Simul Parikh

Say two restaurants are pretty close to equal, and we haven't had a standardize tipping policy. We can choose Rasika and Rasika West, for example. If the Palak Chaat is $10 at the place that has tipping and $12 at the place that doesn't, I'm certain that the lower cost place does better business, if the quality and food are the same. Psychology dictates that we are okay with the lower up front price, and that the tip is another segment of the meal. The restaurant that has tips will always seems less expensive, even though it isn't (unless you don't tip). If you do the inclusive service fee at the beginning, you marginalize yourself as more expensive, without necessarily adding value. If you do what Sally's did, you marginalize yourself as mandating tipping. So... Until everyone flips, doing the service charge at the end is going to anger people that felt they didn't get good service. Doing the increased prices will marginalize the restaurant as being more expensive (a $40 steak will be $47). My only thought would be to do what Sally's did, have the waiter briefly explain why they do it, and at the end, still offer that the patrons can reduce the service charge if they felt they were not served well. Some people will take advantage of that, most won't. The only other better option is legislation to remove wait staff from below minimum wage group ($2.13/hr) and everyone either adds 10% with room to go up for better service, or raise the prices to get the salaries where they need to be. Another very American problem...

Interesting... Just looked it up. Seems to be an Irish-American thing rather than an Irish one. Turns out Bushmill's head distiller is a Catholic, ha ha. And the guy who originally made Jameson may have been a protestant. Maybe it's offensive, depends on tone, I guess. Sounds kind of funny. Like if I tried to order a beef curry at an Indian place, "We don't serve that Islamic dish here".. -S

Really interesting. It seems like the narrative reviews that almost everyone loves this place, but there seems to be something holding people back from exuberantly saying they love it. Is it because it's not really local? Is it because of the faux Paris bistro that they created from a blueprint? It's funny, if you just read most of the reviews without the reservations people seem to have, it would seem to be one of the most beloved places in the city. I've been for brunch. It was good and real sceney. The pastry thing wasn't as great as I'd heard. The omelette was good, but it was an omelette. I don't get French food, anyway, dinner here would be wasted on me. EDIT: re-read more of the posts. I guess it's loved and hated...

Interesting. So the thought is that places without reservations tend to be more neighborhoody while places that take reservations aren't? I never correlated those. Maybe so, though. I just wouldn't have put that in the business plan. I would think you would just be in the neighborhood, serve good food, and be nice to regulars. But, maybe it works. I don't think they are doing anything wrong - they are completely fine - their huge success has led to me being part of the peanut gallery. I just don't like the idea of the money going to third parties instead of the restaurant owner, chef, and hard-working staff. It's like ticket scalpers or health insurance companies, they are just bottom feeders acting as middlemen. No offense to any professional ticket scalpers. All offense to health insurers. -S

Haha. Maybe he is. I have no idea how much Chefs make. Thank you, B.A.R. for that fantastic link to Nick Kokonas. Game changer for the high demand/high risk for no show places. I love the idea of charging a deposit for the meal, rather than a surcharge. He makes the great point (opposed to what I say) that why charge more- just make sure people come and have the ability to actually come! It's a great read, sure there are many holes to poke, but I like it much better than my idea of just buying access.

So, people are paying a premium via line standees ..rather Silverman collect that fetty, rather than some random dude exploiting the system... Guess it's just a matter of opinion. I'd pay the restaurant to avoid waiting, and I guess now I'll just use a Task Rabbit, like TS did.

Totally! You're right, people address parts of the problem at sports bars or some neighborhood diners and other more casual places to get people in the door or get rid of some ingredients/wine that need to go. But, not at nicer places with high demand/not enough supply. Rose's, Little Serow, Izkaya Seki, Le Diplomate, Red Hen ... If there are lines out the door and people that want to eat don't get to eat or they have to wait months for a reservation, seems like something isn't working in the market. It's like concert tickets that completely sell out and then are getting scalped for 5x the price. Market failure, artists/promoters/restaurants get screwed, some wily guy with too much time on their hands hitting refresh on Ticketmaster or a guy who makes an app to secure reservations makes money instead ... Anyway, I'm sure someone in or out of the industry would say, "That's just the way it is" and "You don't get restaurants" ... but, there is not enough supply, too much demand, prices are too low, market failure... seems fixable. Maybe not. Wonder if anyone's tried it in earnest at a busy place. Edit .. Sounds like the biggest problem is pissing off customers when prices rise, and the idea of somebody paying more for the same exact entree as someone else, just based on timing. I guess the peak reservation surcharge would be something to consider ... $10-$50/person at peak times. It's definitely interesting and tricky. https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-restaurants-use-dynamic-pricing

