Latest news with #OxfordDictionary
Korea Herald
2 days ago
- Business
- Korea Herald
Hanoi's street food culture gains ground with Michelin nods
HANOI, Vietnam (Viet Nam News/ANN) -- Several Hanoi street-side eateries have earned recognition from Michelin, but the question remains: is this enough to elevate the city's vibrant street food scene? Hoan Kiem bun cha, pho take the spotlight From its very first year in Vietnam, the Michelin Guide was quick to take note of bun cha (rice vermicelli with grilled pork and fresh herbs), a humble yet iconic dish from Hanoi. In 2023, two bun cha spots made it into Michelin's recommended list: Bun cha Dac Kim on Hang Manh street and bun cha Huong Lien on Le Van Huu street. That same year, other sidewalk eateries such as Ba Xuan Steamed Rolled Pancakes on Hoe Nhai street, Cham Chicken pho (rice noodle) on Quan Thanh Street, and Tien pho on Nguyen Truong To street were also spotlighted. These dishes, particularly bun cha and pho, were further recognized in the "good food at reasonable prices" category. In subsequent years, the list has grown to include pho Khoi Hoi and Pho Lam, Cham Chicken Pho on Yen Ninh Street, and Chinh Thang Pho Cuon. Other humble dishes such as the eel vermicelli from Dong Thinh and Chan Cam eateries, or the nostalgic countryside-style perch soup from Hieu Luc on Hai Ba Trung street, have also made their way into the guide. A notable trend is that most Michelin-recognized street eateries are clustered in the Old Quarter in Hoan Kiem ward and adjacent areas. Yet despite global acclaim, no banh mi (Vietnamese baguette) vendor has been featured, an absence that food experts find surprising given its international reputation and even inclusion in the Oxford Dictionary as a Vietnamese-style sandwich. In 2024, banh mi was listed among the world's best sandwiches, yet it remains absent from Michelin's radar. A foundation for growth, but more is needed There are currently no official statistics on whether Michelin recognition has caused a significant surge in patronage at these eateries. However, from a culinary tourism standpoint, this attention presents an opportunity, especially if supported by a strategic plan. For instance, multiple bun cha restaurants gaining recognition could create a ripple effect, boosting the visibility of other outstanding bun cha establishments across the capital. One approach is to develop cultural projects that spotlight Hanoi's culinary richness. The recently launched sketchbook project "Flavors of the Old Quarter" highlights many highly rated bun cha spots, such as those tucked away in Hang Quat, Bat Su, Cua Dong, and Gia Ngu streets. Author Pham Tien Long notes that seasoned locals still frequent hidden gems in Dong Xuan market or on Luong Ngoc Quyen and Nguyen Du streets, where traditional bun cha que tre, grilled pork skewers on bamboo sticks, is served. Long also pointed to a small but thoughtful gesture at Michelin-recommended Dac Kim: "Western visitors often recommend the spot to friends because it's frequently mentioned in Hanoi travel and food guides. The restaurant is considerate enough to keep forks in the chopstick holders, anticipating guests who may not be used to chopsticks." This detail highlights an important point: if bun cha alone can spark Michelin interest, other Hanoi street foods also deserve curated recognition. At the same time, upgrading services, like offering utensils for international guests, goes a long way in enhancing the overall experience. According to Dr. Nguyen Thu Thuy from the Vietnam National University, to elevate Hanoi's street food, vendors must first ensure their offerings are distinctive, something that builds a unique brand identity. Food safety, friendly and enthusiastic service, and active digital communication are also essential. Engaging customers on social platforms can help turn them into ambassadors for the business. She added that street vendors should aim to serve both dine-in and takeaway customers. Embracing technology, such as food delivery apps, not only reduces staffing needs but also helps manage operations efficiently, offering visuals, prices, and ordering options to customers. Thuy noted that food tech service providers are now readily available, and integrating these solutions could significantly improve service quality.
