from the world's big
Putting Dishes to the Test
Frank Bruni was named restaurant critic for The New York Times in April 2004. He stepped down in August 2009 to become a writer with the Times' Sunday magazine and to promote his book Born Round: The History of a Full-Time Eater.
Before that, Mr. Bruni had been the Rome bureau chief from July 2002 until March 2004, a post he took after working as a reporter in the Washington D.C. bureau from December 1998 until May 2002. While in Washington, he was among the journalists assigned to Capitol Hill and Congress until August 1999, when he was assigned full-time to cover the presidential campaign of Gov. George W. Bush. He then covered the White House for the first eight months of the Bush administration, and subsequently spent seven months as the Washington-based staff writer for The New York Times Sunday Magazine.
Mr. Bruni is the author of The New York Times bestseller about George W. Bush called "Ambling into History" (HarperCollins: hardcover, 2002; paperback, 2003). He is also the co-author of "A Gospel of Shame: Children, Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church" (Viking: hardcover, 1993; HarperPerennial: paperback, 2002).
During the summer of 1998, Mr. Bruni spent three months as a national correspondent in the San Francisco bureau.
Frank Bruni joined The New York Times as a metropolitan reporter in August 1995. For three and a half years, he worked on the metropolitan desk and also frequently wrote for the Sunday magazine, profiling a diverse group of individuals that included the actress Vanessa Redgrave, the writer David Foster Wallace and the former Massachusetts Governor William Weld. Mr. Bruni also wrote many articles for the Sunday Arts and Leisure section and other feature sections of The Times.
Prior to joining The Times, Mr. Bruni worked for The Detroit Free Press from 1990 until 1995 and held a variety of positions. During this period, he spent three months covering the Persian Gulf War and was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist in feature writing for his portrait of a convicted child molester entitled "Twisted Love." He spent his last year in Detroit as the newspaper's movie critic.
Prior to Detroit, Mr. Bruni worked as a reporter and writer for the New York Post for a year and a half.
In 1996, Mr. Bruni and three colleagues won the George Polk Award for metropolitan reporting for their coverage of the child-abuse death of Elisa Izquierdo.
Born in White Plains, N.Y., on Oct. 31, 1964, Mr. Bruni received a B.A. degree (Phi Beta Kappa) from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in 1986. He received a M.S. degree in journalism, with highest honors, from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in 1988, graduating second in his class and winning a Pulitzer Traveling Fellowship.
Question: When you review a restaurant, what are you looking for?
FRANK BRUNI: I’m not looking for any prescription or any formula. I’m looking to have a good time. I mean I think above and beyond all else, a restaurant is, in return for the money we spend, supposed to show us a good time. It’s a good time that is achieved through a combination of things beginning with food. You know we’re there to eat, and that’s why it’s a restaurant and not a movie theater or whatever. So first and foremost it has to please us and nourish us – because obviously eating has other functions as well – with its food. But I’m just basically hoping to have a good time; to pass a couple of hours in a way that feels entertaining, that feels fulfilling, and that justifies whatever expenditure of money I as a proxy for other diners is making.
Question: Are certain aspects of restaurants overrated?
FRANK BRUNI: It’s kind of an impossible question to answer because no two people look for the same things in a restaurant, you know? There are people who care not at all about décor, and would want all restaurant reviewers in every restaurant review to simply talk about food. On the flip side there are people who will not, no matter how great the food, will not go into a restaurant that they feel is ugly and that doesn’t kind of please their visual sense. When friends ask me for recommendations, I would say oddly enough more often the first question is, “I wanna go someplace pretty. Or I wanna go someplace with really good lighting.” That’s their first way of narrowing the universe. And then they want to know where among those options can they get really good food. Or they want to know where they can eat light if they ask about food. Everyone has a very particular set of prejudices or likes about restaurants, and those even change from occasion to occasion or night to night. So there is no one aspect of restaurants that one can say in an objective sense is the most important. And I think different restaurants need to be taken on different terms. If you’re assessing as a diner or as a critic a restaurant like Buddakan in the meat packing district, to not spend a lot of thought and energy as to what it looks like is to ignore the whole point of the restaurant. It is meant to be a theatrical stage set. I mean if it had existed back when they were filming “Sex and the City”, we would have certainly seen a scene there- it’s that kind of restaurant. And if someone were writing a review of that, and they began and ended with the food and never digressed to talk about the scene and the decoration, they would not be serving that restaurant or the people interested in going there well.
