Jon Sullivan: 2011

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Taco Tour 2011 - The specifics

San Diego - Foodie wasteland

Whenever I go to Los Angeles or the Bay Area or New Orleans I always spend a good amount of the trip filled with melancholy over the lack of a food culture in San Diego. There is just no getting around it - For a big city San Diego has strangely poor food. Just that. San Diego sucks for great food and food culture.

And the worst in your face example of this is Mexican. How can we have worse Mexican food when we're right on the Mexican border and the biggest demographic here is Latino? It feels like bizarro world when I need to drive further from Mexico to find great Mexican restaurants.

Yes, there is some wonderful Mexican food here. Super Cocina, El Pescador, La Fachada and others are really good. But 1) after you get past those few, things get thin quickly, and 2) there is nothing here that touches the breadth of authentic Mexican restaurants in LA. In San Diego we just have nothing to match up with LA eats like Guisados, Ta-comiendo, Monte Alban, El Huarachito, Babita, La Casita, Chichen Itza, Guelaguetza......... Etc, etc, etc, etc.

And don't even get me started on authentic taco trucks. San Diego has 4-5 in the entire metro area, Oakland has more than that on one street. Do we hate great cheap food or something?

It's sad to get the feeling, as I did, in the SF Mission district that some of the average Mexican food there is better than some of the top 10 in San Diego.

Oh well. I'll still enjoy tacos here. It just doesn't seem fair.

Taco Road Trip 2011 - Taco Stories

Well, the road trip didn't turn out exactly like I had planned. The plan was for 30 taco shops in 5 1/2 days, but we only got 20. The main problem was not realizing when I made up my list that the wife wouldn't be up for the sort of ordeal 30 stops would require. With the deal breaker being that she did not consider tripe tacos to be "breakfast" and kept insisting on eggs and toast.

I must admit though, eating that many tacos would have been a bit painful, and there was a big part of me that didn't mind at all devoting more time to her sight seeing and less to racing around stuffing my face when I wasn't hungry. 20 was comfortable, 30 would have been......... not comfortable.

I'm guessing one question people will have is, what was the best taco we ate? That's easy - El Farolito Taqueria in San Francisco
https://plus.google.com/109877313588078729086/posts/STv6UdV54gp
http://www.yelp.com/biz/el-farolito-san-francisco-2

But there is a problem with that. We barely scratched the surface. It would take weeks to get a meaningful idea of what the best tacos were in San Francisco alone. Same with Oakland, and LA, and everything in between. So please don't get the idea that we were there to find what was best. The goal was just to try lots of new things.

And we learned many things.

- We learned Mexican food in San Diego really doesn't measure up. It's sad.
- We learned that wandering around supposedly dangerous areas of LA and Oakland really is a bit intimidating. But we've done it now. It's fine.
- We learned al pastor up north means what I think of as adabada, rather than spit-roasted.
- We learned shrimp cocktails up there are more like soup. Well.... they are soup.
- We learned potato tacos seem to be a San Diego thing, as I didn't see any on the trip.
- We confirmed tripe isn't something I particularly like, no matter how it's cooked. Though I will say the stuff we got in Oakland was the best I've had, and certainly worth trying.

We only got to three trucks on the trip. And I must say, I was hoping they'd be better. Not that they weren't delicious, they were, but the sitdown places we went were much better.

My favorite place on the trip was Pancho Villa Taqueria in San Mateo
https://plus.google.com/109877313588078729086/posts/JuDz7VMiNJj
http://www.yelp.com/biz/pancho-villa-taqueria-san-mateo

I know, it's a fancified corporatized abomination of a taco shop with stupid high prices for mini tacos. I get it. But I loved it anyway. Would I usually eat there rather than the small mom&pop places? No. Was it worth waiting in line for seconds and thirds? Yes.

Overall the trip was a great success and made me hungry for more. Next, we take on LA in a systematic Mexican food attack.