Forbes
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Forbes
Brain Rot, Gamification, Crowdsourcing and The Labubu Fad
PARIS, FRANCE - MARCH 08: A guest wears brown coat, white blouse, orange Hermes bag with a bag charm ... More brown Labubu monster, grey pants outside the Hermes fashion show during the Womenswear Fall/Winter 2025/2026 as part of Paris Fashion Week on March 08, 2025 in Paris, France. (Photo by) From the iPhone to the Birkin bag, marketing is replete with examples of must have accessories that spark a buying frenzy. In 2025, the fad collectible is a Labubu. Labubus are little plush monster toys, made by Chinese manufacturer Popmart, specifically marked at adults. While the Labubus may seem like yet another fad, there are important lessons about the interconnectedness of brain rot marketing, gamification and crowdsourcing that impact how we shop and live. Storytelling and Brain Rot Marketing LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM - DECEMBER 2: A man holds a phone, displaying word of ''brain rot'', as the ... More Oxford Dictionary has chosen the word, which refers to the unnecessary and entertaining use of social media, as the word of the year in London, United Kingdom on December 2, 2024. (Photo by Rasid Necati Aslim/Anadolu via Getty Images) The Oxford English Dictionary defined 'Brain rot' as the supposed deterioration of a person's mental or intellectual state, as a result of overconsumption of material (now particularly online content) considered to be trivial or unchallenging. Generative AI tools make it easy to create content such as memes that are designed to go viral. Labubu with its limited time drops and blind boxes taps into the phenomenon of brain rot marketing, especially by appealing to the elements of surprise and scarcity. The popularity of such brainrot content has sparked concerns from marketers about AI generated slop drowning out legitimate marketing campaigns and even leading to a brand safety crisis. But as the Labubu craze shows, companies can tap into the power of storytelling and cultivating an authentic brand identity. Labubus are sold in a blind box, so consumers don't know what they get till they open the box. With celebrities and pop culture icons showcasing their Labubu collections on social media, Labubu has become a cult toy especially with Gen Z. PopMart has very few retail locations in the US and toys are sold out very quickly online. Fans obsessively track PopMart's limited time 'drops' or online releases as well as PopMart's livestreams on TikTok. Consumers are also relying on social media platforms such as Reddit to get advice on where to buy Labubus and be a part of the community. Each Labubu is part of a collection, so it is naturally limited or unique. This gives consumers a sense of connection when they open one. Critical to Labubu's appeal is that the product itself is viral. The unboxing format is designed for TikTok's algorithm, i.e., to maximize engagement. Short, suspenseful videos with clear emotional payoffs (surprise, disappointment, excitement) are known to generate higher engagement rates. There are thousands of TikTok videos that mention Labubus, with users showing off their collections, unboxing experiences, and styling their Labubus as fashion accessories. Since each toy is a collectible, each unboxing experience is designed to go viral. This is an important lesson to leaders that engineering virality as part of product design may be more effective in peer-to-peer promotion than making a product first and coming up with a marketing strategy later approach. Gamification PopMart has gamified the shopping experience – creating the anticipation, building a community of loyal users and encouraging repeat purchases – but the manner in which they do so offers lessons for leaders. The blind box marketing creates a lottery-like experience where buyers don't know which variant of the Labubu they are likely to receive. The psychological principle - variable ratio reinforcement –is similar to the reward reinforcement mechanism underlying slot machines. The toys are released in series with multiple variants, colors, and limited editions. Consumers can feel compelled to buy more Labubus to complete a collection. PopMart seems to have grasped the intersection between gamification and virality. The blind box model transforms shopping into gambling, but more importantly, it makes the purchase itself into shareable content. Every unboxing becomes potential viral material, turning customers into unpaid marketing agents. The randomness means there's always a chance of hitting the jackpot variant that generates massive views. The important lesson for leaders is to understand the virtuous cycle of engagement and how to create multiple levels of engagement. Some consumers are casual buyers, while others are dedicated to the brand. The Labubu blind box and gamified experience creates separate categories of dedicated collectors, traders, and community members who help others in their quest to find a Labubu. This in turn transforms individual shopping into