That format is great for relatively simple recipes, but there are a number of things I make regularly that could not fit into that format without making everything clear as mud.
So, I think its utility is a bit context-dependent.
Another pet peeve (which this doesn't solve): Recipes that include "marinate overnight" or some such in the middle (which can be easy to miss), instead of telling you up front that you have to start the day before.
I messed up a recent DIY construction project because I didn’t read it all the way to the end first. My chef wife comes in with “you always read the recipe to the end before starting”…
You're supposed to read through the recipe before you start. Also, most modern recipe books and websites put prep/cook/total times at the very top, so if you have to marinate overnight it'll say "total: 13h" or something like that.
> Steps that don't repeat the quantities, making me scroll back and forth between the step and the quantity list.
Julia Child's cookbook has the recipe in two columns, one for ingredients and the other for directions. As soon as I saw it I wondered why every cookbook doesn't do something similar.
Julia Child would also be in favor of doing mise en place--measuring out your ingredients before you start doing anything.
Personally, and I say this as someone who has been trained to do recipe editing, I find this tabular system to be not entirely clear. Consider the first example--the instruction to mix is applied to several ingredients at least twice. The instruction to 'fold in' seems to apply to all the ingredients at once, which makes no sense. Normally, you'd mix the dry ingredients together first. Also, in this case, you'd probably want to whisk the eggs and sugar together first so the sugar starts to dissolve. It also doesn't give you a clue as to what 'done' means.
Have always loved cookingforengineers. We should really just be linking to it directly instead of whatever this “having to scroll through a life story f other people’s tweets” spam is.
TFA is mostly just a bunch of twitter screenshots. From people on social media who forgot that the rest of the web still exists. (Original site: https://www.cookingforengineers.com)
Also, clickbait headline: There is no dissent presented anywhere on the page that this recipe format is pretty great. It did not divide the internet even a little.
Is there something like an abacus but for cooking? A simple device to keep track of the different tasks for a dish that can be used in the kitchen while cooking? I’m guessing there are apps
Did you look at the original? I assumed it was censoring "killer" which also meshes with my perception that "trigger words" get censored in certain social media circles now.
Most of this is self-censorship by people who believe they are being oppressed by all-powerful dark forces, whose malevolent schemes can nevertheless be foiled by simple character substitutions.
My favorite example of this is people self-censoring “shooter” as “sh**ter”, which I can’t help myself from always parsing as “shitter”.
“The shitter in Virginia has been apprehended”, etc.
I assume it's just people mimicking/cargo culting content creators, who are indeed being oppressed by the dark forces of the algorithm and the de-mometizer.
> Most of this is self-censorship by people who believe they are being oppressed by all-powerful dark forces,
What a ridiculous take. Many platforms and games actually prevent you from posting certain words, or flag or otherwise penalize posts if you include them. In some cases, this is completely explicit, i.e. you'll get a message saying "cant' post that."
Instead of playing a guessing game of which platform censors what, it's common just to avoid such words by censoring, euphemisms, or synonyms.
ok, so i misread the censored word. Maybe i'm old; the concept of "trigger words" doesn't seem to be solved by making it harder to communicate in my opinion.
It not /all/ about triggers it's partially driven by the algorithms on some social sites like TikTok or Youtube where there's some evidence and a lot of speculation that mentioning or including certain words can cause the recommendation algorithm to suppress your videos etc. That leads to a lot of homophones etc popping up like "sewer slide" or odder non mentions like unalive popping up. Because the really big channels care about maximizing reach for monetization reasons it shows up strongly in peoples feeds which drives wide adoption.
There'd be a lag between a new algospeak abomination popping up and it getting added to the filters at least but yeah I think it's probably largely ineffective now. Probably even less so if they're using LLMs to screen for potential new substitutions but the practice already gained popularity so even if it's ineffective now it'll persist until it's supplanted or becomes outdated. It's like the persistence of some SEO optimization techniques even after Google et al adjusted the algorithm to account for them.
Definitely agree. I don't understand how "thinking harder" about what the word MIGHT be solves any problem. I might just be part of this older generation who is hard trained on reading and not skimming, I don't know. I've never found anyone who appreciates this sort of censorship to ask them to help me understand.
Nobody appreciates it. It's in the Nash Gap -- the difference between the true optimum and the reality that emerges from each involved party optimizing for their incentives.
People: complain to politicians when egregious content starts trending
Politicians: bug Platform to do something about the egregious content
Platform: quickest fix for egregious content is dumb pattern matching
Content Producers: avoid becoming a false positive by using dumb substitutions to dodge the dumb pattern matching
The most direct fix would be the platform getting smarter about censorship, but this would not be without its own tradeoffs.
> even though the system had existed the whole time.
But it didn't. Isn't that the point of someone inventing it? If the system existed the whole time then it would most likely be much more realized.
Also people don't use this system because 99% of people don't right things down in tables. I know not many people hand write things anymore but even typing up ingredient lists on a machine I don't begin by creating a table.
Also this article format of numbered tweet responses as images is just terrible. What am I reading Buzzfeed? I had to stop reading.
Also isn't "viral" 100k or more? Not 10's of thousands? This is a clickbait article. But it brings up a bigger question: why claim that something is viral with 100,000+ views/likes/shares/responses/whatever when we know damn well Twitter is full of bots?
Um, friend of mine in her handwritten "my favorite recipes" book has used that layout for decades, using curly braces to group things. I'm doing that too since seeing her book a long time ago. I thought it's standard to do it that way.
Sorry, is there supposed to be an actual article somewhere hiding behind this giant collection of embedded whatever-the-hell-X-calls-posts quotes? Because there does not appear to be one. "Someone said X and then someone else said Y and then even more folks said Z" was slop long before AI existed.
So, I think its utility is a bit context-dependent.
reply