Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Book Review: To Save Everything, Click Here

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the read-all-about-it dept.

Books 115

Bennett Haselton writes "Evgeny Morozov's forthcoming book To Save Everything, Click Here describes how an overly helpful 'kitchen of the future' might stifle the learning process and threaten culinary innovation. True, but we could certainly do better than the current state of how-to directions (in cooking and most other subjects) that you can find today on Google. I suggest that the answer lies not in intelligent kitchen technology, but in designing an algorithm that would produce the best possible how-to directions -- where the 'best' directions are judged according to the results that are achieved by genuine beginners who attempt to follow the directions without help." Read below for the rest of Bennett's review.
Editor's Note: This article was not intended as a full review, but rather a commentary on one point in the book. The author's actual review of the book will appear in March.

Evgeny Morozov's new book To Save Everything, Click Here (due out in March), about "the folly of technological solutionism", is that rare animal: a book I would recommend to everyone even if I disagree with about 2/3 of the conclusions in the text. The arguments in the book didn't always change my mind, but they made me reformulate many of my own arguments in the other direction.

In most sections of the book, Morozov attacks the beliefs of "solutionists" who believe that a particular program or algorithm can solve a social program. Usually, I thought his criticisms of a given algorithmic "solution" were spot-on. But I often found myself thinking of a different algorithm that I thought would solve the problem much more effectively than the one Morozov was critiquing. This, naturally, could be construed as missing the point of the book. However, I'm prepared to defend any of the alternative algorithms that I came up with, or bet money on how it would fare in the real world. I'll have a full review of the book when it's released, but I think many of Morozov's argument are interesting enough to deserve an article in their own right.

For example, Morozov describes a new kitchen technology that guides would-be chefs through the process of preparing a meal, by illuminating pathways on the kitchen floor to show the cook where they're supposed to walk next, and then using laser pointers and visual aids to guide them through what they're supposed to do when they get there. If you want to know how to expertly carve a fish, for example, the ceiling-mounted lasers will trace out the exact cuts that you're supposed to make on the fish's skin. The description sounds like a parody of what people think the Big Bang Theory geeks would like their kitchen to do for them.

Morozov argues, not unreasonably, that "[t]o subject [cooking] fully to the debilitating logic of efficiency is to deprive humans of the ability to achieve mastery in this activity, to make human flourishing impossible and to impoverish our lives," and that "deviating from recipes is what creates culinary innovations." Well that's one of the 1/3 of his arguments that I agree with. Besides, if you can afford the cost of a laser-guided kitchen just to cook meals for yourself, you could probably use the same amount of money to take a professional cooking class, order takeout every day to tide you over until you know how to make decent stuff on your own, and still have money left over. If you're using it instead to try and cook to impress party guests, how's that going to work? If you're making the food where your guests can see you being guided around by lasers, they're going to think (correctly) that you don't know how to cook, and if you're making the food in a back room where you're out of sight of the guests, you might as well order takeout and have it smuggled in through the back door.

On the other hand, Morozov says in his next paragraph: "In a world where only a select few could master the tricks of the trade, such 'augmented' kitchens would probably be welcome, if only for their promise to democratize access to this art. But this is not the world we inhabit: detailed recipes and instructional videos on how to cook the most exquisite dish have never been easier to find on Google."

That's where he lost me. I have vastly different views on this, which can be summed up in three points:

  • The qualify of most "how-to" instructions aimed at beginners, judged by the results they produce in the hands of actual beginners, is far worse than most people believe.

  • Moreover, for reasons I'll describe later, the incentives created by the free market in general (and Google in particular) more or less guarantee this result: How-to directions exist that cover nearly every human activity, but most of the directions are not particularly good.

  • I have an idea for a different algorithm (surprise!) that Google, or any other similarly positioned web titan, could use to change the incentives of web publishers, leading them to write how-to instructions that would produce much better results when followed by actual beginners.

The morass of cooking how-tos on the web are a good example. Partly from always having other things that I'd rather learn, and partly from being perfectly happy eating lots of plain fruits and vegetables (good for your health, but not for your cooking skills), I had survived to early adulthood hardly knowing anything about real cooking. Being a decently smart person, I figured that made me well suited to judge the effectiveness of the countless cookbooks written "for people who don't know how to cook". Because I firmly believe that if you follow a set of directions precisely (or, if the directions are written ambiguously, then if you follow some plausible interpretation of each step in the directions), and the result doesn't come out as predicted, then it's the directions that failed, not you. If another set of instructions would have produced better results, then those directions are better. This is not rocket science, but many cooking directions in cookbooks and on the Internet are glaringly missing key pieces of information that would have made the directions better, by the above definition.

Now, I understand the importance of experimenting and deviating from recipes and tailoring things to your own tastes, but I think that has to come after you've produced an edible dish that you can use as a baseline. I make scrambled eggs a little bit differently every time -- curry powder, mussels, capers, tabasco sauce, blue cheese (just not all in the same pan, please) -- but the only reason that's possible is because the simple directions for plain scrambled eggs actually work. When I say that most cooking directions don't work, I mean that if you follow them precisely (but without any prior cooking knowledge), they don't even get you to the baseline of an edible result that you can then use as a jumping-off point to try your own variations.

The odd thing about cooking is that of all the people whose cooking I liked so much that I asked them where they learned how to cook, all of them said that they learned from an in-person instructor (usually a family member); I have yet to meet any really good cooks who learned their skills from written recipes or web videos. This suggests that the learning materials on the Internet are falling short. (By contrast, I know plenty of people who have learned PHP programming or similar skills out of a book.)

And from my experiences helping out friends in the kitchen who had more cooking experience but who were trying to follow a particular recipe, it seemed that their most valuable skill was knowing the crucial parts of the recipe that were missing, or wrong. And then they would use their non-beginner knowledge fill in the missing steps or make the necessary corrections as we went along. With the current mediocre state of most cooking directions out there, that's surely a useful skill. However, it does mean that you could make most recipes produce much better results in the hands of a beginner, if you simply fixed all those parts that were missing, or wrong.

Take, for example, my misadventures making jalapeno poppers. Going to a friend's Super Bowl party, I figured that jalapeno poppers would be an easy thing to make, with just under 200 how-to videos on Youtube and about 600 matching recipe pages on Google, most of them calling for only four ingredients. How hard could it be?

Well, there are two important things that should be in every jalapeno popper recipe, or the recipe is doing more harm than good just by being out there on the web. One is that when you're slicing and handling the raw jalapenos, you have to wear gloves, or the capsaicin in the jalapeno -- which is also the active ingredient in pepper spray -- will leave a burning feeling on your fingers that lasts for about the next 24 hours. (If you touch your eye with your finger, you might even have to go to the emergency room.)