Taco Road Trip 2011 - Taco Stories II

When we pulled out of San Diego on the first day of the trip I was filled with no small amount of dread. We had so far to drive, and so many places to get to, that I was pretty sure we would either end up being miserable or fail miserably. The night before I had told my wife, "This is a really bad idea. We're going to do it anyway."

But the first two stops we made completely turned my attitude around. The food was so delightful that it just made me happy inside, and eager to charge forward.

The first stop, Taco Mesa, is just a great taco shop. Very funky decor, interesting things on the menu, and really good flavors. From the first sip of their great horchata I was impressed. They also had breakfast tacos, which were about the first tacos my wife has ever gotten excited about (she usually just gets a carnitas plate). It was a step off of the well worn taco shop path, in a very good way.

The second stop, Antojitos Carmen, seemed a little boring on first impression. Lots of regular taco shop fare - Quezadillas, Sopes, Huaraches, Gorditas, Enchiladas, Tostadas, Tortas, etc. But once we got the food we realized what was special about the restaurant. Other taco shops put out bland imitations of these entrees, Antojitos Carmen was serving the real thing. And there was also the special sesame salsa (yes, sesame salsa) which will require it's own post.

The third place, Taqueria Cuernavaca, a small but packed Mexican restaurant in Ventura, continued the trend. The al pastor tacos I got were simple yet perfect. That might take some explaining. Al pastor, in my understanding, is slices of marinaded pork stacked on a rotisserie, then sliced off as it chars and served with fresh pineapple. What I usually get is just pork in sauce, or missing pineapple, or drowned in spices. This was perfect. And simple. And delicious.

All dread was forgotten. This trip was fantastic. One of the best vacations I'd ever had actually. I was in taco heaven.

But...... Things went down hill for a bit after that. The next few shops were good, but not special. Oh well.

I'm not sure what the lessen was here. I think we just got lucky that the first places we tried were that wonderful. Some slight changes to the itinerary would have gotten a clunker or two in the mix.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/taco-mesa-costa-mesa
http://www.antojitoscarmen.com/
http://www.yelp.com/biz/taqueria-cuernavaca-ventura

Tacos Road Trip 2011 - Logistics

One of the interesting things about this road trip was how much the whole process of "road trip" has changed in just a few years. Smartphones and websites have either enriched the experience...... or ripped it's soul out and killed it.

Let me explain.

So I've done many rather huge road trips in my life. Driving thousands of miles a day used to be one of those things I just did now and then. For most of my life the process worked like this - Pick a few must-see destinations, book hotels, confirm I had maps, start driving. I generally had no idea what was up the road. The trips tended to be in the genre of "adventures of discovery". Radio was usually not an interesting option, and I tend to not talk much, so the trip was either silently alone with my thoughts or listening to the same CDs over and over. Eating was very hit or miss. Before Yelp and such, how would you possibly find a good place to eat in Pocatello Idaho other than random chance?

This trip was nothing like that at all.

For this trip the Droids changed nearly every facet of the experience. With Yelp I can find a great place to eat anywhere any time. Maps? Why do I even need them, when I have full satellite navigation in my pocket? Radio? With the Droids plugging into the car stereo we had endless options to choose from - thousands for songs, hours of podcasts, radio stations anywhere in the world, TV or movies even.

The biggest change is certainly the combination of Google maps and GPS. I'm not even sure if this trip could have been pulled off without those. Many of the taco shops we went to were a real pain in the ass to get to. Trying to navigate around unfamiliar parts of Oakland or LA using paper maps would have driven my copilot to an enraged meltdown. With the Droids I just pulled up taco shop, hit "navigate", and started driving.

The Google sat nav even tells me exactly how long it will take to get someplace. And yes it takes traffic and road conditions into account. Wondering how long it will take to get from Gilroy to a picnic area up in the hills of Berkeley? The Droid tells you, to the minute, and it was always right. Wondering what lane to be in? The Droid tells you. Worried about getting lost? It's not even possible.

