1. There are a limited number of seats and seatings per night
2. All reservations are done on-line, with absolutely no preferential treatment at all.
In order to prevent scalping, the restaurant forces you to enter your credit card information and verifies that you are exactly who you say you are when you get to the restaurant. So, essentially what you have here is a reservation system that is extremely accessible, paired with a lack of supply.
Now, a lot of people have been wondering what would happen if you were to convert the reservation system into an auction system. Here's what happened at a recent auction, where a seat at Ko was offered up for charity:
It started quietly: at the end of the first day, the top bid was $175. Day two saw the price rise to $245, where it stayed for four more days. On day six it went up to $275, and then on day ten it hit $315: still less than the retail price for the dinner alone. On day 13, when the auction was blogged by Eater, the bidding went a little crazy, ending at $700. A bidder named "kyanza" dropped out at $650, but reappeared on day 14 and started bidding the price up again: by the end of day 14 kyanza had the high bid of $1,250 - which would value the reservation at $865.
But the auction still had three more days to go. On day 15, kyanza was still the high bidder, at $1,501. On day 16, "srittvo" came in with a bid $20 higher, but everybody knew that there would be more activity on day 17, the final day.
The auction was due to close at 4pm, but there was a twist: it was extended by five minutes every time somebody made a new high bid. Thus were there no fewer than 24 bids between 3:55pm and 4:12pm. At 3:50pm, the high bid, from kyanza, was $1,870. By the time the auction ended, kynza was still the winner, but the final price was exactly a thousand dollars higher: $2,870. Which would put the value of the reservation at about $2,500.
That's an expensive table.
Hat tip to Felix Salmon.
Cool link from Pudge, who has started blogging again:
Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) from Matthew Harding on Vimeo. Guy's sure done a lot of travel.
T3 gives a little clue that all you have is a headset accessory that uses brainwaves to control characters and features immersing in-ear headphones.My first instinct is that this is complete bulls***. However, a quick Google search tells me that there is indeed a company called Emotiv out there that is actually building headsets for "mind control." One article on CNET discusses how the reviewer was able to make an orange cube appear and disappear on a screen, using nothing but his brain. So, degree of veracity is still unclear. But still interesting.
Though brain-wave technology has already become a reality with Emotive pioneering in-game systems, but soon it seems Nintendo will come out with the first mind-controlled console on the market.
In case you haven't seen either of them, I would highly recommend seeing "Wall-E" from Pixar and "Hott Fuzz," which is now making the rounds on HBO on demand.
I'll start with Wall-E, which I think is a little closer to people's minds right now. A lot is being made of the fact that there isn't a whole lot of dialogue in the movie, which is a striking change from the usual jabber-filled blab fests that are animated movies these days. The lack of dialogue highlights the simple fact that there is much more to communicating than just words. The characters in the movie, despite having a limited vocabulary, are very expressive. In a post-Seinfeld world, where people are used to talking so much about absolutely nothing, it's great to have a movie that says all that needs to be said with grace and economy.
Which is why it kills me a little bit to see people writing like this about it:
I read a great review on Wall-E at the Hollywood Reporter. The author heaps praises on the film and says that Pixar's streak of success is intact. That's pretty pleasing. Yet, the review also worries me to some extent (I'm a Disney shareholder). The author says that there isn't a lot of dialogue in the picture (I guess the robot characters don't speak) and that it might be such a smart project that some moviegoers might not fully appreciate it. In this competitive timeframe, that doesn't make me feel good. I'd rather the film be simple blockbuster material for the popcorn crowd. I don't want the young kids in the audience to feel their attention spans being strained in the least. I'm not looking for art in this case. I just want my company to make as much money as possible.I'm not sure where to begin here. I'm sure that there are plenty of people/investors who agree with the opinions being voiced by this guy. I'm also guessing that these would have been the same people that would have urged Henry Ford to forget about the "automobile" and to just try and breed faster horses.