collaborative experiences. Marketers and leaders have long grappled with how to encourage community participation, leaderboards that foster friendly competition, and exclusive access levels that members can unlock together. PopMart is a great example of a positive feedback loop where increased customer interaction leads to strengthening community participation. The layering of engagement types is also a pointer to leaders that they should think beyond individual transactions and consider how their products can facilitate social connections, shared experiences, and user-generated content. Crowdsourcing SPAIN - 2022/11/29: In this photo illustration, the Reddit social media App seen displayed on a ... More smartphone. (Photo Illustration by Davide Bonaldo/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) Though these collectibles Initially acquired popularity through influencers on TikTok, the hype is also sustained by the communities of users that help each other discover where to buy Labubus. This is an important lesson to leaders about how online communities can provide emotional support and connection. Increasingly, people turn to platforms like Reddit, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, etc. for advice about almost every aspect of life. Labubu collecting has spawned online communities where people share hauls, trade items, and discuss strategies. These communities create belonging and shared identity around the collecting activity, making it more engaging than solitary consumption. The rarity system also enables a robust trading ecosystem. Collectors engage in complex exchanges, negotiations, and marketplace activities that feel game-like. Hunting for deals or trading duplicates adds strategic elements beyond simple purchasing. Labubu demonstrates Reddit's unique power as a platform for creating sustained communities of users. On the Reddit community r/Labubu — which has 92,000 members — fans not only share photos of their collections, but they also trade tips and tricks about how to snag the elusive dolls for themselves. Three Lessons for Leaders Labubu's success in leveraging brainrot marketing, crowdsourcing and gamification offers three lessons for leaders:
NDTV
13-07-2025
- Entertainment
- NDTV
Is Your Hobby Worth Anything? No? Find Something Else
'My hobbies are reading, watching movies, and playing with my dogs,' I wrote proudly in my friend's purple and pink butterfly-themed slambook in sixth grade. No one, as far as I can remember, questioned the value of my habits at the time. But if I do the same now, there will be a barrage of questions: which directors do I enjoy for their transcendental cinema? Which authors do I admire for their portrayals of the travesty that is the disease called humanity? Are the dogs of non-breeder origin adding to the collective moral value of the dogverse? When did hobbies become an intellectual contest among peers? Why can humans, bred and raised on social media, not simply enjoy and be and, as my good friend says, 'pluck grass in a green field with not a thought to spare'? Intellectual Jostling Like everything else we find wrong with society at large, let's blame this on social media. Lately, I have witnessed a trend on social media where people are competing to prove how intellectual they can be with their hobbies. And hey, I am from the media - proving you are more intellectual than the next is our survival mechanism, so no disrespect there. But do my hobbies - an activity Oxford Dictionary defines as 'an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure' - have to prove I am a productive and intellectual being? My pleasure centres do not have to align with my intellectual centres, no thanks. But we are enslaved to the algorithm, and then the algorithm shows us our peers deeply engrossed in a film made exclusively for Mubi - you can never find a print of it elsewhere. And then we are scrolling these feeds on our phones with Netflix running in the background like a plebeian. And why do you have Netflix in the first place? Mubi or theatre. Anything else is a betrayal to the art called cinema and the hobbyist called 'cinephile'. The same group - the ones playing the Intellectual Olympics - look down on genre readers and watchers. 'You are reading science fiction when you could be reading the biography of Einstein? What. A. Loser.' If you watch comedy, pick a dark, thought-provoking comedy over a silly thing like Jumanji made for children. Oh yes. The ego Olympics of being more intellectual at a hobby, while definitely amplified on social media, is starkly visible in real-life tweets well. Heard of Alpha Males in the manosphere who outdo one another in being the worst? We have Alpha cinephiles and readers as well. They can recite the entire Mubi catalog and their bookshelf is filled with history, non-fiction, and only the Literary 'Greats'. While none of these things are 'wrong', they do become a tool to flex the intellectual muscles on social media about these being the superior way to perform a hobby. Yes, perform. Not enjoy. And never indulge. And