canyonwalker: Cheers! (wine tasting)
Recently I tried a "new" restaurant, P.F. Chang's. I quote new because the restaurant itself is hardly new. It's a chain that's been around for 30 years and has 300 stores worldwide. Likely there's one near you. And the one near me isn't exactly new to the neighborhood; it's been there for 24 years. Plus, I've been there before. Though my last visit, to it or any of its 299 sister stores, was about 23 years ago. Returning to try it out again fits my sort-of New Year's resolution a few years ago to try new restaurants— where "new" specifically includes places I haven't been to in a long time.

Why have I not been to P.F. Chang's in 23 years? It's not because I hated the food. I mean, I did dismiss it as overly Americanized, yuppie-fied Chinese fare. I live in an area where there is so much more authentic Chinese food available that going to a "Chinese" restaurant that's the same in Wichita, Kansas as Silicon Valley, California was laughable. It's the same reason as why sit-down chain restaurants are sparse in Silicon Valley and up the peninsula to San Francisco. See also, Try finding an Olive Garden here. But keeping in mind, "I'm not eating Chinese food so much as Chinese-ish food that's yuppie-safe and is the same in Wichita," I decided the local P.F. Chang's was worth another try.

So, how was it? In a word, Chinese-ish. 😂 I went with my spouse and two mutual friends. We ordered a variety of appetizers, sides, and mains to share. Everything was well prepared and attractive looking as it landed on the table. The flavors were a little bland, made suitable for Middle American palates, if a bit too salty (also suitable for Middle America). Basically it was exactly what I expected it would be: an Americanized facsimile of Chinese food, served in upscale fashion and with upscale prices. And I figure that's exactly why/how the chain succeeds. It gives people a safe, not too foreign, and slightly upscale experience with ethnic food. Plus, it's a date-night or nice-dinner-with-friends spot that's two steps classier than Chili's.

Would I eat there again? Sure. Not next week... but probably sooner than in another 23 years.


Edited to add: Funny story about how authentic— or not— P.F. Chang's is. When I was traveling to China frequently for my job in the late 00s/early 10s I showed my Chinese national counterparts online pictures and menus of some of the Chinese restaurants near me. It was a revelation to them as schools in China taught that nobody in the US speaks a Chinese language or knows anything about Chinese culture. I was curious for their opinion as they looked at menus and pictures from the restaurants, which looked the most Chinese to them? They all picked P.F. Chang's. Why? I asked. It turns out it's because the restaurant's website prominently displayed the words "Chinese Food", in Chinese, written traditionally in vertical orientation. Native Chinese thought that made it the most authentic. 😂

canyonwalker: Let's Get the Party Started! (let's get the party started)
The House of Representatives voted today to ban TikTok in the US— unless its Chinese owner, ByteDance, sells it to a company not based in China. After advancing on an unusually unanimous vote in committee the bill won wide bipartisan support from the full House. It was approved 352-65. To become law the bill needs approval by the Senate and then a signature from President Biden— who said today he will sign it.

I'm not sure how I feel about this "ban" on TikTok. (I quote "ban" because it does provide the alternative for ByteDance to sell it to a company not based in China... but that's essentially still a ban IMO.) As much as it's popular in some corners of the Internet to sneer at TikTok, the app does have 170 million users in the US. That's literally half the country. And it's actually more than 50% of the addressable market as the population figure of 340 million counts people of all ages. As much as the service is maligned for being popular with kids, including kids who arguably are too young to participate in social media, you've got to figure there really aren't that many kids under, say, age 6 on the app.

I'm not sure how I feel about this bill because I see arguments both pro and con. That said, I think there are way more cons than pros on this legislation.

The first con against the bill is that 170 million figure. It's frankly hard to believe that Congress would vote so overwhelming against something that's clearly so popular in the US.

The second con is the sense that there's a cultural, generational, and possibly even ethnic divide here. TikTok's most active users skew young. Congress skews old. This smacks very much of a "Darn kids these days!" argument from the dinosaurs stumbling around the edge of the tar pit in Congress. And it seems very much a reactionary, anti-modern culture thing that would come from Republicans... especially as TikTok's biggest users are also less white in addition to being less old than the general population. Yet Democrats also widely supported the bill— 50 Dems and 15 Republicans voted against it— and President Biden said he'll sign it. Also, Trump was for it until he was against it. Though his argument now is that a ban will benefit Facebook, which he's labeled an Enemy of the People... even more so than the free press, apparently.

The one argument on the pro side is that because ByteDance is a Chinese company the Chinese government can compel them to give it any of the very rich data it collects on its users and their browsing habits. That argument does kind of smack of Sinophobia— another con— except that it's literally true. And except that the degree of data they can collect is literally the same as every other social media platform can collect. (The EFF, for example, says Congress should ban every company from doing that much data collection, not just one company in China.) So even this one pro argument is a very weak one.

Finally there's the con argument that this law is unlikely to survive court challenge. A US court struck down a similar state law in Montana late last year. That case is still being appealed, but the ban seems unlikely to win given the higher courts have never let stand a sweeping ban on digital communications.

canyonwalker: Uh-oh, physics (Wile E. Coyote)
Vegas Travelog #5
Hilton Resorts World, Las Vegas - Wed, 29 Nov 2023. 3pm.

I wrote yesterday about my room on the 54th floor at the Resorts World casino. There's something that's been bothering my engineer/architect-fu all week, though. It's not actually the 54th floor. Sure, the room numbers all start with "54" and the button in the elevator says "54", but in truth it's 10 floors short of that. How? There are no floors 40-49.

There are no buttons for 40-49 in the elevator. None of the three banks of elevators goes to 40-49. And when the elevator's floor indicator goes from 39 to 50 on the way up, and 50 to 39 on the way down, it's an immediate transition. There's no pause like it's bypassing 10 secret levels. Those levels just don't exist.

Why no floors 40-49? My best hypothesis is that it's because 4 is considered a very unlucky number in Chinese. The Chinese word for "4" is a near homophone for "death" (they have the same sound but different tonality). The gambling company behind Resorts World is based in Malaysia and Singapore. When I've traveled in Greater China I've observed that buildings frequently don't have floors 4, 14, 28, etc. I don't think I saw an elevator with all of 40-49 missing... though the few times I visited a building at least that tall I didn't look too carefully at the elevator keypads.

Profile

canyonwalker: wiseguy (Default)
canyonwalker

July 2025

S M T W T F S
   1 2 3 4 5
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 5th, 2025 06:20 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios