I know I just posted a rant about tonight's dinner, but to calm down, how about a happiness list?
1. Went on a shopping spree at Trader Joe's. The soy chorizo is gone again, but we did pick up some fun stuff like a mushroom truffle flatbread and truffle cheese and more yummy Japanese fried rice.
2. The weather was gorgeous (in the low 80s). I've been on a limited activity regimen the past few days for an unfortunate medical condition, so we couldn't bike downtown. But we took the subway down to Chelsea and then strolled across town on 13th Street. It was a beautiful walk down some tree-lined streets, past lots of restaurants, and it was such wonderful, sunny weather.
3. Finally took my mom out to dinner to celebrate her (belated) birthday and Mother's Day. It's nice spending time with family for happy occasions.
4. Good Lebanese food - kafta kebab, chicken kebab, sumac fries, toum, kebbe kras. Reminds me that I need to pick up some sumac from Fairway.
5. Watched even more Marvel movies. More Thor in the afternoon and then X-Men First Class at night (to refresh for the new one!).
6. Frozen Free Fall is so much fun! (Better than Maleficent Free Fall.)
7. Reliving our old European adventures from this day in history and actually making progress on our food blogging (but sadly not our trip blogging).
8. The Rangers won in OT! (WOOHOO!)
Monday, May 26, 2014
Ten Dollar Mistake
Let me give you a scenario.
You're at a restaurant. It's one of those places that gives you a complimentary bread basket. (So you're not in Europe.) The bread, lucky for you, isn't some sort of plain roll, but maybe some focaccia or a garlic bread. It comes with some herbs on the side in olive oil or some herb butter. The server comes over later and sees that your bread basket is empty. The server asks if you would like another bread basket. You loved the bread so you say, "Of course!" The server says they'll be back with some more bread soon. More bread arrives shortly thereafter.
In this scenario, would you expect to pay for the second bread basket?
No, of course not. I can only think of 3 scenarios when you would: (1) if the menu stated that more bread was extra, (2) if the bread basket is on the menu as an appetizer or a side, or (3) if the server mentioned that, FYI, there will be a cost for another bread basket. If the server offers more bread and doesn't say there's a charge, why would you think there would be one?
Replace "complimentary bread basket" with plate of za'atar-dusted baked pita and the olive oil or butter with labne, and that's exactly what happened at dinner tonight.
We got the bill and saw a $10 charge for pita bread that we had no idea wasn't free. If we knew, we would never have agreed to the extra za'atar pita. We always eat too much bread, leaving not enough room for the entree. So if we knew there was a charge, we probably wouldn't have gotten more, and we definitely wouldn't have gotten two more.
We asked the server why we were never told we would be charged for the extra za'atar pita. Nowhere on the menu did it say there was a charge for more, there was no za'atar pita appetizer on the menu, and she had never once told us we would have to pay for extra plates of pita. Her response? That was why she asked us if we wanted plain or za'atar pita.
Well, yes, you did ask us that. But how are we supposed to infer from that question, which appeared to be a clarification since we had just finished a plate of regular pita (see, we had more than enough bread), that this meant that the za'atar one was an extra charge? So we mentioned again, that she had not said there would be a charge. Her answer? "Well, I asked you if you wanted plain or za'atar. I can't tell you there's a charge."
Excuse me? You can't tell us there's a charge? Why not?
I was completely dumbfounded. I get that some people get all up in arms about hearing prices for specials and think it's uncouth for a server to talk about exact prices. (I'm not one of those people, but I've heard that argument enough times.) But this is different. If someone orders a special and you haven't given the price, they know they're paying for it, just not the exact amount. If we are offered bread, which was given to us without charge the first time, how could we be expected to know that we'd have to pay for more? Saying you "can't" tell us there's a charge makes it sound like you knew you were duping us and knew that we weren't aware of the charge. Sounds shady!
It's unfortunate because we had a really good experience at dinner otherwise. The entrees took forever to come (which seems to be a frequent issue there), but that was okay since we were relaxing and talking (and had eaten so much darn pita). The food was very good, even if some portions were on the smaller side. It was a great experience until we got the bill and that ridiculous response. A bit of a turn-off, really.
The owner tried to make it better by offering us some free dessert. That was nice of him, but we were so full from dinner (and all that pita that we had to pay for). We just wanted our $10 credited back to us.
When we were in Greece, it took us some time to realize that they charged for bread, but that's how they do things in Greece. You pay for bread, you pay for water. Different cultures, different social norms. But in Manhattan, I've never been somewhere where bread wasn't free, and if you offer us more, it should be free too. If there's a cost, say so. Let us make that choice.
Do you think we're totally off base here or do you think our annoyance is reasonable?
You're at a restaurant. It's one of those places that gives you a complimentary bread basket. (So you're not in Europe.) The bread, lucky for you, isn't some sort of plain roll, but maybe some focaccia or a garlic bread. It comes with some herbs on the side in olive oil or some herb butter. The server comes over later and sees that your bread basket is empty. The server asks if you would like another bread basket. You loved the bread so you say, "Of course!" The server says they'll be back with some more bread soon. More bread arrives shortly thereafter.
In this scenario, would you expect to pay for the second bread basket?
No, of course not. I can only think of 3 scenarios when you would: (1) if the menu stated that more bread was extra, (2) if the bread basket is on the menu as an appetizer or a side, or (3) if the server mentioned that, FYI, there will be a cost for another bread basket. If the server offers more bread and doesn't say there's a charge, why would you think there would be one?
Replace "complimentary bread basket" with plate of za'atar-dusted baked pita and the olive oil or butter with labne, and that's exactly what happened at dinner tonight.
We got the bill and saw a $10 charge for pita bread that we had no idea wasn't free. If we knew, we would never have agreed to the extra za'atar pita. We always eat too much bread, leaving not enough room for the entree. So if we knew there was a charge, we probably wouldn't have gotten more, and we definitely wouldn't have gotten two more.
We asked the server why we were never told we would be charged for the extra za'atar pita. Nowhere on the menu did it say there was a charge for more, there was no za'atar pita appetizer on the menu, and she had never once told us we would have to pay for extra plates of pita. Her response? That was why she asked us if we wanted plain or za'atar pita.
Well, yes, you did ask us that. But how are we supposed to infer from that question, which appeared to be a clarification since we had just finished a plate of regular pita (see, we had more than enough bread), that this meant that the za'atar one was an extra charge? So we mentioned again, that she had not said there would be a charge. Her answer? "Well, I asked you if you wanted plain or za'atar. I can't tell you there's a charge."
Excuse me? You can't tell us there's a charge? Why not?
I was completely dumbfounded. I get that some people get all up in arms about hearing prices for specials and think it's uncouth for a server to talk about exact prices. (I'm not one of those people, but I've heard that argument enough times.) But this is different. If someone orders a special and you haven't given the price, they know they're paying for it, just not the exact amount. If we are offered bread, which was given to us without charge the first time, how could we be expected to know that we'd have to pay for more? Saying you "can't" tell us there's a charge makes it sound like you knew you were duping us and knew that we weren't aware of the charge. Sounds shady!
It's unfortunate because we had a really good experience at dinner otherwise. The entrees took forever to come (which seems to be a frequent issue there), but that was okay since we were relaxing and talking (and had eaten so much darn pita). The food was very good, even if some portions were on the smaller side. It was a great experience until we got the bill and that ridiculous response. A bit of a turn-off, really.
The owner tried to make it better by offering us some free dessert. That was nice of him, but we were so full from dinner (and all that pita that we had to pay for). We just wanted our $10 credited back to us.
When we were in Greece, it took us some time to realize that they charged for bread, but that's how they do things in Greece. You pay for bread, you pay for water. Different cultures, different social norms. But in Manhattan, I've never been somewhere where bread wasn't free, and if you offer us more, it should be free too. If there's a cost, say so. Let us make that choice.
Do you think we're totally off base here or do you think our annoyance is reasonable?
Friday, May 16, 2014
Phone Sounds
I really don't understand why TV shows insist on having cell phone sounds on when that's not how most of these characters would operate in real life.
Sure, I get that there are some instances where you would want the phone to ring when you're in a public place or at work. Like on cop shows where you're interviewing someone and you want them to know you're taking a call and receiving a piece of information. Fine, that makes sense. Or if you're at home. That makes sense too. But in a restaurant? In an office meeting? Yes, in real life, people do forget to turn their phone sounds off sometimes, but our social norms are for phones to be on vibrate or silent.
In one of the episodes of Elementary that we watched tonight (episode 2.21, "The Man With the Twisted Lip"), Joan is at a restaurant and attempts to surreptitiously take a photo of men that are conducting suspicious activities at the restaurant. She finishes her conversation, turns her phone camera towards them, and then, click! You hear the click of the phone camera taking the picture. Why, why, why would you do that? If she's trying to be secretive, then she would never have the sound on. If it were on before that while she was at the restaurant (which I doubt, since she seems like the type to follow phone etiquette), then surely she would check it before taking a secret photo, right? I could not suspend disbelief at that moment. I think I even remarked aloud about how dumb it was.
Sure enough, by the end of the episode (I know the episode aired 3 weeks ago so I shouldn't need to, but I'll SPOILER ALERT anyway), Joan gets kidnapped. She looks at a photo of herself in an envelope, and the guy who assaults her remarks that she took a photo of him so he has one of her. Well, maybe she shouldn't have been so obvious so he could hear her taking the picture. I'm sure there must have been some other way to get this plot point to happen without the camera sound.
It's not a huge deal, but these things just bug me. So many people these days have smartphones, so it isn't hard to write the technology (and what characters would do with it) correctly. It doesn't take much more effort. In this week's episode of Awkward (which I'm still watching even if the quality and the laughs have dropped dramatically since its creator left at the end of last season), Tamara's phone vibrated when she got her text messages at a sorority party. Viewers can figure out what's going on without phone sounds.
It's not just this show though. You see these weird technology quirks everywhere on TV. Like when Castle tried to pretend you needed a passcode to dial 911 on an iPhone. That one still annoys me, since the hunt for a passcode took up a significant part of the episode. That's an even worse technology foul than the camera sound too. Is it that hard to be realistic?
Sure, I get that there are some instances where you would want the phone to ring when you're in a public place or at work. Like on cop shows where you're interviewing someone and you want them to know you're taking a call and receiving a piece of information. Fine, that makes sense. Or if you're at home. That makes sense too. But in a restaurant? In an office meeting? Yes, in real life, people do forget to turn their phone sounds off sometimes, but our social norms are for phones to be on vibrate or silent.
In one of the episodes of Elementary that we watched tonight (episode 2.21, "The Man With the Twisted Lip"), Joan is at a restaurant and attempts to surreptitiously take a photo of men that are conducting suspicious activities at the restaurant. She finishes her conversation, turns her phone camera towards them, and then, click! You hear the click of the phone camera taking the picture. Why, why, why would you do that? If she's trying to be secretive, then she would never have the sound on. If it were on before that while she was at the restaurant (which I doubt, since she seems like the type to follow phone etiquette), then surely she would check it before taking a secret photo, right? I could not suspend disbelief at that moment. I think I even remarked aloud about how dumb it was.
Sure enough, by the end of the episode (I know the episode aired 3 weeks ago so I shouldn't need to, but I'll SPOILER ALERT anyway), Joan gets kidnapped. She looks at a photo of herself in an envelope, and the guy who assaults her remarks that she took a photo of him so he has one of her. Well, maybe she shouldn't have been so obvious so he could hear her taking the picture. I'm sure there must have been some other way to get this plot point to happen without the camera sound.