The other indispensable piece of information is that to make the jalapeno poppers edible, you have to remove the seeds and the white ribs from the inside -- not just the white center of the jalapeno (which slides out easily), but the white part of the ribs, which have to be scraped off of the outer wall (a grapefruit spoon works great, otherwise a paring knife or a regular sharp knife will do). Most recipes do tell you to remove the seeds. But the white ribs left inside the jalapeno are just as hot, and if you don't cut them out, the finished product will have a hotness that's too overpowering to taste anything else. (This video shows how to do it right.)

So what's the problem? Here's a table listing the first 10 Google matches for "jalapeno popper recipes", rated according to whether they contain those two must-have pieces of information that a beginner would need. (If the directions said to "devein" the jalapeno or "remove the membranes", I gave it an "Almost" in the second column -- because a first-timer is likely to think that this refers to removing the white center of the jalapeno, and not realize that you also have to remove the ribs attached to the edges. I'm being strict here, because it would have taken almost no effort for the recipe writers to be clear about this, and if you don't do that step correctly, you will have to throw out the finished product.)

Recipe source Tell reader to wear gloves? Tell reader to remove jalapeno ribs?
Food Network (Emeril Lagasse) No Almost (instructions say "membranes removed")
AllRecipes.com No No
Food.com No No
KraftRecipes.com No Almost (says to remove "veins")
InspiredTaste.net Yes. (Sort of. The directions end halfway down the page, and then another set of written directions starts from the beginning. That's confusing, but I'll give it to them.) Yes. (In both sets of directions. Good job guys!)
ThePioneerWoman.com No Yes
Epicurious.com No Almost ("devein")
About.com No (not counting the comments section, where someone warns other readers to use gloves because they burned their hands following the directions) No
RecipeGirl.com No. (This is weird: gives tips on how to neutralize the stinging capsaicin once it gets on your hands, but never actually says to put gloves on.) Almost ("seeds and ribs")
JalapenoMadness.com No No

Videos scored a little better, if you're generous and give full credit to any video that shows the scooping out of the jalapenos to include the ribs attached to the sides, even if the verbal directions don't spell that out precisely. Here are the ratings for the first 10 Youtube matches for "jalapeno poppers recipe":

Source (Youtube user) Tell viewer to wear gloves? Tell viewer to remove jalapeno ribs?
allrecipes Yes No
bettyskitchen No Yes
PrincessDiana161 Yes Yes
MudRFunR Yes Yes
cookingwithcaitlin1 Yes Yes
Michael Hultquist (Jalapeno Madness) No No
BarbecueWeb No No
kooktocook No No
Adley Stump No No
thatsletitia No No

In most of the videos that didn't explicitly include the step about putting gloves on, the cooks themselves were not wearing gloves. What did their hands feel like later?

eHow.com does have a helpful page about how to treat capsaicin burns from handling jalapenos. Perhaps that's their penance for the fact that half of their 'jalapeno poppers' recipes don't tell you to put gloves on.

If you could have made poppers based on these incomplete instructions, because you knew to put gloves on or to scrape the ribs out, good for you -- you possess the background knowledge to fill in the parts of the directions that were missing, or wrong. But that doesn't do the real newbies any good.

I went to this trouble because I want to beat you over the head with the crucial fact here: Most directions suck. They suck not just in absolute terms (burning your hands, or the mouths of people who eat the jalapenos with the ribs still in them) but they especially suck relative to how easily they could have been fixed. There is no excuse for putting up a recipe for jalapeno poppers that doesn't tell the reader to put gloves on, or that only tells the reader to "remove the seeds". And I've run into the same phenomenon over and over -- whether looking for directions on how to lower memory consumption of a web server, or how to get stains out of a carpet, or how to replace a 12V direct-current power supply with a cartridge of 8 AA batteries in series -- where not only did the directions not work, but I later found out that they could have worked if the author had simply added one or two key pieces of information.

However it seems that almost everyone believes that the quality of directions on the web is much higher than it actually is -- where, by "quality", I'm talking about the results that would be achieved by a beginner following the directions. (If I had asked you, "Where can I find a good recipe for jalapeno poppers?", is there about a 100% chance you would have said, "Google"?) I assume people overestimate the usefulness of all the how-tos out there, for two reasons: (a) they glance at the directions but don't try them themselves, so they just assume the directions work; or (b) they already know how to do the task being described, so when they read the directions, their brain automatically fills in the missing steps or makes the necessary corrections. That doesn't mean the directions would work in the hands of a true beginner.

Unfortunately, the quality of the directions on the web, is perfectly explained by the incentives created by Google. If there's any niche in the how-to space that is not already filled by some article on the web, an author can easily grab some extra web traffic by writing the first page about that topic. For a popular topic like how to make jalapeno poppers, there's enough traffic going around that dozens or hundreds of authors can put up their own how-to pages and each collect just enough web traffic to make it worthwhile. Thus, every "directional" niche will be filled, and some will be filled to overflowing.

Within a particular niche, however, there's not much incentives to make the directions particularly good -- where "good" means "produces good results when followed by someone with no prior knowledge in this area". Whether your directions work or not, they'll attract about the same level of traffic from Google. Even if the author later realizes that the insertion of a few key steps would make their instructions better, there's no incentive for them to do it -- that's not going to make your how-to page rise up in the Google rankings above the other pages on the same topic.

Which brings me to my proposed solution. It would take a company with a giant pre-existing web presence to pull it off (not quite on the level of Google, but at least an eHow or a Food.com). But it would take almost no maintenance on the part of the company themselves, once the process was put in place.

To incentivize people to create instructions that actually work, a given how-to guide would go through three phases:

  1. After the directions are written, genuine newbies (recruited from the web site's usual visitors -- people who just want to learn something new in an area where they have no prior expertise) attempt to follow the directions and tell the author about any problems they ran into, or steps in the directions that seemed ambiguous. If the author thinks some reader is just being an overly nit-picky moron, they're free to ignore their questions and suggestions, but they would do so at the risk of their directions faring poorly in the next phase.

  2. Once the initial wave of corrections and clarifications is finished, the directions are put into a pool marked "Ready to be rated!", where they are rated by the next group of genuine newbies who attempt to follow them. Each reader rates the directions simply: If they followed the directions and got the result they expected, then thumbs up, otherwise, thumbs down. If multiple readers spot a mistake or an omission that somehow got missed in the first phase, then the author can make the necessary changes and start the second phase over. (To prevent the author of the directions from "gaming the system" at this stage, the volunteer newbies should be selected at random from a large pool of people who sign up saying "I'm game for learning how to do anything new." If you let people self-select to go to the directions and rate them, then this enables the author to stack the deck by having all of their friends go to the page and give their directions a high rating.)