you are nothing but Beta if you are caught with a Dan Brown on your bookshelf or a David Dhawan blockbuster in your 'previously watched' list. Because at the end of the day, under our current economic and social structure, productivity reigns supreme, and so our hobbies - like the radical Marxist idea - can never be 'just leisure'. Leisure is the enemy of productivity. And if you are not productive for even one hour of one day, you have failed as a functional human in a civilised society. And this is because we are taught under capitalism that no moment of our lives can be non-productive. Hence, even things that give us joy have to enhance us in some moral or intellectual design or be useful in a way where we can brag to our friends and social media followers. Funny how the same people don't find doomscrolling unproductive to the extent they chastise someone watching a David Dhawan film. Monetisation On, Relaxation Off A big selling point of having a hobby in the first place is to relax, to get a respite from the gruelling world, to engage parts of the brain elsewise suppressed in the productive juices of 'hustle' and 'grind'. But the grind must continue, as all the 'finfluencers' and life coaches will tell you. So, on the polar opposite end of leisure and in line with making hobbies productive, you are left with no option but to monetise your hobbies. There are many resources online that help you upskill your hobby. While this can be a great thing, you are not doing it to be better at a thing you enjoy for leisure, but to monetise it and use social media to make meaning out of the hobby. Meaning, value, or purpose are now supposed to be an integral part of your hobbies. Reading a book because it's a great thriller? And you enjoy it? But what did you gain from those hours indulging in this frivolous book when you could have gained a right to be intellectually superior to your peers at dinner parties? More importantly, why paint a subpar image of your dog when you can upskill on Skillshare and then sell that art on Instagram? After all, if there is no monetary benefit to a hobby you inculcated in you for leisure, why even indulge? So be productive and monetise. Or be productive by becoming intellectually superior to your peers. Burn those vampire fictions and unsubscribe to Netflix.
Daily Maverick
09-07-2025
- General
- Daily Maverick
Thumbs up: good or passive aggressive? How emojis became the most confusing kind of online language
Do you love using the laughing-crying emoji? If so, you're probably a Millennial. Emojis, as well as memes and other forms of short-form content, have become central to how we express ourselves and connect online. Yet as meanings shift across different contexts, so too does the potential for misunderstanding. A senior colleague of mine recently encountered some commentary about the 'slightly smiling' face emoji: 🙂 They approached me, asking whether it represented joy, as they had assumed, or if it had a more ominous meaning. As a chronically-online millennial, who unironically identifies as a gen Z, I bore the news that I, along with most younger internet users, only ever use it sarcastically. 'It doesn't actually signify happiness – more so fake happiness, or dry humour,' I explained. I also told them how the thumbs up emoji is often interpreted as passive aggressive, and that the only time I'd use the laughing-crying ('face with tears of joy') emoji is under duress. Despite seeming like a universal language – and sometimes they do function that way – emojis can be at once more vague, and more specific, than words. That's because you can't separate the meaning of a smiley from the person who sent it, nor from the person receiving it. Markers of age and identity While emojis were originally developed in the late 1990s by Japanese artist Shigetaka Kurita to add emotional nuance to text-based messaging, their function has since evolved. Today, emojis are not just emotional cues; they also operate as cultural symbols and markers of identity. Research published last year highlights how these symbols can create subtle communication barriers across age groups. For instance, a study of Chinese-speaking WeChat users found younger and older people differed not only in how frequently they used emojis, but in how they interpreted and aesthetically preferred them. One emoji that's increasingly becoming a distinct marker of age is the previously mentioned laughing-crying emoji (😂). Despite being named Oxford Dictionary's 2015 word of the year, and frequently topping the most-used emoji charts, this smiley is on the decline among gen Z – who decided in 2020 that it wasn't cool anymore. Instead, they prefer the skull emoji (💀), which is shorthand for the gen Z catch phrase 'I'm dead'. This means something is funny (not that they're literally deceased). @bruhbruhski Like who was the first person to used this as a laughing emoji #emoji #imdead #bruh #texting #relatable #vibe ♬ This Must Be the Place (Naive Melody) [2005 Remaster] – Talking Heads Such shifts may understandably be perplexing for older generations