Foursquare: Come for the Games, Stay for the Memories

Today is Foursquare Day, which seemed to be a good time to take a look at how Foursquare has changed recently, and how that's affected my use of it.

Recently, Foursquare has explained that the "game" aspect of the service had been too prominent, and what they really wanted to emphasize was "search" -- helping users discover interesting places to go.

Given that I originally got interested in Foursquare as a game, this is not a good development. Particularly since it has never been a great game. The points system has never been that interesting. The mayorships, while interesting, are too open to cheating. The badges have probably been my favorite part of the game. Now that the mayorships and badges no longer post to Twitter and Foursquare, even that is less exciting -- bragging about "accomplishments" has always been part of the appeal. The only people who will see that I got the "Zoetrope" badge are those who happen to look on Foursquare.

And there are fewer of those friends. I have 12 friends on Foursquare. Two have never checked in. Three last checked in during 2010. Of the remaining seven, only three have checked in this year.

I use the "Explore" feature some -- mainly because I hope they have slightly better data on what places people actually go to than something like Google Maps does. I don't know that it's compelling enough for me to continue checking in, particularly since I can "Explore" without doing so. (I don't think the data about where I have checked in will be all that useful for making recommendations.)

So why do I still check in every day? Well, as I previously described, I am very much interesting in collecting data that I can use to jog my memory and answer the question of what I was doing on a particular date. I still use Timehop to discover what I was doing a year ago today (and I still wish it told me what I was doing two and three years ago.)

This came together in an amazing way just over a week ago. I was reminded of a year-ago series of checkins including a toy store and a JC Penney. That brought back memories of foam swords we had bought the boys, pushing the stroller around JC Penney in a desperate attempt to calm them down, and discovering that one of the two swords had gone missing. (The toy store had sold out of them by the time we went back and said they weren't getting any back in stock.) Since we can't have just one of any toy if we expect to keep the peace (and since I found it too depressing just to throw it away), the sword lived in my car for a year.

I reflected on that to start the day, then Christina and I had our first real date of the year -- the kind of day that I'll really enjoy looking back upon in 2014. Since the babysitter was engaged for a fixed period of time, we had half an hour to kill at the end of the date. Of all places, we ended up in Walgreen's. We walked in, and there was a display with the exact type of sword that had gone missing a year ago. Weird.

Anyway, my quest for "gamification" of daily life has moved beyond Foursquare -- mostly to Untappd, a beer check-in service. But I'm still enjoying Foursquare, almost entirely as a way of capturing the aspect of my history, "Where was I on such-and-such a date?"

Bowie Restaurant Project: (65) Chili's

For an explanation of the Bowie Restaurant Project, look here.


For a list of all the Bowie Restaurant Project reviews, look here.

Chili's, 16401 Heritage Blvd.
Most Recent Foursquare Check-in: 4/4/2013
Total Foursquare Check-ins: 1
Pre-Foursquare Visits: No
Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

It's a Chili's. Right? We're at Chili's, aren't we, not Applebee's or Ruby Tuesday's or whatever? Nope, definitely a Chili's.

One reason that I know that I've been to a Chili's before -- and can thus dispense with a second visit, according to my review rules -- is that I know there is one in the hotel that the Euroquest gaming convention used to be held in. One time, on a break from gaming, Martin and I were approached by the waitress who asked if we were familiar with their menu. Martin assured her that he came there all the time. After she left, I expressed surprise at this response and he said something like, "I don't know that I've ever been to Chili's in my life; I just didn't want to hear whatever she wanted to tell us."

Although the service this time was not particular enthusiastic, I saw more instances of where Chili's was more interested in a relationship with me than vice versa. For example, signs and notes on the menu reminded me to download their app, where, among other things, I could request songs on the jukebox without actually getting up and walking over there.

A bad cell phone picture of the "Ziosk"

The one thing of some mild interest was the "Ziosk", a console that took up a large percentage of the real estate on our surprisingly small table. Most of its offerings were duds -- advertisements for specials, or offers to pay $1.99 to play games I could probably find on my phone for free. There was a chance to re-order drinks. When our waitress had disappeared for a while (as I said, the service was not the best), I tried to use it to summon water, but was told we had not ordered drinks. I assume it only works on booze.

The Ziosk did shine in one area. It lets you pay your bill, which may have helped us recover some of the ten minutes we waited for someone to show up and seat us at the beginning of the meal. In particular, we were able to split the check and each pay via credit card. It's always very annoying to split a small check between two or more people -- and I probably would not have done so via credit card if not for the Ziosk. And I was able to get the receipt via e-mail, so there's that.

What about the food. It was adequate. I got the chili, which was comparable to Wendy's, and the fajitas, which were fine. My colleague got the "Southwestern Mac 'n' Cheese with Grilled Chicken," which was also fine. Both it and the fajitas were presented on a little skillet, which was reasonable.

So it ends up with the ever popular 2.5-star rating (awarded in 7 of my most recent 11 reviews). It might sink to 2 stars without the Ziosk, which solves the hypothetical-yet-plausible scenario of, "I'm going out to lunch with a bunch of people and it's going to be a pain to split the check."