  3. Finally, once the directions have reached some acceptably high percentage of positive ratings, they get released into the general pool of directions/how-tos/recipes of which the site can promise, "80% of newbies were able to follow these directions successfully." If the system works -- and if the volunteer readers in step #2 are representative of the skill level of the site's general readership -- it should be expected that most readers should be able to follow the directions and get good results at that point.

Almost all of the "how-to" directions that I've read, on any topic, could have benefited from being put through the wringer as described by the steps above. It's not merely that I think this algorithm would produce good directions; it's that my definition of good directions is precisely those directions that would pass the test in step #2.

As for what incentivizes the authors to produce directions that make it through this process, perhaps the hosting site could split the ad revenue with them from the pages containing the author's directions. Perhaps the hosting site could just reward them with a link from the article to the author's professional home page. Or maybe people would happily submit the instructions for free if it went towards a non-profit repository of helpful information, a la Wikipedia. (The huge difference from Wikipedia though, is that if you're an expert on George Washington, it's easy to write a good article about George Washington; but if you're an expert on cooking, that makes it hard to write a set of cooking directions that would fill in all the blanks needed by a beginner. Hence the multi-step vetting process above.)

It's tempting to think this is process would be "overkill" for a simple recipe, but that fails to consider the magnitude of the time savings when multiplied across the hundreds or thousands of people who will read the information over the course of its lifetime on the web. If the author spends an extra 10 minutes on the instructions to clarify things in such a way that saves just 1 minute of reading time for the average reader, when that 1 minute of time savings is multiplied by hundreds of readers, it's clearly an overall time-saver. (What disgusts me about the jalapeno popper recipes is that the authors could have saved me a whole day of painful burning on my fingers, if they had just taken 10 seconds to include the step about putting on gloves -- that would have been an overall time-saver even if only one person had read the recipe.)

So Morozov was right that we don't need laser-guided kitchens guiding us through the algorithm of carving a fish, but we should consider that an entirely different kind of algorithm could change everything for a beginning cook, or a person trying to learn any other skill from scratch. The Star Trek kitchen in To Save Everything, Click Here makes for an easy target for Morozov's argument, but that kitchen technology is hardly making enough inroads to threaten cooking as we know it -- I'll bet you'd never heard of it until this article. Bad directions, on the other hand, are so ubiquitous that we've accepted them as a part of our way of life, and we've all but forgotten to think how they could be made better. Like Robert Kennedy, I see people looking at their capsaicin-burned hands and their inedible jalapeno poppers with the ribs still attached and asking, "Why?", and I imagine eHow.com lining up newbies to critique their recipes until each recipe achieves a high rating from beginners based on the actual results that they got, and ask, "Why not?"

You can purchase To Save Everything, Click Here from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×

115 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gloves? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42956057)

Why would you wear gloves for handling Jalapeños? those are really mild chiles, actually I have never found gloves to be necesary even when handling habaneros, maybe some overly sensitive people have but it will be unnecesary for many.
This is also an example why these things are totally subjective and there could never be a "perfect" algorithm for instructions

Re:Gloves? (2)

gninnor (792931) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956283)

I was thinking a similar thought. I never wear gloves. Gloves suck. I knew of a person that wondered why it burned a while every time they put their gloves on, turns out they contaminated the inside and were particularly sensitive to the stuff. Habaneros I handle with care and don't devein or remove seeds and I don't leave with stinging fingers. At most I'll hold the pepper down with a fork and cut through the tines if i want a really fine/messy cut.

The instructions don't tell you to take off the gloves either. Hope the person removes them before peeing or picking their nose. At some point you have to assume a level of knowledge from the reader, so either place an about page in the front of the book about every ingredient and warnings about it so that people can look up unfamiliar ingredients or leave that to the reader to look up. For the most part people will just want to reference the recipes in a cookbook and will not have to re-learn how to chop hot peppers every single time they make salsa. For that there should be a separate basic kitchen skills book. Heck I've seen some good cooks with bad habits that could use that (myself included).

The original point might be good, but I think they could have found a better example.

Re:Gloves? (1)

ottothecow (600101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956413)

I lost track of the original point. I was so bothered by the glove assumption that I couldn't figure it out.

I've never worn gloves while slicing jalepenos (or the occasional habenero). Also, sometimes its ok to leave some seeds or spines in place. Sure, they make it spicier, but the average jalepeno is never going to be dangerously spicy.

Re:Gloves? (2)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956523)

The instructions don't tell you to take off the gloves either. Hope the person removes them before peeing or picking their nose.

I must be stupid. I've cut birds eye chilli up and twice now made the mistake of going for a pee. I'd say that I'd never do it again, but I said the same thing the first time I did it.

Re:Gloves? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957327)

I must be stupid. I've cut birds eye chilli up and twice now made the mistake of going for a pee. I'd say that I'd never do it again, but I said the same thing the first time I did it.

I've done that...and the same thing after eating a bunch of crawfish and forgot to wash hands BEFORE peeing.

You'd think you'd only forget that once.....but...

I guess you can blame it on beer?

Re:Gloves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42957317)

Yeah, actually if you want a really good example of a cookbook buy a Betty Crocker one from the 50s. There's an introductory section in every part of it that explains terms, process, and everything else you need to know, and then the recipes are really really simple "sift this, grate this, stir this, etc.." It's the only cookbook I cook out of because every other one I've ever seen goes into excruciating detail about every minor little thing.

Re:Gloves? (1)

rioki (1328185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42967621)

"Joy of Cooking" the ends all cookbook.

Re:Gloves? (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about a year and a half ago | (#42958643)

I was thinking a similar thought. I never wear gloves. Gloves suck. I knew of a person that wondered why it burned a while every time they put their gloves on, turns out they contaminated the inside and were particularly sensitive to the stuff. Habaneros I handle with care and don't devein or remove seeds and I don't leave with stinging fingers. At most I'll hold the pepper down with a fork and cut through the tines if i want a really fine/messy cut.

The instructions don't tell you to take off the gloves either. Hope the person removes them before peeing or picking their nose. At some point you have to assume a level of knowledge from the reader, so either place an about page in the front of the book about every ingredient and warnings about it so that people can look up unfamiliar ingredients or leave that to the reader to look up. For the most part people will just want to reference the recipes in a cookbook and will not have to re-learn how to chop hot peppers every single time they make salsa. For that there should be a separate basic kitchen skills book. Heck I've seen some good cooks with bad habits that could use that (myself included).

The original point might be good, but I think they could have found a better example.

On the other hand, picking your nose after handling Habaneros is a painfully effective way to clear the sinuses...