Hott Fuzz was the other movie I saw. I could talk about it, but there's not much to say. It's just a very well written and well executed parody of the action cop buddy drama genre. The reason that it's so good is that it succeeds as both a parody and as an action cop blah blah. I could keep talking about it, but it's definitely better that you just see it on your own.
Ho-Hum, somebody wake me when this nonsense is over. As a Hillary Democrat, I am disgusted with the party leaders, the super delegates, and the arrogance of the party’s annointed one. Hey, Hillary won the popular vote, did she not? This party now is devoid of experience, record of accomplishment, and trust of mainstream Americans. Joe Biden has tried to save this ticket by agreeing to be VP to plug the gap on the national security issue. But, how many plugs will be needed to cover all the issues. And, what if these plugs all fail; who is then accountable since there is no one of worth at the top of the ticket.
— Posted by benvictor
The view from unity is horrible. I want Obama supporters to beg me for my vote. No, I want them to crawl to me and beg. The chance for a female president was stolen for me. I will never see it in my lifetime now because of you Obama supporters. No unity now. No unity ever!
Are you with me girls?
Girls?
— Posted by sophie
I’m with you, Sophie, but please don’t refer to us as “girls.” And I’m sure you don’t want others to assume that we are not voting for Obama simply because the nomination was unfairly snatched from Senator Clinton and she was treated like an ugly stepsister by the press and worse by the Obama fans. The issues we had with Obama before the nomination have not changed since he was crowned and the anger only adds to those reasons we will not vote for him. That is our unity.
— Posted by Judy Kilgore
I don’t want the Obama supporters to beg for our vote. All the begging in the world wouldn’t get my vote. I cannot stand Obama. I don’t care if his “stolen” views are “similar” to Clintons. Open up your eyes people he can’t make it without her. Even Clinton can’t save him now.
— Posted by Anita
There won’t be a female President probably in the lifetimes of anyone who can vote today. There simply aren’t that many women coming up in politics to begin with, and aside from Sen Clinton, likely there are none with the personality dynamics needed for someone to pursue and succeed in the position. She is truly one of a kind.
This won’t change until how girls are raised changes. That’s barely beginning to happen.
It saddens me to no end to know I will never see a President who looks like me, with the understandings and perspectives only someone born female could have. This country sorely needs that. My voice has been silenced. Don’t expect me to accept that.
— Posted by Canary in coalmine
I hope the snarky Harvard lawyer will manage not to act condescending to Senate Clinton. She is the best candidate and most powerful woman in politics today. Her husband was the greatest president of my lifetime. Obama has slandered them both repeatedly. Let’s see if he can get through this rally without saying something completely sexist and awful. It’s pretty long odds, but we can hope.
— Posted by steve pesce
Erica Watson-Currie of Newport Beach, Calif., a consultant and lecturer, is among the women up in arms that the iPhone won't respond to their long fingernails. She states, "Considering ergonomics and user studies indicating men and women use their fingers and nails differently, why does Apple persist in this misogyny?"Also pissed off - fat people with fat fingers. Bummer.
Watson-Currie pegs her average fingernail length for those curious between an eighth and a quarter of an inch. She yearns for a stylus to save her from her iPhone woes. Unfortunately many have praised the iPhone for not using a stylus, which many feel is a burden and easy to lose.
For example, Brenda Stanhouse, who bought the game for her son, 15 years old at the time, said in a deposition that she did not know that a player in the game could “stomp to death innocent pedestrians.”Putting aside my own ambivalence about media influencing kids to do bad things without parents being at fault, I've thought for a while now that our whole cultural aversion to sex, as opposed to violence, is just ridiculous. If you were to marginally increase the likelihood that your child would either a) kill a police officer or b) have sex, which would you want to increase? Oddly enough, most people seem to choose option A, the option that isn't the path to our continued survival as a species.
She also did not know that the game included prostitutes, that players could kill policemen or that “a player in the game can kill innocent pedestrians and steal money from them.”
“I’m aware that there is killing in the game,” Ms. Stanhouse said in the deposition. “I wasn’t aware of the stealing.”