who are unfamiliar with evolving norms and slang. A digital body language Emojis can also take on distinct meanings on different platforms. They are embedded within ' platform vernaculars ': the ever-evolving styles of communication that are unique to specific digital spaces. For example, a thumbs up emoji (👍) from your boss at work is seemingly more acceptable, and less anxiety inducing, than from a romantic interest you've just sent a risky text to. This dilemma was echoed in a recent viral TikTok by user @kaitlynghull, which prompted thousands to comment about their shared confusion over emoji use in the workplace. This reaction highlights a deeper communication issue. A survey of 10,000 workers across the US, France, Germany, India and Australia, conducted by YouGov and software company Atlassian, found 65% of workers used emojis to convey tone in the workplace. But while 88% of gen Z workers thought emojis were helpful, this dropped to 49% for baby boomers and gen X. The survey concluded some emojis can be interpreted in multiple ways, and these double meanings aren't always safe for work. In with the 'it' crowd Another example of platform-specific emoji use comes from social media content creators who deploy emojis to curate a certain aesthetic. Under the Tiktok tag #emojicombo, you'll find thousands of videos showcasing emoji combinations that provide aesthetic 'inspo'. These combinations are used to represent different online identities or subcultures, such as 'that girl', ' clean girl' or 'old money '. Users may include the combinations in their captions or videos to signal their personal style, or to express the mood or vibe of their online persona. In this way, the emojis help shape how they present themselves on the platform. This example of emoji use is also a display of symbolic capital. It signals social alignment, in an environment where a user's visibility (and popularity) is determined by their platform fluency. Emojis, then, aren't just tools for expression. They are badges of identity that index where a user stands in the online cultural hierarchy. There's a fragmentation in how we relate A single emoji might communicate irony, sincerity or sarcasm, depending on who is using it, what platform they're using it on, and what generation they belong to. This gap points to deeper questions around online access and participation, and the systems that shape online cultures. And when the meaning of an emoji is platform-dependent and socially stratified, it can become as much about fitting in with a cultural in-group than conveying emotion. DM
Newsroom
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: A flawed bill
Comment: As many commentators have noted, the Regulatory Standards Bill is based on a libertarian ideology. According to the Oxford Dictionary, an ideology is a framework for understanding the world. In this case, it's all about individuals – their rights and freedoms. The Regulatory Standards Bill sets out its fundamental precepts in the form of 'principles of responsible regulation'. These prescribe that good legislation should not unduly diminish individual liberty, security, freedom of choice or property rights, except where this is necessary to protect the liberty, freedom or rights of another. In this view of the world, there are persons with rights and property, whose liberty must be protected unless it impinges on those of another person. Here, human life is about individuals pursuing their rights and freedoms, without undue interference from others. There are three key problems with this framing. First, it is partial, and mistaken; second, it's non-adaptive; and third, it does not meet its own standards. Basing all lawmaking in New Zealand on so faulty a framework is bound to lead to trouble. To address the first point: the Regulatory Standards Bill emphasises individuals and their rights and freedoms at the expense of collective rights and values. This demonstrates a radical misunderstanding of human life. Though individuals are important, human beings are incorrigibly social animals. Partly, this is a matter of biology. Babies have a mother and father (or at least, they did until technology intervened); and when they're born, they have a long period of vulnerability during which they have to be cared for and taught various skills if they are to survive. Kinship, with families and kin groups, meets this need. With the emergence of language, human beings coordinated their activities in increasingly complex ways, building settlements for shelter and security, sharing experience and knowledge in fishing, hunting, gardening, trading and developing new technologies. The ability to co-operate is a key adaptive advantage of the human species. Pleasure came from other social activities – singing, art to share with others, games, sports and so on. Knowledge was passed on down the generations. As the size of human settlements grew, ways of regulating social life became more elaborate – laws, courts, the police and Parliament itself, for instance. The whole process of making laws – including the