Re:Gloves? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956339)

I agree i have never been burned on the skin by any pepper juice have been burned after rubbing my eye after cutting peppers. I have made my own salsa for years with garden grown hot peppers and never needed gloves. as for cutting the ribbing on the jalapeños i leave it if it is for me but cut it out for people that don't like the food as spicy. thats the thing about cooking that would make a computer driven cooking bad you change the recipe depending on the pallet and tolerances of those eating.

Re:Gloves? (2)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956367)

Jalapenos can be hot, but it doesn't mean they're always very mild or even hot. The Scoville units can range up to 10,000, which will burn you. Instructions should always urge caution, however.

Re:Gloves? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957363)

alapenos can be hot, but it doesn't mean they're always very mild or even hot. The Scoville units can range up to 10,000, which will burn you. Instructions should always urge caution,

Well, one problem with jalapenos, like you mentioned...is that you can't count on them to have a steady temperature. I think it is due to some assholes somewhere deciding it was a good idea to try to breed the heat out of them and make a 'mild' jalapeno.

Trouble is...now in the usual grocery store, you have no idea just by looking at them if they are regular heat, or bell pepper hot.

I've gotten to where, unless I'm growing the jalapeno, I pretty much only use serrano chiles as a substitute. They are a bit hotter, but at least for now...they are pretty much of a uniform heat anywhere you buy them.

I actually tend to like the 'crisp' flavor of the serrano over the jalapeno too.

Re:Gloves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42972313)

The heat of peppers can vary a lot from just the growing conditions, such as how much water the plant gets, what fertilizer and type of soil, and what size the plant is allowed to grow to. So it is not surprising that there is a lot of variation, and some breeds of peppers have worse variation that others. I've seen this especially with habaneros, both home grown and store bought, some of which come out pretty mild. On the other hand, I've found Scotch bonnets to be a bit more consistent, although that might be just lack of experience with them.

On top of that, you do have different breeds and crossbreeds. Although they go in both directions, as some are trying to make milder versions of peppers that retain the same flavor, although most others are trying to make hotter peppers or easier to raise peppers.

Re:Gloves? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956465)

Why would you wear gloves for handling Jalapeños? those are really mild chiles

Exactly what I was going to say. You're going to be putting the peppers directly on a highly senstive mucous membrane, why the hell would you need gloves on your hands?

Re:Gloves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42956517)

Why would you wear gloves for handling JalapeÃf±os? those are really mild chiles

Exactly what I was going to say. You're going to be putting the peppers directly on a highly senstive mucous membrane, why the hell would you need gloves on your hands?

Fingers aren't highly sensitive mucous membranes.

I've never had a problem with japlapenos or even serranos. I do wear gloves when chopping habaneros. I found that out the hard way, when, after having done the prep work and the chili simmering in the morning and having nothing else to do for the next couple of hours, the GF and I... well, umm...

Can we just agree that fingers aren't highly sensitive mucous membranes and leave it at that?

Re:Gloves? (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956597)

I was referring to your mouth. And wash your hands when you're done chopping.

Re:Gloves? (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956685)

...And wash your hands when you're done chopping.

Water, and either soap or detergent. Capsaicin isn't water soluble.

Re:Gloves? (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957383)

Oh...and DO try to remember to not take your contacts out just after chopping peppers.

And once you survive that...don't assume the solution has taken the capsicum oil off the lenses...and put them back in!!

Not, that I've ever done this.....mind, you

Re:Gloves? (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about a year and a half ago | (#42958721)

I've, uh, never done this either. ...and it totally hurts.

Re:Gloves? (1)

aXis100 (690904) | about a year and a half ago | (#42961101)

Urgh, me neither .... boy I learnt my lesson.

Re:Gloves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42957497)

I've never found a need for gloves for jalapenos either, and maybe for some hotter peppers I'll use the little plastic bag the peppers came in as a quick, make shift glove. It does burn if I don't wash my hands for a while after handling it, and I think the only tip is that some people may need to be reminded the capsaicin is not really water soluble and can require a fair bit of soap (or a bit of dish soap if that doesn't bother your hands) to get off depending on what kind of soap you have on hand.

This is also an example why these things are totally subjective and there could never be a "perfect" algorithm for instructions

This is the fundamental nature of recipes. They may include a few variation instructions or suggests on what parts to vary to taste, but fundamentally, they are telling you how to make one particular version of a dish, which may not be ideal for you (or for the particular state of the variable ingredients). You are at the mercy of those that made the recipe, as you would be for any other set of instructions where you don't understand the basics behind it. Which is ok in some cases, as it usually takes a lot less effort to follow a recipe than to learn the basics that allow you to deviate from it or correct for mistakes or variation in ingredients. There is not enough time in the world to master every skill. But people should be aware of the risk things will go wrong, and that it may or may not be the recipe's fault depending on how much basic skills are assumed or how many subtle possible outcomes there are of some steps. Don't jump into a recipe that will kill several hours and expensive ingredients you don't want to risk losing.

Re:Gloves? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42958695)

I've seen some crap here, but this one takes the cake.

Is this a book review or subby's adventures in cooking? And if it is a book review, is that book a cook book?

Why is someone who can't cook going on about recipes on the web? It's like someone whose last science class was 'Physics for Poets' picking up the latest journal from the American Physical Society and complaining about the articles.

If you're a complete physics newbie, you don't learn by picking up the latest journal, you learn by picking up a text book. If you're a cooking newbie, you don't learn from recipes, you learn from a cook book. Any decent cook book will have all the background and additional information not included in the recipes.

Subby doesn't want good directions, subby wants useless directions.

Let's use the recipe example. So instead of "preheat oven to 350," every recipe begins with 2 pages on measuring the temperature in and calibrating your oven. And instead of a list of ingredients with the required amounts, you get a dissertation on the difference between dry measure and liquid measure, with conversion between teaspoons, tablespoons, cups, etc. So the simplest recipe turns in to a novelette.

And that is repeated for every single recipe. Of course all that extra information isn't needed 99% of the time. Is that what you want subby? 100 page recipes for jalapeños poppers?

And WTF? Jalapeños poppers? Are in training for be a chef at TGIF? How many pieces of flair are you wearing right now?

Yes, a good cook book should talk about how to clean and chop vegetables, should talk about different cuts of meat, should talk about technique, should cover how to calibrate your heat sources. And it should cover all those things ONCE. Not in every recipe.

I submit 1) the test of a good recipe is not what the complete noob can the first time preparing that recipe. A better test is what the complete noob can do with the 5th time preparing that recipe.

Is the test of a programming language book or tutorial the first program created by a newbie?