Ms. Stanhouse was asked whether she would knowingly buy for her son a game that allowed him to kill police officers.
“Well, I think he does have games with violence,” Ms. Stanhouse said, adding that she would “possibly” buy such a game — though not one that contained sex scenes like those in San Andreas.
The exchange raises a deeper and perhaps more troubling question about the harm caused by the hidden scenes. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit clearly were more concerned about exposing their children to images of sex, but academic studies suggest that images of violence — abundant in the games — should be of greater concern.
In the last couple days, I've been checking out some of the major NYC attractions. Went to the NYSE and actually got to look at the floor in person. It looks like this:.jpg)
What's interesting about the floor is that there's more weight on it than can actually be physically supported. So in order to keep the pits (those giant circular things surrounded by computer screens) from falling through, they basically have a superstructure connected to the ceiling that helps to relieve the stress. The superstructure looks like this (sorry about the resolution):.jpg)
If you look closely, you can see the wires connecting the pipes to the pits. Also of interest was passing by the news stations posted in the building. For CNBC, Bloomberg, etc., it's basically just two-three guys sitting in a room full of radio equipment speaking into a mic and punching out quick posts on old-looking computers. Of course, I've got a picture of them too..jpg)
Definitely gets my vote for worst office-space in the financial services industry. Anyway, that concludes the tour.
I'm feeling a quick flurry of blog posts coming along. Just how these things work. First off, here's a video that one of my interns passed on to me which I thought was hilarious. A crotchety old guy who sounds like he just might have an agenda - perhaps proving that Obama supporters are uninformed, emotional kids - approaches a young supporter ("Si se puede!") with some tersely worded questions. Hilarity ensues.
Surprise, Mr. Ambush Reporter! You just happened to ambush Derrick Ashong, who graduated from Harvard with the freaking Hoopes Prize. I will openly admit to Google-stalking the guy after watching this video and getting warm fuzzies all over.
Been a little out of touch lately, my bad. Working on a project, pretending to be responsible in a not entirely convincing fashion. I'm finding it a little hard to muster up the energy to be the happy and productive person that I strive/pretend to be. I'm sure that guy will be back in a jiff. Random notes:
Just went to Mexico for four days. I look like a piece of shoe leather with glasses.
For any of you Laker fans out there, ouch. Last night's game must have been painful.
Two beautiful posts from AKA Media System and Harlo. They were written a while ago, but are certainly as true today as they were a month ago. Pudge, where my letter at?
Obama, congrats on clinching the nomination. Why is Hillary still grabbing more headlines than you are?
I just listen to hype machine all day now.
I think I may have to delete my Google Reader account, it may be killing my ability to work.
Have a great weekend everybody.
What's the best city in the world for food? According to this data point, it might be Tokyo. This from the Economist's Tokyo bureau chief, Dominic Ziegler:
All around the world, diners looked up from their plates in astonishment: restaurants in Tokyo had gathered more Michelin stars than Paris, London and New York put together [italics added]. A number of the stars were won by restaurants serving French, Italian and indeed Spanish cuisine.
But most went to Japanese restaurants. And here, the range is striking. Certainly, many starred restaurants serve kaiseki, Japan's multi-course equivalent of haute cuisine, myriad small dishes organised for taste, texture, look and colour. Others, though, specialise only in tempura, or teppanyaki, sushi, soba noodles and, yes, fugu, the pufferfish that is lethal if contaminated with the toxic internal organs.
For those of you that don't pay attention to these things, the price of rice has shot through the roof, leading to global panic at the specter of mass starvation. To give some measure of "through the roof," a ton of rice cost $375 in December. As of April, the same amount costs $1,100. How big of a deal is this? Americans can no longer buy more than two 20lb bags of rice at a time at their local Sam's Club. Yeah, it's just that big.