Movie Review: Looper

Looking back, I used to review a lot of movies on this blog. At least six in 2000, four in 2001... But it looks like the last review I published was in 2005 for Kung Fu Hustle, a movie I didn't even remember seeing. Well, there's a reason I write reviews, so I'll be able to remind myself of things I don't remember seeing.

Anyway, I decided I wanted to vote on the Hugos for the Best Novel category, but that also makes me eligible to vote for all the other categories, and I feel like I should make some effort in at least some of those categories. So the nomination of Looper motivated me to look for the copy we've had from Netflix for over a month. After Christina found it, we watched it last night.

My verdict: not bad, but not something I want to give an award to. One weakness was that things happened in the movie that seemed solely done for plot convenience. I mean, time travel is always a little bit ridiculous, but even after being invented and then outlawed, its main use is disposing of people the mob wants killed? Really? And why does "Old Joe" fight so much better than "Young Joe"? It's because Bruce Willis was in Die Hard and Joseph Gordon-Levitt was in 3rd Rock from the Sun, isn't it?

The characters, while not really ones I could relate to, do experience some interesting moral dilemmas. The implications of time-travel paradoxes are somewhat interesting, but nothing really mind-blowing like a good time-travel story. I mean, really, this movie didn't hold a candle to The Time Traveler's Wife.

I think I liked it better than The Avengers, the only other of this year's nominees I've seen. On the other hand, I watched that movie in a very distracted fashion, and it's gotten so many good reviews, maybe I will try to catch it again when it is available on Netflix streaming. But the "No Award" option on the ballot is starting to look good.

The Hugo Nominees

The Hugo nominees have been announced!

First of all, nothing that I nominated made the finalists. (Although I nominated Game of Thrones in long-form dramatic presentation, and an episode made it through in short-form.) Oh, well.

The category that I am most interested in, Best Novel, had a two-novel overlap with the Nebula nominees: 2312 and Throne of the Crescent Moon.

So what do I read next? Well, my first thought is to pivot from the Hugos to the Nebulas, so that I can read those nominees and make up my own mind before the Nebula winner is announced in mid-May. Because the Hugo nominees are traditionally provided at no additional cost to Hugo voters, that means postponing Throne of the Crescent Moon until the "Hugo packet" becomes available. I am a little bit sad about that, since I picked that book as the Nebula nominee I'd most like to read. Among other things, Saladin Ahmed, the author, is a Michigan alumnus and father of twins -- like me. Also, he is an Arab-American who has written poetry -- like my wife. So I guess I should mostly be glad he got the nomination, but I am looking forward to reading this. (Also, his Twitter avatar is the Rakshasa from the original Monster Manual.)

That leaves Ironskin, The Killing Moon, The Drowning Girl and Glamour in Glass as the other four Nebula nominees. From an Amazon review of Ironskin: "this book is a fey/steampunk retelling of Jane Eyre." My heart sinks every time I see that, so I will probably move that low on the priority list. The Killing Moon looks like a fantasy novel with some war, magic and mysticism. It's promising. The Drowning Girl is described in an Amazon review as "a haunting, dreamlike novel awash in mermaids, werewolves, fairy tales, art and schizophrenia." I would color myself somewhat suspicious, so let's put that in between the other two on the priority list. Finally, Glamour in Glass is the second novel in a series that seems to be described as Jane Austen with magic. I prefer something done as a tribute to a particular author rather than a retelling of a particular story, and I like magic better than "fey/steampunk", so it definitely goes above Ironskin,
and probably The Drowning Girl.

The only problem with Glamour in Glass is that I have a rule not to read series out of sequence. This rule dates back to my childhood days reading The Hardy Boys novels, so it is completely ridiculous, but so ingrained that I find it impossible to break. The previous book in the series is Shades of Milk and Honey, a 2010 Nebula nominee. It was not one of the three nominees I managed to read that year, but I find that somewhat encouraging. Still, I am developing a long list of books to read in the first part of the year (see below).

Assuming I get those four (well, five, with Shades) books read before the Hugo packet comes out, what next? Well, here's where my book series rule (I should develop a catchy name for it) comes into play. One of the Hugo nominees is Blackout, the third book in a zombie trilogy. I don't really like zombie books or movies, but I should give this one a shot, which adds the first two books in the series.

Another nominee is Captain Vorpatril's Alliance, the latest entry in the Vorkosigan Saga. Let's look at how many entries there are...twenty-two? (Spit take.) Well, it's not as bad as all that. The list contains two short stories and four novellas. I don't feel compelled to track those down, and even if I did, they're shorter. So that's...fifteen prequels. But wait! I actually read Falling Free, the first novel (according to the saga's internal chronology) and a previous Nebula winner. It's not tightly related to the rest of the saga, so I could have probably justified skipping it, but now I don't have to. Fourteen! And one novel takes place after Captain Vorpatril's Alliance (the author suggests reading the novels in chronological order rather than publication order), so I'm down to thirteen.