And 2) subby should grow up, be a man (or woman) and skip the gloves when preparing jalapeños. They're not that hot.

I just want to be able to microwave fishsticks (1, Troll)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956075)

Hopefully the kitchen of the future will have a feature that kitchens in here in 2013 still don't seem to have: the ability to microwave fishsticks. I can microwave chicken strips. I can microwave hamburgers. I can even microwave lasagna. But in 2013, I still have to use my conventional oven to turn a frozen fishstick or breaded fish patty into a meal.

Screw being a great chef, I just want a damned fishstick I can microwave!!!

Aaaaaand We're Fucked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42956107)

Hopefully the kitchen of the future will have a feature that kitchens in here in 2013 still don't seem to have: the ability to microwave fishsticks. I can microwave chicken strips. I can microwave hamburgers. I can even microwave lasagna. But in 2013, I still have to use my conventional oven to turn a frozen fishstick or breaded fish patty into a meal.

Screw being a great chef, I just want a damned fishstick I can microwave!!!

You're lucky! The fishticks cooking instructions did not instruct me to refrain from inserting the fishticks into my lower colon. Being a nearly perfect fit, that's what I immediately did. After surveying all instructions for cooking fishticks not a single one of them instructed the user not to insert them anally or into orifices other than the mouth. Someone may be deaf from trying to cook fishticks!

Like, yeah, I guess the geniuses know they go into your mouth! God, the future is going to be impossible!!!

Re:I just want to be able to microwave fishsticks (2)

Cpt_Kirks (37296) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956123)

Try putting them in those hot pocket sleeves. You will get a little surface browning.

Re:I just want to be able to microwave fishsticks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42956125)

The real problem you have is that you are eating frozen fishsticks

Re:I just want to be able to microwave fishsticks (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956159)

I don't have a boat to go catch them fresh.

Re:I just want to be able to microwave fishsticks (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957613)

Try catchng them with a net or fishing rod instead. Far less weight to carry.

Re:I just want to be able to microwave fishsticks (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957447)

The real problem you have is that you are eating frozen fishsticks

Amen!!

You'll do MUCH better in life quality, health, and waistline by cooking real food from scratch and leaving behind all that processed crap. Sure, it takes a bit more time and thought, but you can eat healthier and cheaper than crap food, if you just give it a try and learn some cooking skills.

I tend to look at the grocery store weekly ads each week, and plan my menus around what's on sale.

I hit the 2-4 grocery stores on like Sat or early Sunday morning (make a list), and I do my weekly cooking on Sunday, I cook about 2-3 main and a couple side dishes...or maybe just cook some 'ingredients;, like grilling veggies or meats on the grill and from those I can whip up quick meals during the week from those.

By doing this, I eat better than most people around me...I don't get bored eating the same old shit each week day in/day out, and my food bill is not high.

I bring my leftovers for lunch during the week, and evenings, and with the money I save, rather than waste calories on fast food (aside from the occasional 3am guilty pleasure I'm trashed and needs ANY food on the way home)...I take my money and go to a nice restaurant with food that is likely above even what I can or would cook at home, along with good service, wine...etc.

Seriously, for awhile...try this when grocery shopping. Shop only the perimiter of the store...where you'll find the veggies, dairy, meats, etc.....avoid the center aisles for the most part , where you're eating processed foods with ingredients that virtually no one can pronounce. Look up what's on sale, then, google for recipes for using those ingredients....try something new.

I've found that if you're a guy...you can REALLY impress chicks if you can cook.

On the flipside of this, what has happened since I was young to where virtually NO women these days know how to cook?

Re:I just want to be able to microwave fishsticks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42958981)

Well, guess what, nobody can cook these days. We've still got women forbidding their sons from learning how to cook because it's not a man's place in the family, and we've got "liberated" women who don't want to learn it either.

Re:I just want to be able to microwave fishsticks (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964849)

Word, cayenne. I don't often agree with your posts, but this time, it's 100%. I do my cooking daily, though - but that's a matter of having the time for it, I guess. I am usually out of the office between 5 and 6, so there's ample time to hit a grocery or butcher or fishmonger on the way home. I find that spending half an hour or an hour in the kitchen after work seriously helps me unwind.

Re:I just want to be able to microwave fishsticks (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about a year and a half ago | (#42967943)

Also, if you've had a heart attack, and are trying to avoid salt and saturated fats, it's a lot easier to do with raw ingredients. Most processed foods are high on the sodium, and lots of them have yummy saturated fats. (Further advice: read the label and notice the portion size and compare to what you would realistically eat. There's a lot of meat out there with low saturated fat. Pity about cheese, though.)

toaster oven (1)

Chirs (87576) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956195)

Microwaving breaded food is hard...the moisture in the food makes the breading soft. In a conventional or toaster oven the hot air will dry out the breading and crisp it up, making it far tastier.

There are combination microwave/convection ovens, but they're horribly expensive.

Re:toaster oven (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42957075)

I was given something called a pizazz, or something similar. It has IR emitters above and below a portion of a removable rotating tray. It takes a lot longer than a microwave, but is fantastic for breaded foods. I set the timer, do something else, and when it pings, my meal is ready and delicious.

Re:I just want to be able to microwave fishsticks (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42961483)

My dad proved many times that it is perfectly possible to microwave fishsticks.

What he didn't prove that was that there was any way to make fishsticks edible. Microwaves are the best way to make an already inedible food into something truly vile. I can still remember the smell, it was assault.

Call it American suburban ludafisk, microwaved fishsticks. Cats run away and look at you like your a mad man for carrying such a thing. Dogs are garbage disposals, some will even eat fishsticks.

Learn to Cook (4, Interesting)

Cpt_Kirks (37296) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956079)

Most people just dump a can into a pan or throw something into the microwave.

Cooking is a skill that takes time and study. Actually, some youtube videos are pretty good guides to the basics. If you want to REALLY learn culinary basics, you either have to take a class or make a lot of crappy meals first. With cooking, like most things worth doing, you have to PRACTICE.

HowToBasic on YouTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42956135)

Actually, some youtube videos are pretty good guides to the basics.

Yeah, the HowToBasic channel on YouTube has taught me a lot of great recipes [youtube.com] !

Re:HowToBasic on YouTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42956303)

I found a better [youtube.com] source for cooking tutorials.

Re:Learn to Cook (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956251)

I feel I should highlight StartCooking [startcooking.com] as a great guide for a beginner looking to do a little more cooking than the above "can into a pan" style. It assumes knowledge of almost nothing, and helped bootstrap my own cooking years ago. Highly recommended.

Re:Learn to Cook (2)

mcmonkey (96054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42958791)

Most people just dump a can into a pan or throw something into the microwave.