Interestingly enough, this has not been sparked by any sudden rise in rice consumption, nor in a sudden drop in production. From Tom Slayton and C. Peter Timmer:
Why is there a world rice crisis at all? There is no single reason, but panic and hoarding are playing a big role. World rice production in 2007 was at an all-time high, with forecasts for 2008 to set another record. The world’s rice consumers have not suddenly started eating more rice. World trade has not collapsed—the volume of exports in the first four months of 2008 was about 20 percent higher than in the same period in 2007. And world rice stocks, excluding those held by China, have been steady the past five years. These trends do not look like an impending crisis, and yet world rice prices have exploded.So, what started all of this? According to the same report, it's all India's fault. Ok, that might be overstating it a bit. It's the fault of India's politicians. Here's what they have to say:
Thus the trebling in rice prices is driven to a greater degree than other commodities by panic and hoarding. These were precipitated by sudden export restrictions in India, which were stimulated by events in other commodity markets, especially wheat, not from local shortages. (Facing a parliamentary election in May, 2009, the Indian government does not want to face further criticism over additional wheat imports—thus rice exports needed to be curtailed to maintain supplies for the public food distribution scheme.) These export restrictions spread to other suppliers and lead to urgent efforts by rice importing countries to secure supplies—at any price—in a thin global market. It is no accident that most of these countries face elections, andSo, one of the world's three largest rice exporters decided to halt rice exports because of political reasons. How big of a deal was that?
food price inflation is extremely unpopular. Rice has returned as the “political commodity,” even in relatively affluent Asia. The result: the extraordinary price rises we have seen in recent months, even though the underlying fundamentals support only modest price increases.
Looks like it was kind of a big deal. It's an interesting report. Check it out.
OpenTable has an excellent property. Beyond having a model with wide applicability, it's collecting a set of data that almost no one else can collect, i.e. where and when people eat. I say almost, because the payments companies could probably do something like that.
OpenTable is now using that information to do something. Hopefully it's not the last thing that they do with it. This according to Grub Street:
The temptation to give their own places sky-high ratings has proven irresistible to many a restaurant owner — it’s like asking a portly, middle-aged man not to describe himself as "37" and "athletic" in an Internet personal ad. But according to tech blog Techcrunch, OpenTable's new Diners' Choice lists incorporate ratings only from people who actually made resies and showed up. The lists aren’t touted on the site yet, but being Internet geniuses, we found the beta version and the top five NYC picks: Per Se, Le Bernardin, Gilt, L’Atelier de Joël Robuchon, and Eleven Madison Park. It does say something that people who actually plunked down cash at these places had good things to say about them afterwards.This is a good start. Let's hope they keep running with it.
From Paul Krugman:
One of the things I find puzzling about the whole oil market discussion is how complicated people seem to make it. They get all wrapped up in stuff about forward markets, hedge funds, etc., and lose sight of the fundamental fact that there are only two things you can do with the world’s oil production: consume it, or store it.If the price is above the level at which the demand from end-users is equal to production, there’s an excess supply — and that supply has to be going into inventories. End of story. If oil isn’t building up in inventories, there can’t be a bubble in the spot price.
Now it’s true that oil supply responds very little to price, and that empirical estimates of the short-run price elasticity of demand, like this one, suggest that it’s low — say -.06. But even so, the math of a sustained, large bubble quickly becomes daunting. Say the demand elasticity is -.06, and that you believe that the current price is 40% above the level at which end-use demand equals supply. Then you have to believe that 2 million barrels a day is disappearing into secret hoards somewhere — secret, because it’s not showing up in the OECD inventory data. That’s a lot of oil. And bear in mind that people have been claiming that there’s an oil bubble for years
So my challenge to people who say there’s an oil bubble is this: let’s get physical. Tell me where you think the excess supply of crude is going.