Don't know, that was just rampant speculation, maybe the policy is "President's and their spouses" only? If it's only POTUS/FLOTUS, but his mom and dad have to wait... I don't know how I feel about that!

That was an awesome post! I agree with missing the chicken that I'd never even tasted. Must be really tough to please everyone. The line thing pisses people off (those with limited time), but makes other people happy (with no limits on time). But, for something scarce like this, if they don't change up a bit, secondary markets are going to form (for those people with money >>> time). And the people that get the money from that transaction aren't the good people that work at Rose's. On a side note, economists are baffled that restaurants set a fixed price no matter the demand. Even if a place is popular, the prices stay the same. Even if a place has dead time, the prices are the same. No dynamic pricing at all, supply and demand don't meet and there is so much deadweight loss. The economist in me loses his mind everything he sees queuing at a restaurant. It's completely irrational! The small menu makes some people happy (like me, that feel a restaurant should just do a few things really well), or unhappy (people that want more choice and options). Doubt they will ever open it up and have a book like Cheesecake Factory, but maybe they should expand just a bit.. It is super limited. I hate the fact that celebrities and VIPs get "special" treatment, especially at a place that values "democratization" of a finer dining experience. I understand the demands of BO's job and the security concerns, but Silverman, et al. are going to lose some fans if more people are getting special treatment. I used to hate being told as a resident physician that "a VIP patient was coming and had to give them VIP treatment". They are all VIPs in my book, from the CEO of the hospital to the homeless guy down the street. Not going to change treatment based on the size of their VIP-ness (Say that out loud, ha!). Can't wait to go there again, though... S

Doing the pig tonight. Anyone ever have it?

Don't know if the Chef is gone yet, but the food is still excellent. The beet salad was fresh and tasty, the burrata was awesome and you got a good amount, and, per usual, I loved my pizza. My boss enjoyed the ravioli, too. This is one of the city's great moderate price point places, and I hope it continues to be so.

I hear you. But, say this happened at Rose's. Bad batch of lychee and 50 people get sick. Not like Chef AS was trying to hurt people. After the loss of business, after the embarrassment, after the reputational hit, does it make sense to go after them with a lawsuit? Maybe so. I'm not sure if F&O has been given enough time to come out with the facts. I mean - the health department still doesn't really know what happened, though there is some speculation. With a lawsuit, now everything goes dark and it becomes adversarial rather than complementary to try to figure out what happens and how to keep it from happening again. I guess I'm on the other side of this. I'm very sensitive to lawsuits. If the money will make that person will better in some way, maybe it's worth it. We live in a country with an excellent recent history of food safety. A one off event that makes 60 people sick - it sucks. But doesn't seem like a pattern of negligence and malfeasance. Maybe it is, though. There sure are a lot of salmonella lawyers out there. This really is a thing... I just don't love the idea of going after any business for a self limiting disease. I guess I'm in the minority... just waiting for the day a patient comes after me for something that was out of my hands. -S

Lawsuit It's a self limiting illness... Jeez. These things happen. I don't think there was any malice involved. What a country ... Thought we were over lawsuit mayheym. I did my study abroad in Denmark, and spent time at the hospital there. Met a patient that was accidentally stuck by a needle during an admission and infected with HIV, this was in 1999. We asked about a lawsuit. He said, "No .. mistakes happen. They didn't mean it." I hope this person loses and is responsible for all her legal bills. On the other hand, for the confirmed cases of salmonella, F&O oughtta make a good faith commitment to pay any of the medical bills that have ensued... -S