Cooking is a skill that takes time and study. Actually, some youtube videos are pretty good guides to the basics. If you want to REALLY learn culinary basics, you either have to take a class or make a lot of crappy meals first. With cooking, like most things worth doing, you have to PRACTICE.

Judging a recipe based on what a complete newbie does the first time is like judging a programming language based on what a complete newbie can do with a single man page or help entry.

If you want to learn how to cook, you at least need a cook book, not a single recipe. Any decent cook book will cover all those basics that don't including in every recipe because we don't want 100 page recipes for boiling pasta.

Subby's popper recipes didn't cover all the details of preparing the peppers. They also didn't get in to sharpening knives, calibrating the oven, measuring dry ingredients, and scores of other details. A really detailed recipe to meet subby's requirements would be a short novel for even the simplest dish.

What a newbie does with 1 run of a recipe is a near useless metric. What a newbie does with a little practice, for example on the fifth time on the same recipe, is a better measure.

Re:Learn to Cook (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964855)

Anyone looking to learn the basic techniques should look for the videos by Jacques Pepin on youtube. His basic book on techniques is also excellent - everything from the different classic cutting styles for vegetables up to skinning butchering rabbits.

Depends (4, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956091)

This all seems to depend on the assumption that people won't take an interest in cooking. Some will, some won't... exactly the same as now. The microwave oven came along and yet chefs still exist and are innovating.

So many little tricks... (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956131)

I didn't learn a lot of kitchen tricks until I started watching Food Network at the gym almost exclusively. (Even the video game Cooking Mana taught me a few of them, but not that many.) You're correct in that most recipes start with the assumption that you already know the basics - I thought everyone knew to de-rib any kind of pepper, because only the wall is considered the edible part. But now that I think about it, I probably didn't know that when I first started working with peppers a few years ago. (A hint: You also need to remove the seeds in any dried chile pepper or else you are going to be in a world of hurt. Slice it open and shake the seeds out.)

Re:So many little tricks... (1)

SpectreBlofeld (886224) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956753)

Unless you WANT that yummy hotness. My homemade tikka masala begins with sauteing finely diced jalapenos (seeds and all) and garlic and butter, which are transferred to a tomato sauce with other spices and thickened for a while.

Anyway, I don't think the author should be so concerned about 'threatening culinary innovation'. There are always challenges for beginners, but part of the fun and reward of cooking is fucking around in the kitchen and coming up with new stuff by trying random shit. I always start with a recipe I find online but invariably end up throwing in a new ingredient or cooking something differently because I thought, 'hey, I bet this would be good'. For instance, my aforementioned chicken tikka masala? I've changed bits here and there so many times that it hardly resembles the recipe I started with. I've started stuffing bell peppers with it, topping it with grated parmesan and cilantro, and roasting it in the oven for a bit. Delicious.

Once you get past the 'awkward teenager phase' of cooking, you're no longer an automaton blindly following directions.

An example of this (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42956157)

I spent a while playing Minesweeper, but I disliked the way you often have to guess in the corners. So I wrote a version called TorusSweeper, which has connected edges and avoids the corner problem. Then I got bored clicking on the really obvious free squares, so I added a feature to do the obvious clicks for you. As I got better, more types of square between obvious so I added code to solve these, and added a slider to let you choose how much help you wanted. And now, when you start a new game on the maximally helpful level, it solves the whole thing instantly. And I'm entirely bored of mine and torus sweeping.

Too much automation is indeed pointless.

Re:An example of this (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956263)

Automation of an activity designed for entertainment makes that activity pointless? Say it isn't so!

People who are interested in cooking will continue to cook despite the automation, while people who don't give a crap will use the machines. Think of it like driving with a manual vs. automatic transmission.

Re:An example of this (1)

Byrel (1991884) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957803)

No more pointless than the original activity. Coding AIs is its own form of entertainment, and if you enjoy that more than minesweeper (Who doesn't really? Minesweeper? Ugh!) you've successfully entertained yourself for a significant chunk of time. And maybe improved your coding skills a touch.

Re:An example of this (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42958581)

AI? WTF.

Perhaps a minesweeper playing program would be an 'expert system', but AI?

What the book is about (4, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956175)

In case anyone else read the entire summary and still had no idea what the book is about (or why we should read it), here is I think the key point from Amazon:

Arguing that we badly need a new, post-Internet way to debate the moral consequences of digital technologies, To Save Everything, Click Here warns against a world of seamless efficiency, where everyone is forced to wear Silicon Valley’s digital straitjacket.

As a programmer, it makes me laugh and then laugh hysterically. A world of seamless efficiency!

Re:What the book is about (1)

mpicker0 (411333) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956269)

Indeed, judging from the introduction, it appears to be a questioning of the pre-canned "solutionism" that the author perceives to be prevalent in today's Internet environment. Apparently, the "review" presented here is based on a single chapter or section of the actual book, and even then, it appears to be more a exhaustive listing of the reviewer's opinion of various websites than any kind of review or critique of the book.

Re:What the book is about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42960375)

Laugh all you want, but we're all guilty of this behaviour. A classic example are architects. They always show pictures of clean, almost utopian designs. No moss, dogshit or soot anywhere.. If you want to sell something, you make it look good, and you might even start to believe that 'this time we'll the system clean and orderly'.

Modern society is built on the idea that it's more effective to cater to our desires than to our rationality. A seamlessly automated world is a very attractive mirage.

lasers to carve a fish? (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956209)

people will actually spend money on this stuff?

sounds like idiotic gadgets that are available for almost any activity. reminds me of an old movie called Tin Cup about golf. the lead character would tell his students to junk all the gadgets and to just learn to play the game the old fashioned way.

Re:lasers to carve a fish? (1)

srmalloy (263556) | about a year and a half ago | (#42958595)

If you were going to spend the kind of money that would be required to have the house computer be able to recognize the fish and its position, and illuminate the lines where you need to cut, you might as well spend the money to upgrade the lasers so that the computer would be able to actually make the cuts itself, rather than rely on your eye-hand coordination not to screw it up.

Re:lasers to carve a fish? (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | about a year and a half ago | (#42958943)

1996 is now considered old?

Re:lasers to carve a fish? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42961535)

So are you.

Kitchnasium (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956217)

Don't worry. If you can't afford the fancy kitchen, you can pay somebody to cook in their fancy kitchen. If we become alientated from cutting food ourselves, using a manual egg beater, or using Actual Fire (TM) to cook, there's a solution to that too: the personal chef trainer. Yes, it will be difficult for middle-class people to afford, but they'll work extra hours behind the counter at the newly legalized brothels that were created to "help the local economy".