Compelling point about moral hazard, courtesy of Credit Slips:
While moral hazard concerns are a real issue for any government aid to borrowers or lenders, its worthwhile remembering a major exception to moral hazard--third-party costs. As Larry Summers summarizes: When the fire department rescues people who start fires by smoking in bed, it creates a moral hazard for in-bed smokers. But no one gets exercised about moral hazard, in part because we know that fires can spread and burn down neighbors' apartments in "contagion" fires and that the in-bed smokers won't take care to insure their neighbors. That's what we're seeing in foreclosure crisis--mounting third-party costs to neighbors and local government. If the municipal government goes bankrupt [for readers in California, think about Vallejo], it affects everyone in the community--indeed, those who had to relocate because of foreclosure escape this consequence. Foreclosure is a real problem for everyone, not just those who get kicked out of their homes or whose investment portfolios take a hit.The point they're making is aimed mostly at people that think those who purchased homes they couldn't afford should just live with the consequences of their stupidity. However, it could be extended to those that think that the Fed did the wrong thing in "bailing out" Bear Stearns. The people that got bailed out at Bear Stearns weren't the employees or the shareholders. In fact, pretty much all of those guys got screwed. The people that got bailed out were Bear's counterparties, who didn't have much to do with Bear's business beyond funding it.
Lo and behold, the one time that I actually want to cash in my award flight, I find that it's gone. Hadn't I been using my card and extending the lifetime of my points like a good little boy? I called customer service and found out that JetBlue actually makes a distinction between points and awarded flights. The Amex Card extends the life of your points, but it will not extend the life of the awarded flights.
They referred me to their terms and conditions statement, where I found the following (apologies for the formatting):
4.1 A TrueBlue Award is issued automatically once a member has accumulated 100 points in the Program. The TrueBlue award is composed of 2 (two) TruePasses. Each TruePass is valid for 1 (one) one-way flight. Members will be notified of the award via e-mail and details can be found at the member's personal site at www.jetblue.com/trueblue. Notwithstanding the notification of awards via email, the member remains responsible for maintaining a current email, as JetBlue shall not be responsible for award notifications that are undeliverable.Now, you can interpret this to say that the only thing that the Amex Card specifically extends is the expiration date on TrueBlue Points. Without any sort of legal consultation, I would be pretty hesitant to go to court about any of this. However, from a consumer perspective, I think there's ample room for confusion.
4.2 TrueBlue Points may be redeemed for Award Travel by calling (800) JETBLUE or online at jetblue.com/awards. Award Travel is redeemable pursuant to the applicable redemption awards as posted on the JetBlue website or as otherwise issued by JetBlue. Once Award Travel is booked, it may only be changed before scheduled departure by calling (800) JetBlue and paying a $100 change fee. Award Travel may not be cancelled and TruePasses that are not flown will be forfeited and will not be re-deposited into your TrueBlue Account.
5.1 Except as may otherwise be provided for Holders of the JetBlue Card from American Express as set forth in paragraph 7.4, POINTS EXPIRE ONE YEAR AFTER THEY ARE EARNED AND TRUEBLUE AWARDS EXPIRE ONE YEAR AFTER THEY ARE ISSUED. Award Travel must be booked for travel available at or before the time of Award Travel expiration.
7.4 The expiration date of all TrueBlue Points in TrueBlue Membership Account's for Holders of the JetBlue Card from American Express will be extended to be 1 year from any date you have a TrueBlue point credited to your TrueBlue Membership Account from one of the following activities: (1) Using your JetBlue Card Account for an eligible purchase (as defined in your American Express Cardholder Agreement), or (2) flying a JetBlue flight segment that is paid for with your JetBlue Card Account. Eligibility and timing are basepon the date the TrueBlue point is credited to your TrueBlue Membership Account from one of the above qualifying activities.
I think the biggest issue is that nowhere does it explicitly state that once your points are converted into awards, they are considered as being in an entirely different category, subject to different treatment. This is especially important, as no other airline that I know of even has such a distinction.