Thankfully, it gets better. Some of the books are collected in "omnibus" editions. Even if that doesn't make the combined books any shorter, 1) it cuts down on the number of books I have to buy, and 2) the original novels couldn't have been that long, if they've been combined with other novels. That gives me:

1. Cordelia's Honor
2. Young Miles
3. Miles, Mystery, and Mayhem
4. Miles Errant
5. Memory
6. Miles in Love
7. Miles, Mutants and Microbes  

After all that, seven books doesn't seem so bad, does it? The remaining Hugo nominee is Redshirts, so that goes on the list, too.

Summarizing, we have, approximately in order:

1. The Killing Moon (Nebula nominee)
2. Shades of Milk and Honey (in series with Nebula nominee)
3. Glamour in Glass (Nebula nominee)
4. The Drowning Girl (Nebula nominee)
5. Ironskin (Nebula nominee)
6. Cordelia's Honor (in series with Hugo nominee)
7. Young Miles (in series with Hugo nominee)
8. Miles, Mystery, and Mayhem (in series with Hugo nominee)
9. Miles Errant (in series with Hugo nominee)
10. Memory (in series with Hugo nominee)
11. Miles in Love (in series with Hugo nominee)
12. Miles, Mutants and Microbes (in series with Hugo nominee)
13. Feed (in series with Hugo nominee)
14. Deadline (in series with Hugo nominee)
15. Throne of the Crescent Moon (Nebula and Hugo nominee) 
16. Captain Vorpatril's Alliance (Hugo nominee) 
17. Blackout (Hugo nominee)
18. Redshirts (Hugo nominee)  

So, let's see, 18 books in four months (some of them containing multiple novels), for someone who has been struggling to average two books a month. Let me consider this list an unrealistic goal rather than a "to-do list". Also, time to start reading The Killing Moon! Updates to follow...

Book Review: Seraphina

Seraphina by Rachel Hartman

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


First of all, I first saw this book on Locus' 2012 Recommended Reading List, where I first heard of The Last Policeman, so that makes me think that list is a pretty good resource. (Then again, I also got the idea to read Angelmaker there, and I abandoned it a few pages in, so it's not a perfect list.)

Anyway, Seraphina is a the story of a sixteen-year-old court musician who is a half-dragon. Dragons can take human form, which leads to much suspicion, but almost nobody believes that half-dragons are possible, so Seraphina has to hide her true nature. The book takes place in the aftermath of the murder of a prince and on the eve of the 40th-anniversary celebrations of a peace treaty between humans and dragons.

It's a "young adult" book, but after much thought, I've decided that the idea of "young adult" as a classification is misguided. I understand that certain books like Have Space Suit—Will Travel are particularly attractive to a teenage reader, and that maybe you'll be able to relate better to Seraphina if you're a teenage girl (even more if you're half-dragon!). I don't think, however, that libraries or bookstores should have separate sections for "fantasy" and "young adult fantasy". I think separate sections for "this book has dragons in it" and "sorry, this book doesn't have any dragons" would make at least as much sense. I guess what I'm saying is go ahead and read this book if you're an adult, but you could recommend it to a teenager, too. If it matters, it's probably PG; then again, most teenagers would probably prefer the R-rated books.

I've seen reviews which mention that the idea of dragons taking human form is what makes the book so wonderful. I don't think the idea is new here. I'm sure I saw it in D&D 30 years ago, which means it was borrowed from some other place. The author does a great job, however, at addressing the implications of what it means to be one species in the body of another. The dragons are one part of a very richly-drawn setting that is the books strength.

The characters are also interesting. Seraphina's status as between two cultures will resonate with anyone who has struggled with feelings of not belonging -- which I believe will help the book's "young adult" plea. The plot is interesting, but not the reason this book deserves five stars.

I only regret not reading this book before the Hugo nominations closed.

A Pie of Cheese and Onion

I've been trying to put fun things on my "to do" list, along with chores. One theme that dominates this part of the list is that I want to make sure I actually enjoy my Christmas and birthday presents, rather than saying, "This looks fun," and then setting them aside with the feeling that I won't have time to use them.

One such present was A Feast of Ice and Fire: The Official Game of Thrones Companion Cookbook. It's a collection of recipes that you might find in Westeros. As far as I can tell, the methodology is to find offhand reference to some dish in the books, then use medieval sources to create a recipe, along with a possible modern variation.

The recipe I chose to make was the modern version of a cheese and onion pie (served at a wedding in King's Landing in the third book, and I suspect the fourth season of the TV show). The dough, though, was a medieval-style recipe. I think the saffron and egg yolks gave it an interesting flavor.

The filling turned out really well. I think the main change I might make would be to cut back on the amount of potato and onion -- they provide the bulk of dish, and I had to use a bigger pan than expected due to the amount of filling. Christina thought I should cut back on the cayenne pepper and consider including some meat.

The crust suffered a little bit in presentation due to my inexperience -- it has been more than 15 years since my one previous attempt to bake a pie crust. It was still tasty, but I can probably learn a few things before my next attempt.

There's a recipe for fish tarts that looks interesting. I think if I blend the medieval and modern recipes, I could end up with something a lot like a salmon & cream cheese bagel.  Maybe that'll be my next project.

PS Jack seemed to like the pie, but Salem did not.