Any personal dislikes or likes that are peculiar to you, you’re trying to tamp down a little bit because you are there as the eyes, and ears, and most importantly taste buds of the entire city or country really because we have a lot of visitors to New York who dine out all the time. But obviously objectivity is impossible. There’s no such thing. Criticism is by its nature subjective. So hopefully over time what readers do with any one critic – be that critic a movie critic, or a book critic, or a restaurant critic, is develop some sense of where their opinions diverge or dovetail with the critics, and find a way to kind of use that critic as a barometer; not necessarily as a perfect predictor for what they’ll think of places, but as a point of reference if they’ve learned, okay, we know we never agree with him on French, but we usually agree with him on Italian. We know we don’t agree on pretty restaurants, but we agree on other things – that sort of thing.
Question: How do you believe you stack up as a reviewer?
FRANK BRUNI: I certainly don’t think I achieve the right thing in all or maybe most reviews because it’s an imperfect science and I’m just doing my best every week. But it’s my hope with each review that there’s enough description in the course of the review of a restaurant that beyond the critical elements of a review, people will be able to get enough of a sense of a place that they may even say, you know, this may be one star, but it sounds like one star that in my universe would be a very pleasing one star or two stars. Or this may be three stars to him; but when he tells me why he likes it those are things that aren’t important to me.
So I think a review should be descriptive enough within the context of criticism to give people an opportunity should they come at it that way, to disagree or figure out some things for themselves. I also think, unlike movies where hundreds of thousands of people will go to see a movie, and are reading a movie review or theater review sometimes as well, as a very specific guide do I want to see this or not – I think the number of people who cycle through a given restaurant – the fraction of readers of a review who are likely to cycle through that restaurant or even consider it. They might live outside New York. They might not have that sort of budget. They are also looking for just a vicarious eating experience. And so I think a restaurant review ideally should be a somewhat entertaining reading experience for those people who are never going to set foot in that restaurant, and aren’t beginning the review for a signal as to whether they should or not.
Question: What do you say to people who think your reviews make or break a restaurant?
FRANK BRUNI: I don’t dwell a lot on the making or the breaking because I think that would paralyze you, and you do have a job to do. Your primary obligation – both in terms of pointing them to certain places, and in terms of just entertaining and illuminating them – is to readers. That said, one of the reasons why it’s always been a tradition for the Times critic to visit a restaurant so many times before reviewing to kind of follow certain procedures in terms of working his or her way through the menu. And that’s all done with a very heavy awareness that we do have an economic impact on these restaurants. And I’m aware that there are a lot of restaurants I never write about because they are small enough restaurants that there aren’t that many people clamoring for information about them. And if I were to write about them it would be in a negative vein, and it would probably have a horrible impact on them. So there’s just no reason to visit that upon a restaurant that the readers aren’t standing around saying, “But what do you think of . . . What do you think of . . .?”
There’s gratuitous negativity, or what I would think could be gratuitous negativity that I absolutely avoid for that reason. But beyond that, at the end of the day people want to read restaurant reviews. People deserve restaurant reviews. While these reviews cut hugely in the favor of some establishments, they’re going to cut against some other establishments, and that’s just the nature of the beast. And you try to just be as responsible as you can in light of that economic impact.
Question: How do you avoid cliché?