You see, machines can do just about everything; but they're not so good at vice. Nobody pays to see a robot poll dance... except a few Japanese guys who are, you know, "into that".

Anyway, see you in 50 years or so at the Kitchnasium. Only poor people use knives, which we're moving to ban. It's been too long for us not to catch up with the rest of the world and enact sane knife control measures.

Re:Kitchnasium (3, Funny)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956569)

Nobody pays to see a robot poll dance...

Unless they're from Diebold.

Lack of food makes great food (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42956233)

From what I understand, 95% of all great recipies are made when some chef or just regular civilian finds him or herself with (a) some excessively limited set of ingredients, (b) some hungry guests, and (c) no way to get more ingredients. This usually ends with the chef creatively combining ingredients that aren't known to go together well.

And no amount of internet connectivity will eliminate that scenario. I think we're safe.

Cooking and Technology (3, Insightful)

MatrixCubed (583402) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956239)

Cooking (i.e. successfully cooking something that is palatable, enjoyable, nutritious, and visually attractive) is about ingredients and directions just as much as it is about taste, smell, personal preferences, dietary requirements, culture, tradition, and intuition.

Creativity is not a problem that needs to be solved by technology.

homogenization (3, Interesting)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956329)

Deep topic, camouflaged in a piece about automated kitchens.

I think this is just another symptom of problems we have with global homogenization. It's endemic, as the world grows smaller.

It's been raised many times about crop strains, but I think the more insidious threat to humanity in the long term is homogenization of intellect.

It struck me the other day in an NPR piece about the success of online courses like Khan Academy. They were batting around the idea that for the 1000-level college courses - in which it's little more than basics taught to auditoriums of 100+ students - you could record the greatest lecturers like Feynman, etc and have them teach everyone. They thought this was a generally good idea? I see limited appeal but terrible danger if everyone is taught to approach problems and conceive of things in the same way.

On a larger scale, if we all eventually spoke some sort of Chinese or English, most definitely we lose something, as different languages approach things with different conceptual frameworks.

Yes, I am (in this context) homo(genization)-phobic.

a problem with your assumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42956341)

Bennett, when you look at the top ten results on Google for something, you're assuming that Google is good at finding good recipes. It isn't. I think part of that is SEO - sites like About.com and the Food Network are going to be on top. The few food blogs in that list are big ones as well: Ree Drummond, author of The Pioneer Woman has a show on the Food Network. Google pretty much sucks at finding clear, comprehensive recipes unless you can use really specific search terms. That does not mean that such recipes don't exist on the Internet; it just means that they're hard to find - and, if you aren't a decent cook, you can't easily tell the difference between a good recipe and a bad one.

Your point that "most directions suck" is true, but not all that significant. Most content on the internet sucks. It's just that most of the time, search engines are better at wading through the crap. With recipes, most people either don't know the difference, don't care, or can't be bothered finding the good stuff, so most of the links will be to the recipes that are easier to find.

Finally, who wears gloves to cut up jalapenos? I'll sometimes wear them to chop habaneros, but not usually even then. I admit that, say, leaving ribs and seeds in jalapenos makes the resulting food spicier, but it is by no means inedible.

Comparing recipes with PHP tutorials. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42956355)

I have yet to meet any really good cooks who learned their skills from written recipes or web videos. This suggests that the learning materials on the Internet are falling short. (By contrast, I know plenty of people who have learned PHP programming or similar skills out of a book.)

Hahahahahaha!

Have you actually seen the quality of code produced by most self-taught PHP coders?

There are thousands of truly dire PHP "tutorials" on the web, and tens of thousands of PHP "coders" who have followed those tutorials, written a pile of junk, and think they can program.

There are a handful of good quality PHP tutorials out there, but they're hard to find in the oceans of trash and often don't approach the subject in a very beginner-friendly way. And there are plenty of good quality PHP developers, but most of them will have learned their skills over a long period of time and probably with a significant amount of cross-learning from their peers, and maybe a conference or two.

In fact, as far as I see it, the situation with PHP is no different at all from the kitchen recipes example that was given. (and that goes for other tech too -- I'm only singling out PHP because the original article author did so in the first place).

Right.... so that's one of his arguments completely demolished. Now... how about the rest....

TL;DR - Writing good directions is hard (1)

Freddybear (1805256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956379)

It's hard to write good directions. Do you assume your readers know the basics or do you bore your experienced readers with repetition of stuff they already know? And you can't get experience from reading a book, you have to try things out yourself. You will fail. Failure is the dues you pay to achieve success. A personal mentor can help avoid some mistakes and help to identify others which makes it easier to gain experience, but you still have to practice the skills yourself.

Cooking is like gaming. There are casual dishes. Anybody can make those if they can follow the recipe. And then there are hardcore recipes. Those you have to have a level of skill which only comes from practice.

Broken assumptions. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956397)

Instructions and recipes are not for beginners. The level varies along with the assumed vocabulary and skills. You can find a tutorial on 'how to boil water' if you need that level of help though.

Does every tutorial on computing start with the definition of bits and how to turn the computer on and login? Same thing.

Cook Cook Revolution (1)

wcrowe (94389) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956463)

So, if you're following laser-guided directions telling you what keys to press on the piano, are you actually playing the piano? Or are you just playing a piano version of Dance Dance Revolution? If you're following laser-guided directions in your kitchen you're not cooking, you're playing Cook Cook Revolution.

Whadda? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956497)

So, I'm seeing a guy writing approx 3500 word about another guy that says a kitchen with lasers is bad in 400+ pages. And the first guy agrees 1/3 with the second. Even more, the points of disagreement seems not to be related with the lasers in the kitchen, but with a bunch of site that don't warn the cooks to wear gloves when cutting hot pepper.
I mean... what the hell? Has anyone of /. readers seen a kitchen with lasers yet?

Re:Whadda? (1)

Cpt_Kirks (37296) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956535)

It would be the PERFECT kitchen to cook sharks in.

Re:Whadda? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42958809)

In Soviet Russia, sharks with lasers cook YOU!

(I'm so ashamed.)

Re:Whadda? (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957647)

I mean... what the hell? Has anyone of /. readers seen a kitchen with lasers yet?

My infrared thermometer has a laser, does that count?

Re:Whadda? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42958103)

I mean... what the hell? Has anyone of /. readers seen a kitchen with lasers yet?

My infrared thermometer has a laser, does that count?

I don't know, you are in a better position than me to tell if that laser counts or not.
(even if, in my mind, to use a laser for counting is an overkill; I imagine fingers - up to ten - or beans/grains for over ten are better suited for counting than a laser)

Re:Whadda? (1)

spatley (191233) | about a year and a half ago | (#42959393)

Nobody on Slashdot or otherwise will see a kitchen with lasers that show you how to cut fish. The idea is idiotic. The response about the quality of cooking instructions on deh interwebs is surprisingly even more idiotic.