And one of the central logistic issues of a road trip - getting gas in the car - now involves picking a nearby station off a list based on user reviews. One is closer, but people say this other one has easier freeway access and clean bathrooms. Oh, here's some pictures. Yes, navigate me to that one.

So is this a good thing, or is the road trip experience now ruined?

Sure, smartphones make it easier, and less boring. But that also removes much of the charm. A road trip used to be a bit scary. Simple things like getting some food in your mouth used to be a bit of an adventure. Getting lost might be a classic story you'd tell people about for years. Potentially running out of gas used to add a sense of danger. The sence of "where the hell am I?", or "What the hell do i do now?" used to be core to a road trip. Now.... not so much.

Bottomline - Not knowing what might be around the next bend in the road used to be a thing that actually existed. But now I have an icon on my phone that will tell me every interesting thing within 50 miles. With reviews and photos.

Ruined? Not for me. In my humble opinion it's much better.

Facebook vs Google+ - FIGHT!!!!!

So the buzz in tech this week seems to be the feature war going on between Facebook and Google+. Google+ opened it's beta with tons of features people had been wanting for years, then Facebook quickly added many of those features. Now we have this major slap fight over which will win, and which doesn't get it, and which is stealing what, and on and on about what everyone wants and doesn't want.

Like this -
https://plus.google.com/113117251731252114390/posts/cmrXCip3uhu

While fun and thoughtful, I find it all a bit beanplating. That is, over thinking something so passionately that you forget it's just a plate of beans.

I think most users like Facebook because it is simple.
I think most users like Google+ because it is fancy.
And depending on what you want, either may be broken.

These are two different products, and they always will be. Comparing features, strategy, implementation, etc is digging too deep if what users really want (in the case of Facebook) is just to share a silly little thought with family and friends. And it's silly to define a service (in the case of Google+) by it's limited feature set and small userbase if it's in the beginning stages of beta.

To me this is how the "fight" matches up right now -

Facebook has a huge number of people who just want to keep very informal contact with people they normally wouldn't bother keeping in contact with at all. And they want it to be dead simple, because if it takes effort it's just not worth the bother.

Google+ has, by comparison, a tiny group of beta testers who want a wider ranging feature set, tied into other Google services, where they can dial in settings and privacy/access. And they'd like to have more involved conversations. And they'd like to connect to cool people in addition to friends and family.

By analogy - Facebook is a small highschool/coworker/family reunion. Google+ is a huge state fair.

These are two very different things. And they will have different failings in any feature war. For Facebook the failing will be making a bunch of features, when people liked it for how simple it was. For Google+ the failing will be having a complex social hub that won't attract people who want simple and minimal. But..... so what? I suspect both will be huge and successful.

In short, Facebook vs Google+ is more like snack vs meal, rather than Ford vs Chevy. And in the end, people will likely use both.

Monday, August 1, 2011

Why Google+

1) First and foremost, Circles gets it right. For the first time I have a quick and easy way to post content in one place that is filtered out (rather than filtered in) to multiple audiences. If I want to have a private post/discussion with my mom and my sister, that's just as easy as making a post 100% public, and just as easy as posting something to a weird and hard to define Venn diagram of relationships.

I have a series of circles set up just for posting non-public content. One of those is the circle I'll share checkins with, which might be vaguely defined as "people who I can be damn sure have no connection to weird stalker types". I could use friends+family for that, but frankly my "friends" circle is pretty damn small. So it needs to be bigger than that, but smaller than everyone I know, and perhaps there are friends who don't need to know where I am 24/7. As odd as that group is to define, Google+ does it right out of the box with ease.

With blogs, Twitter, Facebook, forums, etc, there is one bucket, and everyone is part of one conversation. That's creepy and very limiting. Circles feels natural.

2) Non-reciprocal friending/following. This is the major problem with Facebook. I have tons of people I've met over the decades who I'd enjoy keeping track of. But they aren't my friends, and I don't need them chiming in on conversations with actual family and friends. And there are others who I just want to read, and it would be nice to have them on my stream/wall.