FRANK BRUNI: Well you fall into clichés. You tumble headlong into clichés because it really is difficult not to. And that’s not a defense of that. It’s just an admission. But it’s difficult not to if you are writing about food with the kind of frequency that newspaper and magazine critics are. You use the word “succulent” a lot. You use the word “tender” when you’re not using the word “succulent”, although they’re not exact adjectives. I’m joking but not really, which it is true, and it is a liability, and a problem, and a challenge, and an obstacle and all those things that the vocabulary for taste and flavor is not an enormously broad one. So to a certain extent you just have to kind of acknowledge that and move on, and try not to reach so far for new ways to describe taste that you just land in the realm of the ridiculous, which you also end up doing nonetheless. You just do your best. You try to work with the associations that people have – the associations that you have. Sometimes you realize that lengthy descriptions just aren’t going to be able to avoid those sorts of things. And so you shorten them. You do what you can.
Question: What do you think of the democratization of food criticism, especially online?
FRANK BRUNI: In a lot of ways I think it’s a great thing because I think a restaurant consumer or a restaurant aficionado trying to get a clear bead on what they might think of a restaurant has a lot of different things that they can triangulate between now. They can get their hands on a broader array of opinions; on a longer and wider stream of information, and maybe make decisions that are all that more informed. The thing that is important for the people who read all this stuff to bear in mind is not everybody is taking as scientific an approach to restaurants. Some of what one might read on a chat room for example is someone reacting to a single visit to a restaurant as opposed to multiple visits. Some of what you read in some blogs reflects meals that were not paid for by the critic. None of which invalidates it, but it’s important to know that not every single voice out there is operating within the same parameters or in the same fashion.
Recorded on January 22, 2009
Frank Bruni recently stepped down as the New York Times’ restaurant critic. He explains the science of evaluating, the challenge of avoiding cliché, and the democratization of online food reviews.
If machines develop consciousness, or if we manage to give it to them, the human-robot dynamic will forever be different.
- Does AI—and, more specifically, conscious AI—deserve moral rights? In this thought exploration, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, ethics and tech professor Joanna Bryson, philosopher and cognitive scientist Susan Schneider, physicist Max Tegmark, philosopher Peter Singer, and bioethicist Glenn Cohen all weigh in on the question of AI rights.
- Given the grave tragedy of slavery throughout human history, philosophers and technologists must answer this question ahead of technological development to avoid humanity creating a slave class of conscious beings.
- One potential safeguard against that? Regulation. Once we define the context in which AI requires rights, the simplest solution may be to not build that thing.
Duke University researchers might have solved a half-century old problem.
- Duke University researchers created a hydrogel that appears to be as strong and flexible as human cartilage.
- The blend of three polymers provides enough flexibility and durability to mimic the knee.
- The next step is to test this hydrogel in sheep; human use can take at least three years.
Duke researchers have developed the first gel-based synthetic cartilage with the strength of the real thing. A quarter-sized disc of the material can withstand the weight of a 100-pound kettlebell without tearing or losing its shape.
Photo: Feichen Yang.<p>That's the word from a team in the Department of Chemistry and Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Duke University. Their <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adfm.202003451" target="_blank">new paper</a>, published in the journal,<em> Advanced Functional Materials</em>, details this exciting evolution of this frustrating joint.<br></p><p>Researchers have sought materials strong and versatile enough to repair a knee since at least the seventies. This new hydrogel, comprised of three polymers, might be it. When two of the polymers are stretched, a third keeps the entire structure intact. When pulled 100,000 times, the cartilage held up as well as materials used in bone implants. The team also rubbed the hydrogel against natural cartilage a million times and found it to be as wear-resistant as the real thing. </p><p>The hydrogel has the appearance of Jell-O and is comprised of 60 percent water. Co-author, Feichen Yang, <a href="https://today.duke.edu/2020/06/lab-first-cartilage-mimicking-gel-strong-enough-knees" target="_blank">says</a> this network of polymers is particularly durable: "Only this combination of all three components is both flexible and stiff and therefore strong." </p><p> As with any new material, a lot of testing must be conducted. They don't foresee this hydrogel being implanted into human bodies for at least three years. The next step is to test it out in sheep. </p><p>Still, this is an exciting step forward in the rehabilitation of one of our trickiest joints. Given the potential reward, the wait is worth it. </p><p><span></span>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
What would it be like to experience the 4th dimension?
