by a sex scene.

    All of these points are true – though I couldn’t verify that last one since I didn’t time it myself so I’ll just take OP’s word on it. I think pointing these wrinkles out adds useful context to the discourse around a film that is critically lauded but only depicts one version of a complicated story. Props to the folks who raised these points. This is where the Very Online shine – providing space for sharing underrepresented perspectives.

    Where I start getting uncomfortable is when other folks yes-and these tweets and articles but takes it a step further, making sweeping declarations based on what they perceive as unforgivable sins. “You can’t support a movie that erases *fill in the blank*!” “Oh of course a white male auteur is once again filling his movies with white men – trash!” “Do we need to see ANOTHER film that centre the American perspective in WWII?”

    While I think folks are free to pass judgement and choose how they spend their money using whatever criteria they feel are appropriate, there’s a contradiction at the centre of some of these critiques that kind of blows past what I think is a bigger problem. Namely, do they expect Christoper Nolan, a cishet white man with some amount of privilege growing up, to tell this story from a POV other than his own? Filmmakers and other creatives are given some latitude to take on other perspectives when telling a story, but with the drive for authenticity in story-telling being a thing, how far out of his lane is too far for him to stray?

    If he were to tell this story from the point of view of the displaced local indigenous people, would that be something he can do authentically, no matter how much research he does? And would he be accused of appropriating a story that isn’t his to tell? And if he simply mentioned their treatment in the movie without making it into a core theme, would it be seen as tokenism or pandering?

    It’s Not Always About White People

    Hollywood at its core is a profit-making industry. Ensuring that movies and TV shows they put out make a profit overall is the overarching driving force behind studios and executives decisions. They may be dumb and shortsighted in how they are pursuing a profit-maximizing strategy, as their recent labor disputes show, but that is always their ultimate goal (besides lining their own pockets, I suppose).

    Now, the pursuit of profit does not justify the traditional biases they have in selecting what kinds of stories they tell and what kinds of storytellers they hire to tell those stories. Hiring white people (mostly men) to produce stories that cater to white people (mostly men of a certain age) it not a winning strategy, not for representation, and not for profit. The kinds of narrow biases of Old Hollywood rooted in conscious and unconscious prejudices often lead them to suboptimal decisions, doing the same old thing to appeal to a changing and diversifying set of consumers. Realizing nerds can be monetized and that superhero movies can be made to have broad four quadrant appeal has certainly not hurt the studios.

    As such, Hollywood will always make movies that the likes of Christopher Nolan want to make. Bankable, generational talents can turn virtually any idea into reality, and if he wants to do an adaption of a favourable biography of a scientist with a problematic track record around one of the biggest atrocities in human history, someone’s going to give him $100M to make that movie. And that’s what you get with Oppenheimer – a Nolan joint complete with the tropes, stylistic flairs, and themes that you’d normally associate with one of his movies. Like it or not, it is very authentically from his perspective. And it’s making bank.

    To hyper-focus on what Nolan did and did not get right in terms of representing a diverse set of perspectives and narratives is kind of besides the point: cishet white man gonna cishet white man. The problem with diversity in Hollywood isn’t about Nolan movies – it’s about all the other ones, the ones from creators who are not white men, especially the ones that aren’t made that should be, on merit. You’re never going to achieve a truly fair and equal Hollywood as long as those who are in charge stay within the same demographics when hiring filmmakers and showrunners. Pushing them towards a more inclusive world is about asking for other types of movies from other types of creators, not from a disproportionate fixation on and the boycotting of blockbusters from white people that didn’t do everything right with respect to representation.

    Should we expect better and shine a light on what Nolan missed in his telling of the Oppenheimer story? Definitely. This is the raison d’etre of online discourse. I’d take some fringy and cringey hit pieces in exchange for some nuggets of genuine insight from perspectives that aren’t often represented. All that is fair and good and I look forward to reading all of it because it’s interesting and most of those take-havers are my people. But don’t overly fixate on the lack of diversity of one white man’s point of view. That’s just who he is.

    In fact, I don’t need or want people like Nolan to be the direct conduit for increasing the diversity of stories told by Hollywood. I’m very happy with him telling his own authentic stories from his own point of view. What I want is for other creators to given the opportunity to do the same. I want more stories about the Chinese diaspora that doesn’t involve kung fu, generational trauma, or rebelling against parents. I want to see perspectives and people I haven’t seen on screen before – but I want those telling the stories to be from those diverse backgrounds, not from the same people we’ve always gotten. I don’t want to see James Gunn tackle the Chinese Head Tax. Guardians of the $50? No thanks.