Moreover, the phrasing in the terms and conditions leaves a lot of ambiguity as to whether or not these things should be treated differently. For instance, section 4.2 would lead one to believe that you are in fact redeeming points for award travel, not a separate category of awards (e.g. the TrueBlue Award or TrueBlue Pass mentioned in section 4.1). Section 5.1, while at least citing Points and Awards separately, states that expiration treatment of both points and awards may be different for AmEx cardholders. At this point, any reasonable consumer would be hard pressed to see what the difference between these categories is and why one should be protected via AmEx usage and another should not. Given the lack of a strict definitional framework, the meaning of section 7.4 seems much more open to interpretation.
Anyway, I have clearly spent way too much time thinking about this. Let's just leave it at me being pissed at JetBlue.
1) Threaded discussions - When you want to leave a comment that is actually a reply to someone else's comment, you click on the reply link and the comment/reply is indented right under the original comment. On any comment thread/discussion with a lot of action, this is absolutely necessary to make sense of the discussion. I am shocked that a popular blog like Techcrunch doesn't have this feature in its comments. Certainly it's possible for commenters to use an @sign to signify a comment that is actually a reply, but threaded discussion is so much better.I really only have about 10 regular readers on this blog, so the marginal benefit of installing Disqus has been pretty weak. But, if I did have a real audience, I bet it sure would be neat.2a) Email Replies - Disqus emails every comment to the blogger. If the blogger wants to reply to the comment, he/she simply replies to the email and it is posted as a reply (with the indent described above). This feature, which I requested the day I met/saw Disqus for the first time, is the single best thing about Disqus and has transformed my blog comments because I can now participate in them in real time throughout the day as the conversation develops. This is a BIG DEAL.
2b) Email Replies for Commenters - It works the same way for commenters. If you leave a comment in Disqus and have given Disqus your email address, you will get an email when anyone replies to your comment. You can reply to that just like the blogger can. This is also a big deal and leads to much more active commenting and replying - ie discussion.
3) Shared profiles. As more and more blogs add Disqus (over 10,000 at this point), the profiles that commenters create in Disqus are shared across blogs. This is an important network effect that benefits the blogger and his/her community. For example, if you have a blog that is read by a similar audience as my blog, and you add Disqus to your blog, most of my commenters will already be recognized by Disqus the first time they show up in your comments. They don't need to set up a new profile. They''ll have the same avatar/icon and identity.
Also, there's a greasemonkey script that brings disqus comments and commenting right into Google Reader. You can get it here.
I was standing in the elevator today, with a copy of Time announcing that the "winner" of the Democratic primary is... probably going to be Barack Obama. My downstairs neighbor Jonathon saw this cover and noted that he likes Obama a lot, but he's been around the block a couple and he's seen this "Hope" thing fizzle out time after time.
I would just like to comment on that. I am not supporting Obama because of his message of hope. All of this "Change we can believe in" and "Yes we can" business is just advertising to me. What's more important is that he actually treats voters (for the most part) as if they are intelligent people that capable of making decisions for themselves. I am incredibly tired and disgusted with politicians that essentially treat elections as popularity contests - smearing their opponents because of their race, gender, passing association with certain people, or phrases taken out of context, and essentially putting bullshit at the center of the political stage, rather than a substantive discussion about what is actually wrong with our country and how it can possibly be fixed.
So for me, this primary and the upcoming election is not about hope. It's about rejecting a set of actors (and I am looking squarely at the media and the politicians that play by their rules) who consistently make molehills into mountains and mountains into molehills.
Jon Stewart never ceases to amaze me. He has John McCain on his show and he asks him the following question, straight up:
"Will you take the opportunity right now to repudiate and denounce President Bush?"
To which, John McCain gets up and tries to flee the stage (as a joke).
Seriously though, I know that Stewart is a Democrat, but I don't know if I've ever seen him ask as tough of a question. To his credit, McCain artfully dodged the question by acknowledging that Bush's poll numbers suck and he'll have to run his campaign in his own way.
I will say that one of the most embarassing things that McCain said is that he views Al Qaeda as basically being transcendent evil, without any sense of individualism. Moreover, he will be "their worst nightmare." I couldn't think of a more simplistc, black and white way of thinking of the world.
Ok, back to work.