Ate here once, and ordered once. It's really good for what it is - white carton Chinese. I'd passed by it a million times, and had never been interested, but I figured I'd give it a go. I think they have beer? I don't remember. I went with a friend and got the Hunan Chicken, that was pretty tasty and they are able to make it a little spicy. I wasn't that hungry, and was leaving for a trip, so couldn't evaluate how it held up on day 2. Yesterday, me and little sis decided to aggressively pursue leisure, so we camped out on the couch and watched "Episodes" and "House of Lies" for about 6 hours until her flight. The rigorous nature of our hard core chilling required nourishment, so we decided to order in. Got 1) Vegetable Lo Mein - as good a version as any. Not too heavy/oily. Some vegetables were seen in there. 2) Ma Po Tofu - nothing at all like the Sichuan variety found at HKP and Joe's and other places, but surprisingly really good. They used a lot of mushrooms and it was earthy and good. I don't think they used shitty white plain mushrooms, either. These were good ones. The tofu wasn't too mushy. The sauce was spicy. 3) Kung Pao Chicken - as good version as you can get in the area. Not overloaded with peanuts. No dried red chiles, though, I usually want a few of those in the mix. 4) Shredded Pork With Garlic Sauce - like I say when I pass the preserves section at the supermarket, "This is my jam!". Really good! Tasty, not too "mystery-meat"-ish. This and a second plate of it sustained us through a very dynamic TV watching session... And I didn't feel sick the next day. $42 with tax and delivery and tip (Eat 24). Got there in 45 min. Plenty of food leftover. Try it hungover or an a Netflix day. I don't think you'll be too disappointed. -S

That's a tough road to go down. Because, then it's like "People are good?? What do you mean? What about Hitler? What about Stalin? What about David Spade?" Science is just a tool, what is done with it is left up to humanity. Fracking is a utilization of science (EDITED, good call JNE), and one day we will know if it is bad or good, but say it's good ... It already is helping is geopolitically, lettings us not rely on OPEC as much. If it's bad for the world, yeah, water will be on fire and North Dakota will look like Beyond Thunderdome. Time will tell... I just have found it very interesting that people on "my side" (I am unabashedly liberal, save for a few misgivings about tax policy and entitlement spending) that scream and shout that the other side is "anti-science" is unwilling to be objective when it comes to food/GMOs/organics/etc. But, it's not really that confusing. People are tribal more than they are consistent. People go with their gut, even when their brain is running in the other direction. Goes to tell you that there really is two Americas. One of the most important policy issues of our time - how do we reduce carbon? - doesn't get mentioned in last night's debate, but we have the moderator asking a former CEO of a major American tech company being asked what she thinks about a reality TV star insulting her looks. -S

Can you imagine Michelle Obama and Laura Bush doing a PSA for this? ... Hahahaha. -S

Went last night. Very, very warm and friendly service - I think that should be high lighted. Even though I've said it before, DC-area restaurants have great service, I think a lot has to do with how heavy people are into social media, so they try really hard. Oh, and this place is super dog friendly. I'm not a dog person, but my dining companion was and she brought her Akita, and that is a dog that I really like. They brought out a water bowl for Kodiak which was nice. Certain dogs just attract ridiculous amounts of attention. Akitas are one of them. It's like I was with a celebrity, people kept coming to the table. Anyway, Nino comes by and he's quite a talker, and not in a bad way. Just a super friendly guy, really funny. He gave us hell about not drinking this evening, and tells a funny story about him coming home after work and crushing a bottle of wine, while his wife berates him, ha. He told us business isn't doing as great as he'd hoped, and he places the blame on that on the location, because it's not on the main drag. He's right. There are a lot of terrible but busy places in the main part of Shirlington. Even with their excellent social media reviews, just not getting the traffic. He said people pass by from the station, pick up a menu, and then never show back up or take several months to try the place. How frustrating! The specials were a swordfish, and 2 other things that didn't sound that exciting. The bread came, it was good but not warm. This happened recently at another restaurant (Bastille). Shouldn't it be warm? I don't know French or Italian food (other than Italian-American chains) all that well. The olive oil and pesto was tasty. Bright green in color which was interesting. We ordered to start - polipo (octopus, black hummus, cucumbers, capers, sultans, pomegranate), mitili pepperade (mussels in a peppery broth), and a charcuterie/cheese plate (speck, salumi, and tallegio). I liked the octopus, my dining partner didn't think the capers went will with it. It was tender and not too chewy, lightly fried. The mussels were good, not a whole lot of broth. It was flavorful and not super spicy, but when it would go down, I'd catch the pepper and cough a bit, ha. For $15, the cheese/charcuterie is a little more volume than you get at most places. We were actually pretty full by then, so we split the squid ink pasta. I don't remember what the menu said last night, but it came with mussels surrounding it (I did not want more, if you've seen in me a t-shirt, I'm pretty mussel'd out, hee hee), some calamari, and shrimp. The sauce was not puttanesca. The menu says shrimps, scallops, calamari, in puttanesca sauce. Maybe they ran out of scallops? They did not mention if they had. All in all, very good experience, I think I should have tried the pork ragu instead, or the carbonara, or the chicken marsala, so I'll chalk up an average meal to poor ordering. $67+ tip. -S