Facebook can sort of do that, but it doesn't feel natural. I don't "like" but I do want to read his posts. The idea that I would "friend" him or he would "friend" me is silly. And that silly factor has always been one of my problems with both Twitter and Facebook. The relationship analogy they force you into is innovative, but not in a good way.

3) It's Google. Let's be honest, Google is not going anywhere à la AOL, AltaVista, Friendster, etc. If you want to pick a place to focus your social network, Google is a pretty safe bet. And just my opinion, but since Facebook is largely just Mark Zuckerberg's id (not in a good way), I don't think it really has the legs people think it does.

Yes, Google's other social network forays, Buzz and Orkut, flopped badly. But they didn't have the engineered-smart feel Google+ does. Honestly, Google+ just matches what I already wanted to do, while the others felt like "build it and they will come" apps.

And yes, Google can be creepy. But at some point you need to decide who you can trust, and I "trust" Google. I'm sure they'll make mistakes, as they have in the past, but at least I get the sense they honestly want to do the right thing. The other option is to live in a cabin in the woods somewhere and write manifestos no one reads.

4) The features. I love the features. All the incredibly useful and needed stuff that was missing elsewhere is here for free.

- Free and full featured photo hosting? Check.
- Editing for posts _*and*_ comments? Check.
- Fine-grained access for personal info? Check.
- Real responses from developers? Check.
- Real account backup or deletion? Check.
- Robust enough to do more than post what I had for lunch? Check.

And the thing is still in beta. Sure, lots of stuff still needed, but I'm confident it's in the pipeline, likely almost ready to be pushed out.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Google+'s name policy

Here's a problem. Theoretical case: My wife wants to keep her name, photo and real identity off of the public Internet. But she also wants to use the Internet to stay in touch with real life friends and family. *And* she has a husband who wants to use Google+ as a public blog platform. So if she posts a comment on one of my public blog posts, boom, the jig is up and the entire Internet has found her.

Said another way - If folks in your circles (including writers, celebrities, gurus) want to post anything publicly, you can't *ever* comment on those posts unless you want the entire Internet to know your real name, and _have Google searches go to your Google+ profile_.

In fact if you really do want to keep your real name hidden from the entire googleable Internet, and folks you have in circles display who follows them (which everyone does), you likely shouldn't even have them in circles. That is, you can't use Google+. At all.

Okay....... Let's back up......

Here is Google+'s name policy -
http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1228271

In short, you can't use a pseudonym or make any attempt to be anonymous or your account can be banned. The reasons are obvious - 1) Anonymous posts lead people to post like assholes, as it becomes cathartic venting rather than honest opinion, 2) trolling goes away if your friends, family, and coworkers will read it and know it was you, and 3) connecting with people on a social platform works better if you see them as real people with real lives and real interests/expertise.

Okay. Well. Ummmm. That's fine and all, but it's not how the Internet has worked since the early 70s. I've met many many bloggers and fellow forum posters, in real let-me-buy-you-a-beer life, where I have no idea what their real name is. We have broken bread. We have physically embraced. And even if they told me their real name I quickly forgot it. The fact is, after you spend years (going on decades in many cases) writing and sharing under a psuedonym and making a serious effort to prevent the entire Internet from having your real name, you *are* that pseudonym identity. I visit MetaFilter a lot, and I go to meet-ups. People at those real life meet-ups do not put their real name on the nametags, because that would be silly and counterproductive.

Also, a substantial percentage of the population has a very very good reason to want to communicate and share on the Internet without creepy people and bosses/coworkers being able to find them just by typing their real name into Google. And I suspect a substantial percentage of Americans will be 110% turned off by a service where random assholes will have access to both their real identities *and* their network of friends and family. To put it bluntly, the way Google is setting this up is potentially and legitimately dangerous, frightening, and unacceptable for many many people.

