his implementation does not save space which is fine because that was not his intent. to make a programming analogy, he turned spaghetti-code into structured code.
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.
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.
(former chef here) - I've been writing my personal recipes like this for 20+ years. Mostly because I can grok the steps from memory so I can skip that part (other times I just write the spec step between the curly bracers).
Not the neatest, but my 'Dad's cookbook' isn't really read by anyone except myself when asking the family what they want me to prep on the weekend for the week.
> 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.
We occasionally (maybe once a year) use a meal service for a couple of weeks, especially if it's a busy week.
The recipes sheets they provide drive me absolutely nuts working from them, to the point where I feel like I have to re-write them just to get them into a logical order. They're done entirely differently from any recipe book I've ever worked from. For example I constantly find I'm missing steps from how they're mushed together under photos, so I get later through the recipe and it talks about using something I supposedly did something with earlier and.. crap, I have to go back up through the recipe sheet trying to find what I missed the first time through. I've never experienced this with any other recipe book I've read.
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.
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 well before AI existed.
> 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.
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
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.
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.
26 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 7.6 ms ] threadhttps://www.cookingforengineers.com/
Not the neatest, but my 'Dad's cookbook' isn't really read by anyone except myself when asking the family what they want me to prep on the weekend for the week.
- Steps that actually include many different steps.
- Steps that don't repeat the quantities, making me scroll back and forth between the step and the quantity list.
The diagrams in this post very cleanly solve both.
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.
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.
The recipes sheets they provide drive me absolutely nuts working from them, to the point where I feel like I have to re-write them just to get them into a logical order. They're done entirely differently from any recipe book I've ever worked from. For example I constantly find I'm missing steps from how they're mushed together under photos, so I get later through the recipe and it talks about using something I supposedly did something with earlier and.. crap, I have to go back up through the recipe sheet trying to find what I missed the first time through. I've never experienced this with any other recipe book I've read.
Look at the site design! It went viral on Digg! That's how old this is.
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.
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.
So, I think its utility is a bit context-dependent.