Peter’s Blog V2

We went last night to P.F. Chang’s, the Chinese-themed TGI Friday.  It was a surprisingly cultural experience.

This was my very first time.  Prior to the visit, most of my knowledge about this chain establishment had been from South Park depictions: (1) its food makes you super constipated, and (2) it’s run by an army of white people with a plot to take over America for China.

But that sort of “reputation” apparently did nothing to deter its business.  In fact, this particular restaurant has always been one of the most popular in Central New Jersey.  We waited in line for 45 minutes.  By the time our beeper went off, I think they were handing out 2-hour wait notices.  All this quality time spent there made us extra observant of the atmosphere:

One diner finished his business and exited the dim restaurant in a power suit, dark sunglasses, a pink tie, and a pink handkerchief.  That was a bit overdressed for any meal… let alone at a Chinese TGI Friday’s on a Saturday night.  Well, at least nobody would wear that kind of thing to a real Chinese restaurant.

More Indian people were waiting in line at the entrance to this PF Chang’s, than all the Indian people I had seen in any Chinese restaurant in the past 20 years, combined.  I had wondered for the longest time why no Indian (including anyone who appears to be of West / South Asian descent) appreciated Chinese food… well, there they were.

When we finally got seated, we sat next to a Caucasian family who was sure having a good time.  The six adults and three children had managed to drop under the table the following: five pairs of chopsticks, one “training wheel” chopstick, one fork, two spoons, three straws, one paper napkin, two clothe napkins, a bowl worth of rice and food, and various liquids.

2011 has been a year of Asian-American awareness.  Having already caused controversies were Amy Chua’s Tiger Mother and Wesley Yang’s Paper Tigers.  Without getting into the details, both articles discussed ways and challenges for traditional Asian cultures to fit into the white male-dominant American society.  One of them leans more toward tradition and the other leans more toward change, but both of them have been highly criticized.

Now, dining at PF Chang’s caused just as much complex as reading those articles.  Many of us have the reflex to discredit “fake” Chinese food whenever we spot it.  I’d go as far as not using chopsticks at a place that sells beef & broccoli, because it really is “American” food and a fork would be more appropriate.  Do I want my culture associated with panda bears, terracotta warriors, and a plate of colorful sauces on the table?  Not really.  But on the other hand, what’s wrong with an evolving subculture that reaches out to accommodate people outside our community?  Isn’t it better to invite them into our world with a highly modified version of kung pow chicken, than to shut the door and have a stinky tofu party among our own kind?

PF Chang’s is as Chinese as Taco Bell is Mexican.  What’s harder to understand, for the more conservative of us, is that there’s nothing wrong about it.  If we want to break through the barriers of tradition and move beyond the passive, obedient, piano-playing math nerds that we’re known for, perhaps we should embrace the same kind of evolution that PF Chang’s applied to its food.

This evening, I went to CVS and picked up a box of (the CVS generic version of) DayQuil.  Upon check out, the cashier asked me for my birth date.  Somewhat stunned and confused by the inquiry, I held back and paused for a second.  Then I saw the piece of print out in his hand that read “preventing teen cold medicine abuse” while he explained, “it’s a New Jersey law thing.”

That’s when it clicked in my head, “oh wow, I didn’t know you could get high on cold medication…”  I was intrigued wondering how it would work and what it’d feel like.  People talk about substance abuse all the time but I didn’t know DayQuil could be abused so bad that there needs to be such a regulatory hassle to intervene.  Then I wondered if this law actually prevented any abuse, or did it educate more people about this drug’s “alternate use”.

Over the past year, the word “motor vehicle recall” and “Toyota” seemed to have some strong correlation, including the headline news last week.  They sure screwed up with corporate response for that incident, but that by no means suggest that Toyota is the only manufacturer that makes bad cars.  “Good” cars get recalled all the time, but the current public perception combines both Toyota’s market share and the evil media’s tendency to continuously trashing a reputation.  You know, like the five thousand stories written about BP this summer.