Physicists have understood at least theoretically, that there may be higher dimensions, besides our normal three. The first clue came in 1905 when Einstein developed his theory of special relativity. Of course, by dimensions we’re talking about length, width, and height. Generally speaking, when we talk about a fourth dimension, it’s considered space-time. But here, physicists mean a spatial dimension beyond the normal three, not a parallel universe, as such dimensions are mistaken for in popular sci-fi shows.
An algorithm may allow doctors to assess PTSD candidates for early intervention after traumatic ER visits.
- 10-15% of people visiting emergency rooms eventually develop symptoms of long-lasting PTSD.
- Early treatment is available but there's been no way to tell who needs it.
- Using clinical data already being collected, machine learning can identify who's at risk.
The psychological scars a traumatic experience can leave behind may have a more profound effect on a person than the original traumatic experience. Long after an acute emergency is resolved, victims of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) continue to suffer its consequences.
In the U.S. some 30 million patients are annually treated in emergency departments (EDs) for a range of traumatic injuries. Add to that urgent admissions to the ED with the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Health experts predict that some 10 percent to 15 percent of these people will develop long-lasting PTSD within a year of the initial incident. While there are interventions that can help individuals avoid PTSD, there's been no reliable way to identify those most likely to need it.
That may now have changed. A multi-disciplinary team of researchers has developed a method for predicting who is most likely to develop PTSD after a traumatic emergency-room experience. Their study is published in the journal Nature Medicine.
70 data points and machine learning
Image source: Creators Collective/Unsplash
Study lead author Katharina Schultebraucks of Columbia University's Department Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons says:
"For many trauma patients, the ED visit is often their sole contact with the health care system. The time immediately after a traumatic injury is a critical window for identifying people at risk for PTSD and arranging appropriate follow-up treatment. The earlier we can treat those at risk, the better the likely outcomes."
The new PTSD test uses machine learning and 70 clinical data points plus a clinical stress-level assessment to develop a PTSD score for an individual that identifies their risk of acquiring the condition.
Among the 70 data points are stress hormone levels, inflammatory signals, high blood pressure, and an anxiety-level assessment. Says Schultebraucks, "We selected measures that are routinely collected in the ED and logged in the electronic medical record, plus answers to a few short questions about the psychological stress response. The idea was to create a tool that would be universally available and would add little burden to ED personnel."
Researchers used data from adult trauma survivors in Atlanta, Georgia (377 individuals) and New York City (221 individuals) to test their system.
Of this cohort, 90 percent of those predicted to be at high risk developed long-lasting PTSD symptoms within a year of the initial traumatic event — just 5 percent of people who never developed PTSD symptoms had been erroneously identified as being at risk.
On the other side of the coin, 29 percent of individuals were 'false negatives," tagged by the algorithm as not being at risk of PTSD, but then developing symptoms.
Image source: Külli Kittus/Unsplash
Schultebraucks looks forward to more testing as the researchers continue to refine their algorithm and to instill confidence in the approach among ED clinicians: "Because previous models for predicting PTSD risk have not been validated in independent samples like our model, they haven't been adopted in clinical practice." She expects that, "Testing and validation of our model in larger samples will be necessary for the algorithm to be ready-to-use in the general population."
"Currently only 7% of level-1 trauma centers routinely screen for PTSD," notes Schultebraucks. "We hope that the algorithm will provide ED clinicians with a rapid, automatic readout that they could use for discharge planning and the prevention of PTSD." She envisions the algorithm being implemented in the future as a feature of electronic medical records.
The researchers also plan to test their algorithm at predicting PTSD in people whose traumatic experiences come in the form of health events such as heart attacks and strokes, as opposed to visits to the emergency department.