I guess I'm saying that, yes, overdoing sugar is extremely dangerous and probably leading to much in the way of illness in our country, but their are many vehicles to sugar consumption, and to choose one over another, and to try to reduce that consumption via taxation doesn't really fix the overall problem. People will get their fix, it's more important to change habits overall than to pick one target. I explain metastatic cancer in the same way- if you have a bathtub with several holes in it, and then choose to plug one, the water will just flow into the other holes. Problem not solved unless we figure out a way to plug them all. Until we can, plugging one hole is futile (i.e. Why if you have tumors all over your body and through your blood. I don't think radiating just one lesion is going to fix anything, despite your feeling that if I just zap the one in the lung, maybe problem could get solved). Does that make more sense? With cigarettes, there are no other tobacco delivery systems that we were leaving alone and not taxing. Oral tobacco may or may not lead to tongue cancer, and the evidence is very weak that it causes lung cancer, coronary artery disease, and COPD. So, when we cracked down on smoking, lung cancer rates fell precipitously. It was a huge win for public health. That's what we need is big wins - not "feel good" policy that doesn't change health outcomes.

I really, really like Bittman, especially because his Minimalist recipes got me into cooking, and his "How To Cook Everything" is a lifesaver, but seems a bit misguided... From a public health stand point, he's absolutely right, that sugar is the tobacco of the 21st century. There isn't very much to debate. But taxing soda? Ugh, that's tough. Because like he says in the article, we need a smoking gun. We need that strong research. We need causation proved, not some wishy-washy correlation. We need that lawsuit that he mentions, with someone drinking multiple sodas a day, getting type 2 diabetes, and then having the evidence that shows that it is causative. The damn problem is the gal or guy drinking 5 sodas is also eating triple size portions of entrees and fast food all the time. They took the soda out of the schools, and the kids started pounding Snapple, which had just as much sugar in it. It's not that easy to tax something that we truly haven't proven causes an illness (trust me, it's not there!) - we know sugar does, but we don't know if it's any worse or better than any other sugar product. What about white pasta? That has a ton of carbs in it. Plates and plates of that are going to lead you down the road to metformin and insulin, so will too much naan and biryani (as has happened to both my parents), and so will jambalaya. The labeling thing is even more thorny. We need labels for specific reasons. 1) Is it unhealthy and labeling will allow people to choose healthier foods? 2) Is it harmful to the environment and labeling will allow people to treat the environment better? 3) Will public health be improved because of labeling? If the answer is yes to even any one of these, then label away. If not, we really should think about what the goals are. This is Bittman's argument, directly from the column: "G.M.O. labeling is by far the thornier issue. Labeling is important not so much because G.M.O.'s are "bad" "” they have not introduced harmful ingredients into the food chain, and those who argue that they have are taking a position that is difficult to defend "” but because once we know what's in food we can better influence how it is produced." I'm not sure the federal government is responsible in "better influencing how (food) is produced". I think safety is important. I think the environment is extremely important (it has led to me become primarily a single issue voter). I think public health improvement is important. And he says it twice in his column, GMOs are not evil, they are not bad. If not, then why are we pushing this? Shouldn't we focus on things that are evil and bad? If it truly is to better influence how food is produced, we need to have a reason that this "influence" is doing a public good. Right now, if you put a label on a GMO food, you've not 1) Made consumers safer 2) Made the environment better 3) Improved health. You can say knowledge is power, but, really is it? We don't have to label much else right now ... What about what specific pesticide or herbicide is used, whether the meat was packaged by a mistreated, underpaid and overworked undocumented worker, how much the CEO of that Big-Ag company pays in taxes, or whether or not the chicken had friends (Portlandia reference)? If we are going to mandate something, we have to have a rationale for it. The reason we labeled cigarettes is because the scientific community provided strong, irrefutable evidence that cigarette smoking causes cancer. This labeling ... I'm just not sure we have a strong causal link of GMO foods to ... anything ... yet. Maybe we will soon, but maybe we won't, and it will be completely safe. The heaping evidence (quoted by one side, sounds mysteriously like the climate change folks, "95% of the evidence indicates that GMO foods are safe"). The labeling of GMO foods .. well, gosh, there is a lot of emotion about this, and it reminds of climate change debates and vaccination debates. One side says "if you don't believe this, you are anti-science" and the other side says "we just don't know enough yet, so we should take caution". It's very much ruled by passion and fervor, and the more data and evidence one side provides, the more entrenched the other side becomes. And you can't really talk about it with people, b/c it's turned into religion. Chipotle really shat the bed, too, with their whole dropping GMO bit. Their animals are fed with GMO corn, and all the soda has HFCS which is clearly a GMO food. It was a marketing stunt, not an effort to improve public safety. And that's what I think the labeling effort is (right now). Why not keep doing the research, keep trying to figure out if there is link to bad health? A few years ago, I was very much for labeling. And after more research, and thinking a lot about it, i don't know if this should be priority number one with food health and safety, or even as a public health measure, until we have some reasonable data (we don't). This is a good long form article that looks at history and evidence. I know it's really hard to escape our epistemic closure, but take a read this weekend (it's long!) and see if maybe even if you aren't swayed, or even further entrenched, it can help you ask some better questions and dig a bit deeper. "Unhealthy Fixation" by William Saletan on slate.com