Regulatory Standards Bill – is a social activity. Nor is it just about relations with other people. The relational networks between human beings and other life forms and the wider environment are also far-reaching and vital to human survival. Whakapapa, for instance, along with western relational philosophies, is grounded on these realities. It is not just Te Tiriti that's at risk in this bill, but te ao māori itself, with its whakapapa framings that include all forms of life, and its kin-based hapū and marae. None of this is recognised in the Regulatory Standards Bill, bar a hollowed out account of 'the rule of law'. Though individuals matter in human life, relational frameworks are vital to survival, at different scales and with other life forms, landscapes and seascapes, as well as with other people. Any framing of the world that does not recognise these basic facts is partial, and mistaken. To address the second point, a framework that ignores the foundational importance of collective institutions, property and values in human life is non-adaptive. If people are taught to prize their individual freedom and property above all – for instance, the cost-benefit calculating individual of neoliberal economics – the bonds that bind families, communities and societies begin to fray. If the collective rights and values that underpin the social contract, including justice, truth, fairness and respect for others, are undermined, injustice, misinformation and disrespect are likely to follow – as we have seen in the tactics used to promote this bill. If economic models based on the pursuit of self-interest are privileged in law making, ideas of public service begin to fade. Families and voluntary organisations falter; and institutions created to care for others – early childhood centres, schools, hospitals, retirement villages and the like – become dedicated to the pursuit of profit. At the same time, knowledge about relationships with other people and the wider world is set aside. It is no accident that the coalition Government that agreed to pass the Regulatory Standards Bill has withdrawn funding for basic research in the humanities and the social sciences. Policy-making becomes based on ministerial 'reckons' rather than evidence. The disciplines of law, public policy, political studies, public health and nursing, philosophy, the arts and literature, history, urban design, environmental studies, architecture, human geography, sociology and anthropology are defunded, as if understanding human life does not matter. And if relationships with other life forms and the environment are ignored, these also become dysfunctional, with the mass extinctions of other life forms, polluted lakes and rivers, ravaged landscapes, melting glaciers, heating oceans and climate change. None of this contributes to social cohesion or prosperity. A bill that fails to recognise the key challenges facing the human species, and frustrates the strategic deployment of different forms of social co-operation in the public interest is dangerous and non-adaptive. Since the neoliberal revolution of the 1980s, New Zealand has already gone a long way down this track. If we want a peaceful and productive society, a bill that tips the balance even further towards the privatisation of social life and the living world around us is unlikely to prove constructive. On the third, and final, point, the bill fails to meet its own standards. Although the Regulatory Standards Bill requires that individual freedom and choice are given priority in law-making, there are many aspects of compulsion and top-down control in the provisions of this bill. These include the roles of the minister of regulation and his hand-picked board, and the requirement to review all laws and regulations, past and present, against a particular ideological framing. Ultimately, as Peter Thiel has written, a libertarian version of 'freedom' and democracy are incompatible. Taken to the extreme, the unfettered pursuit of freedom by individuals undermines democracy and the rule of law, and the rights of others. Some may want to take New Zealand in this direction. Judging from public reactions to the Regulatory Standards Bill, however, many New Zealanders have grasped where this bill would take law-making in this country, and do not want a bar of it. Of the citizens who voted in the last election, only 8.6 percent of New Zealanders voted for Act, with its Regulatory Standards Bill. Of 23,000 submitters on the bill at the consultation phase, only .33 percent supported it. Of a reported 150,000 submissions to the select committee, a large majority oppose it. This bill lacks even a fig-leaf of popular consent. If it is forced on the country, that flies in the face of the first principle in this bill – that no government should pass legislation that unduly restricts the freedom of choice of individuals. This bill speaks of freedom, but practices ideological imposition. It is self-contradictory, unbalanced and non-adaptive. This subcommittee should do their Parliamentary duty, listen to the people, and discard it.