The fact is, even if 100% of Porsche cars are defective, they won’t recall as many as Toyota did this year.  So the question intrigued me: which manufacturer makes the most reliable cars, measured by the least proportion recalled?  I did some homework, combining a comprehensive recall history database from the Department of Transportation, and a car market share report from Motor Intelligence (which is the basis of this WSJ report).  The results for 2001-2010 recalls are:

It works like this: Toyota has a 15.9% market share (combining cars and light trucks), and among all cars recalled in the past 10 years for defective critical safety components, Toyota only makes up 6.0%.  Therefore, they get a score of 6.0/15.9=0.38.  That is, if you drive a Toyota, the chances of it being bad is barely more than 1/3 of the chances for the average car on the road.  On the other hand, Chrysler has 9.4% market share but 20.0% of all critical recalls, so they get a score of 2.13 meaning it’s twice as likely to be bad as the average car.

The chart above shows two bars for each major manufacturer, with the solid bar indicating recalls of critical safety components (engine, brakes, power train, tires) and the striped bar indicating all components (from traction control systems and seat belts to seats and hitches).  Nissan/Infiniti, for example, have less than average total recalls but more than average critical recalls.  Volkswagon/Audi is the opposite.

Volvo, for some reason, is 4.5 times as likely to be recalled as everybody else.  But they deserve the benefit of doubt since given the tiny market share, their data is more prong to high volatility.  It’s important to keep in mind the credibility of each data point and assess the conclusion carefully.  The market share is graphed in blue, with GM at 19.4% and Toyota at 15.9%.  A more detailed table is at the bottom of this post.

Conclusions?  Although scare-driven bad publicity about Toyota is all over the news these days, hard data indicate that they are still one of the most reliable manufacturers out there.  Kia is better, and the big three from Detroit are still sucky.

McDonald’s has been given so much bad publicity in recent years, based on biased and scientifically unsound claims.  I’m not a hardcore fan trying to defend the corporation, but as an analytical bystander I feel the need to bring about some justice.

Introducing: the correlation between McDonald’s historical growth and improvement in life expectancy.  Credible data sources suggest that before Americans had McDonald’s, they didn’t make it very far.

Keep this chart in mind the next time you buy your kids a Happy Meal.  Thank it.

Eco-terrorists value the lives of animals or plants more so than they do their own kind: ALF blows up animal laboratories and meat packaging plants; Sea Shepherd Conservation Society attacks fishermen and their boats; others burn down houses, injure hunters and loggers, etc.  The FBI considers eco-terrorism the #1 domestic terror threat.  They might have a noble cause, but the extra mile they go to glorify their “righteous” beliefs is the main distinction between them and the normal people.

Imagine a Hollywood situation where you are at the end of the world among the only dozen survivors on Earth.  On top of that, all food sources vanished, except rabbits who magically reproduced everywhere.  Now, what could possibly make the situation worse, than if half of the survivors were animal rights extremists?

Yeah, they vow to destroy you if you dare touching the rabbits.  You can choose to die starving or be killed by your fellow critter-loving humans.  That’s totally messed up.  Isn’t it?

I present to you… Optimus Prime, the leader of the Autobots and the prime example of somebody with a noble cause and freakishly too much passion for it.  Protecting humans is a great thing to do, but going as far as sacrificing himself and slaughtering his own kind puts him right up on the list with the Whale Wars people.

Let’s see.  The Transformers are a dying species and the Decepticons are working hard to ensure their survival.  However, since the early 80′s, the Autobots had plotted to destroy their every attempt at collecting food = energon cubes.  I thought the Autobots need energon to survive, too, but for whatever reason they enjoyed throwing the entire last colony of Transformers into a lose-lose situation.

Sure, the Decepticons might have to stomp on a few hundred people or blow up a volcano or sun during the process.  But should Transformers really care?  For the prosperity of human kind we also slaughter other animals and cut down trees, so there’s hardly any difference.  Unless you’re one of those who enjoy pouring blood on rich women’s fur coats or support the killing of abortion doctors, please join me and say -

Optimus Prime is messed up!