I understand what Google is trying to do. And their motives seem completely legitimate. And I really like Google+. But so far I see a huge problem with the names policy if they expect this to be a social platform everyone can participate in. It's creepy. Full stop.

I hate to just whine without offering my opinion about solutions. So here is my possible solution - Let people use a pseudonym as part of their profile. They can then opt to have their real name displayed using the same options they can opt to have their email, phone and address displayed. So, for example, friends and family circles will see the real name, people in other circles or the public will see the nickname or pseudonym. That has worked for most (all?) of the history of the Internet, I see no reason why it wouldn't work now.

And I know this causes other problems in terms of processes and functionality. Like how do old friends find you without searching for your real name? But Google has smart people, so I've heard, they'll find a solution if they want to.

The idea that strangers and creeps knowing your real name is best is a Facebook idea. And it's slightly insane. The world doesn't work that way. And of course..... We're leaving Facebook to come here for a reason. Right? I see Google fixing many of the obvious Facebook problems with Google+. It would be nice to see them fix this one as well.

Time to get serious about Google+ circles

One of the best things about Google+ is the ability to give different people different access to your posts. But you might want to plan now so you don't have to reorganize everything after you have a mass of people in the default circles. So I'm mapping out a few ideas. Here is the plan so far.

0.0 Me only
0.1 Household
1.0 Immediate family
1.1 Extended family
1.2 "Like family"
1.3 Family....... /facepalm.
2.0 Very close friends
2.01 Friends with benefits
2.02 Friends who will help bury a body.
2.1 Just friends
2.2 Not really friends, but don't let them know I said that.
2.3 Not friends. At all. But there, you're in a circle. Have fun with that.
2.4 No longer friends. But they know....... bad things.
3.0 Coworkers
3.01 Coworkers who can borrow my stapler.
3.02 Coworkers who won't blab to the boss.
3.03 Coworkers to warn before shooting up the place.
3.1 Coworkers I pretend to like.
3.2 Coworkers best lied to at all times.
3.3 Coworkers who need to be in a circle so I don't shatter some VP's delicate sense of worth.
3.4 Old coworkers, fondly remembered.
3.41 Old Coworkers I was happy to have lost touch with. Was...
4.0 People who should likely be hidden from everyone else.
5.0 Friends on the Internet.
5.1 Strangers on the Internet.
5.2 People on the Internet to keep a suspicious/worried eye on.
6.0 Internet folk to follow because they're interesting.
6.1 Internet folk to follow to look cool and savvy.
7.0 Networking contacts: employment
7.1 Networking contacts: hobbies
7.2 Networking contacts: drugs, bombs, hookers, etc.
8.0 Warcraft guild members who found me despite all efforts.
8.1 SCA, D&D, ComiCon, freak contacts.
9.0 Hobbies: Photography
9.1 Hobbies: Cooking
9.2 Hobbies: Technology
9.3 Hobbies: Porn
10.0 Childhood friends
10.1 High school friends
10.2 College friends
10.3 Drinking buddies
10.4 People I met in the checkout line.
11.0 Tacos.

Let's kick the tires......

How does it handle photos?

How about links?

MetaFilter, Jon at Google+

Text formatting?

In short, you can't use a pseudonym or make any attempt to be anonymous or your account can be banned. The reasons are obvious - 1) Anonymous posts lead people to post like assholes, as it becomes cathartic venting rather than honest opinion, 2) trolling goes away if your friends, family, and coworkers will read it and know it was you, and 3) connecting with people on a social platform works better if you see them as real people with real lives and real interests/expertise.

Okay. Well. Ummmm. That's fine and all, but it's not how the Internet has worked since the early 70s. I've met many many bloggers and fellow forum posters, in real let-me-buy-you-a-beer life, where I have no idea what their real name is.

Here a blog, there a blog....

Since I suspect Google will eventually do something to integrate Blogger into Google+ to give it added functionality as a blog platform, maybe I should get up to speed on Blogger. Let's see what happens if I click...... this.