It's not a huge deal, but these things just bug me. So many people these days have smartphones, so it isn't hard to write the technology (and what characters would do with it) correctly. It doesn't take much more effort. In this week's episode of Awkward (which I'm still watching even if the quality and the laughs have dropped dramatically since its creator left at the end of last season), Tamara's phone vibrated when she got her text messages at a sorority party. Viewers can figure out what's going on without phone sounds.
It's not just this show though. You see these weird technology quirks everywhere on TV. Like when Castle tried to pretend you needed a passcode to dial 911 on an iPhone. That one still annoys me, since the hunt for a passcode took up a significant part of the episode. That's an even worse technology foul than the camera sound too. Is it that hard to be realistic?
Happiness List - 05.15.2014
I haven't done one of these in a while, but I have always found these really valuable for keeping spirits high and appreciating all the good things in life, no matter how small. Not a lot happened today, but here's today's list.
1. I fried eggs for the first time. This might not sound like much of an accomplishment, but until a year or so ago, I really just bought eggs in cartons, like egg beaters or egg whites. They were more convenient and I only made omelettes anyway. I've been experimenting this calendar year with more than omelettes and scrambles, and have really started to appreciate the runny yolk of poached and fried eggs.
2. I moved the sorting boxes in the living room from the exercise mats to the general clutter area. We still have a ton of clutter and I didn't get rid of or go through much, but psychologically, opening up the space makes me feel so much better. Now I can finally get back to yoga and exercise, which I desperately need.
3. Diner breakfast for dinner. Fried eggs, corned beef hash, and home fries. Not exactly the home fries that are my favorite type, but good breakfast potatoes nonetheless.
4. Haribo twin cherries.
5. Caught up a little more on Elementary by watching 2 episodes, although the DVR felt our progress was not good enough and didn't record tonight's finale. At least the DVR is now only 97% full as a result, so tomorrow's recordings should be fine.
6. I transcribed something really fascinating about how wellness programs intersect with law and taxes. It's something I've never thought about before, and I haven't felt that interested in a legal topic in a while. It was good for my brain to exercise that segment.
7. Slices of pepper jack cheese from Target for a snack.
8. The first episode of Riot made me laugh. Steve Carell is so funny.
9. Jeopardy's Battle of the Decades is in its final round and it was incredibly entertaining tonight. You have the person who won the most money, the person who won the most games, and the person with the highest single game winnings. It's the perfect trio to vie for the title. I feel a little bad for Roger, but watching the other 2 peer pressure him into a true daily double was very entertaining for those of us with nothing at stake. Thank you to whoever came up with the idea for this tournament.
10. 3 years ago today, we were on our day trip in Geneva, Switzerland. We may not be on vacation now, but I'm getting to relive some great memories. I miss those carefree days.
I told you not much happened. But it's all about the little things.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Reboot
I feel like every few months (or years), I try to start blogging here again. I try to "reboot" and get back into writing and "find my voice" and other stuff like that. I've never felt like I was able to find my voice here the way I did on my old personal blog, and what I wrote and the way I wrote it never really satisfied me. It just didn't feel meaningful and sometimes didn't feel like me. I think that's why I've taken so many breaks.
This morning, I was reading Timehop and looking at my check-ins from three years ago in Geneva, Switzerland, which reminded me that I wanted to blog about the sights and other memories of our trip. I vaguely remembered writing something about it, but couldn't remember if that was something I wanted to do and had started, or something I actually had followed through on. I came here to read, and then just kept reading.
I always said I never found my voice here, but I think part of that was because it wasn't the same voice as my old blog. But I started that one nearly ten years ago. I wrote about anything and everything. I wrote about random things I would see on QVC when studying. I kept track of my bar studying progress. I ranted about customer service and other vexing issues. There was no Twitter ten years ago. Everything went on the blog.
What I found when I came here this morning was a lot of stories. The voice wasn't exactly the same as before. It was more of a reflective, storytelling voice, than a spur-of-the-moment, stream of consciousness voice.