I guess this opened: "Check Out The Filipino Menu for Bad Saint" by Jessica Sidman on washingtoncitypaper.com Looks tasty. Anyone go yet? Is it reservation or wait list like RL/LS? -S

There goes my dartboard theory! This is a real outbreak. Sounds like the water or maybe unclean glasses.

Interesting article. I think it was fair and balanced, from a public health perspective. Don't think they are able to connect the dots in any meaningful way, and I wouldn't be nervous about it. But "salmonella-like" is quite vague. Salmonella presents most typically with diarrhea, fever, and abdominal pain/discomfort/bloating. Unfortunately, most foodborne illnesses present like this. Salmonella usually comes from raw meats/seafoods, raw eggs/bad mayo, and contaminated produce. People think of tuna salad at an outdoor picnic or some undercooked chicken at a barbecue. At first, I didn't think much of it, it just reminds of clustering effects/statistical artifact - if you throw a bunch of darts at a map, even if you aim randomly, some are going to cluster together (and we saw that a lot in oncology, trying to figure out if some environmental toxin caused cancers, and usually it was just artifact). Based on CDC numbers, 130,000 people get a food borne illness a day in the US, and about ~500-700 might be from DC/VA/MD. Throw 500 darts every day of the year, and maybe there is one day where 3 of those darts land on Fig and Olive. It happens. But, the way the interviewee described the interview, something about that sort of food prep makes me nervous, especially if any of the other 7 locations noted any foodborne-like cases. If it isn't really due to foodborne-illness, kind of sucks for the restaurant. I still don't remember the name of the bug, but I sure do know the signs and symptoms of "Jack In The Box" disease... -S

Craft beer festival that is packed with hipsters?? You don't say It's actually not terrible... Not as formal as Savor, but certainly a nice event, especially when the weather is nice. See you guys there! I'll be the one with the beard, thick framed glasses, skinny jeans, and a winning combination of smugness/irony. -S

RTs is really good! It's such a good place for solo dining at the bar - just the right amount of service and letting you have peace. After reading this today, I had to come, so here I am.

Hipster Business Name!!! That's the best thing ever...