But, just because something is different, does that make it wrong or inauthentic? Couldn't it be that my voice just evolved into this? Could that have happened without me noticing since most of my mini-rants and raves just ended up on Twitter in the intervening years? Who's to say that this wouldn't be the voice that my old blog would have evolved into since a lot of the other content would have naturally filtered itself out to Twitter?
In fact, in the year after I joined Twitter, I barely even touched my old blog. When I went back to it, it felt unfamiliar to write passages that were longer than 140 characters and I felt a little bit lost. The blog had my history to inform the current passages, but how do I know that this wouldn't be the way I would write there now?
I read my old blog and I feel like I'm reading the thoughts of a different person. But I am. The person I was five years ago isn't the same person I am now. Why should my writing be exactly the same? That blog felt a little more "personal" for lack of a better word, but isn't that in part because I wrote more? Because I shared more of my life? Because I built that history?
I haven't been back here in over a year and part of it is because I don't know what to do with this anymore. I should just write about anything and everything, but I haven't and I kind of regret that because I have all these gaps. What should I even write about? I feel a bit lost as far as how to just start sharing out of the blue. But then again, who cares if I'm telling old stories about travels or reliving old memories or ranting about annoying people or saying goodbye to TV shows? That's all part of my life, isn't it?
The only way I'm going to find my "voice" here, even if it's this new storytelling voice, is to keep writing. So this is perhaps less of a "reboot" and more of an acknowledgment of an evolution. Time to move on. Just keep going. One step in front of the other. One post at a time.
This morning, I was reading Timehop and looking at my check-ins from three years ago in Geneva, Switzerland, which reminded me that I wanted to blog about the sights and other memories of our trip. I vaguely remembered writing something about it, but couldn't remember if that was something I wanted to do and had started, or something I actually had followed through on. I came here to read, and then just kept reading.
I always said I never found my voice here, but I think part of that was because it wasn't the same voice as my old blog. But I started that one nearly ten years ago. I wrote about anything and everything. I wrote about random things I would see on QVC when studying. I kept track of my bar studying progress. I ranted about customer service and other vexing issues. There was no Twitter ten years ago. Everything went on the blog.
What I found when I came here this morning was a lot of stories. The voice wasn't exactly the same as before. It was more of a reflective, storytelling voice, than a spur-of-the-moment, stream of consciousness voice.
But, just because something is different, does that make it wrong or inauthentic? Couldn't it be that my voice just evolved into this? Could that have happened without me noticing since most of my mini-rants and raves just ended up on Twitter in the intervening years? Who's to say that this wouldn't be the voice that my old blog would have evolved into since a lot of the other content would have naturally filtered itself out to Twitter?
In fact, in the year after I joined Twitter, I barely even touched my old blog. When I went back to it, it felt unfamiliar to write passages that were longer than 140 characters and I felt a little bit lost. The blog had my history to inform the current passages, but how do I know that this wouldn't be the way I would write there now?
I read my old blog and I feel like I'm reading the thoughts of a different person. But I am. The person I was five years ago isn't the same person I am now. Why should my writing be exactly the same? That blog felt a little more "personal" for lack of a better word, but isn't that in part because I wrote more? Because I shared more of my life? Because I built that history?
I haven't been back here in over a year and part of it is because I don't know what to do with this anymore. I should just write about anything and everything, but I haven't and I kind of regret that because I have all these gaps. What should I even write about? I feel a bit lost as far as how to just start sharing out of the blue. But then again, who cares if I'm telling old stories about travels or reliving old memories or ranting about annoying people or saying goodbye to TV shows? That's all part of my life, isn't it?
The only way I'm going to find my "voice" here, even if it's this new storytelling voice, is to keep writing. So this is perhaps less of a "reboot" and more of an acknowledgment of an evolution. Time to move on. Just keep going. One step in front of the other. One post at a time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)