Cooking like any other skill (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956529)

requires mastery of the ultimate tool, the human body. This is why it is difficult. If a person does not understand up/down they cannot cut consistently because they have no base line. If a person doesn't understand the areas of their tongue it is harder to tease out flavours. If a person doesn't understand their sensitivies the won't know their pansy hands require gloves to handle the mildest of 'chili' peppers.

It also requires a certain mastery of science. Hot expands, temperature of chemical reactions, boiling point of water, etc and how these manifest physically and how they can be used as visual clues, e.g.,if steam is escaping while frying foods then oil isn't going in, if the steam stops then either the internal temp dropped below 100/212 or you dried out your food, the time elapsed will tell you which.

These are not difficult things to understand. If they are stated properly and shown correctly. However that is not what recipes are for and expecting recipes to teach you this borders on insanity. Everything in it's place.

Sigh, I really need to up the work on my system. It's like religion all over again. To truly pass on knowledge one must truly understand everything that is taking place. To pass on energetic patterns of interaction without full understanding all you need is someone standing beside you.

Basics do not change (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956631)

This seems to be a very confused book that, from the review, has basic misunderstandings of How Things Work.

First, when finding a utilizing an algorithm the goal should be find a problem similar to the one you are working, then see what kind of solutions that were used to solve that problem. If you can't find a similar problem, then you can probably still find parts of the problem that are similar to other. For instance,many problems require sorting, and the sorting algorithms are pretty much there and working.

It is true that one a problem is solved, refinement and review are necessary. But this is not just done for the sake of change or to get what might be a small improvement on a proven solution. It is done because the problem changes. For instance, consumer may not longer be receptive to a certain ingredient, or an indigent may not be affordable, so the solutions must be reworked to accomodate that change.

Second a Chef does not only create innovative dishes. The primary goal is management of the kitchen, which means ordering, managing, and most critically, designing a process so that the various components of a plate get to the plate quickly and in an ordered manner over a short time period. So yes, knowing exactly who has to be where at what time is critical. This is not a matter of cooking, it is an algorithm that cannot be constantly changed. It is a production machine, and one does not test on a production machine.

Now, the Commis does cook, but they do not get to be creative with the dishes. That is the job of Chef de Cuisine, who plans the processes in the kitchen. The Sous-Chef then implements those processes and makes sure the kitchen is clean.

Of course there is a role for creativity, and the ability to create dishes is important. But the creation of dishes would be worthless without the ability to reduce these dishes to an algorithm that can be followed by a trained cook. Anyone who has done non trivial cooking knows, that like in coding, the ability to access standard algorithms are critical. If one wants to make a soufflé or empanadas or chocolate covered fruit or mayonaise the results are disastrous if you ignore the basics. Sure, variation is good, but if you do not clean the steel bowl before beating the white, no amount of creativity is going to save you.

I wish I had such videos when I was a kid so I could learn how to do things better. All I had was a betty crocker cook book in a three ring binder. I knew how to read and follow instructions, so it took me a long way, but still, watching a pro would have been a blessing.

BTW, if you want to do creative cooking,on a budget and entertaining book is An Everlasting Meal. A particularly good line is pounds meat from a tougher part of a happily raised animal and Though it’s easy to forget, leaves and stalks are parts of a vegetable, not obstacles to it.

Re:Basics do not change (1)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957081)

> The primary goal is management of the kitchen, which means ordering, managing, and most critically, designing a process so that the various components of a plate get to the plate quickly and in an ordered manner over a short time period

This.

I've been cooking since a very young age and lots of little details I've learned over time, I didn't realize I've learned. It was very obvious with one girl friend I had. She could cook very good food, but she couldn't finish the food in the order it needed to be ready in complex meals. Think serial vs parallel processing. Parallel processing is hard because of resource contention, being able to pick recipes that can share common ingredients, or share common temperatures in the oven isn't easy. Having the cold stuff chilled enough, the hot stuff hot, and the very hot stuff cooled enough to eat, AND having it finish at around the same time is an enormous optimization problem.

Re:Basics do not change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42961055)

I only ever get it right for stir-fry, and that's because its easy: 1) start rice 2) heat wok 3) when there's a couple minutes left on the rice throw meat in the wok. 4) all done.

Everything else I just do it in advance, put everything on the plate and toss it in the microwave. It's not like canned green beans will ever be any better than that.

Re:Basics do not change (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42961555)

Never buy canned green beans.

Fresh, fried in bacon grease, with crumbled bacon and salt is one of the best, simple foods on the planet. And it's a vegetable.

Re:Basics do not change (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about a year and a half ago | (#42964885)

Also, green beans freeze rather well. At least the frozen ones are still an order of magnitude better than canned.

Re:Basics do not change (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about a year and a half ago | (#42967889)

With the exception of the beans, that's exactly the sort of food I'm supposed to avoid after my heart attack.

Alton Brown and Cooks Illustrated (3, Informative)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956713)

I pretty much DID learn to cook from a book. After years of failure, I read Alton Brown's "I'm just here for the food". The subtitle is "food + heat = cooking". Alton describes the different methods of heating food, the effects, and why you'd pick one over the other. Suddenly it all made sense. For me, this book was the cooking equivalent of Peter Norton's "Inside the IBM PC".

I then moved on to Cooks Illustrated magazine and America's Test Kitchen (same organization). They use a geek-friendly methodology of gathering multiple recipes, cooking each, and taking the best of each to arrive at their recipe. The have test tasters as well. These are the best cook books, because each section is actually a story describing the process they with through, including failures. You learn a lot, simply by reading their development process - even if you don't cook the item yourself.

Wait a minute - wasn't this supposed to be a book review?

Re:Alton Brown and Cooks Illustrated (1)

bennetthaselton (1016233) | about a year and a half ago | (#42971605)

Actually it wasn't supposed to be a book review. I submitted the article with the title "Better Cooking Through Algorithms", and was intended to be an essay expanding only on *one* point made in the book. (See second paragraph, "I'll have a full review of the book when it's released, but I think many of Morozov's argument are interesting enough to deserve an article in their own right.")

An editor accidentally changed the title to "Book Review: To Save Everything, Click Here", which didn't make much sense.

Maybe I'll check out "I'm just here for the food", thanks for the recommendation. (Although you did precede that with "After years of failure", which pretty much makes my point for me about *most* written directions :) )

Holy crap - what a long review. (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42956943)

This might be the short version: guy writes book to complain about recipes that don't warn people that some of the ingredients could be dangerous. Ends up on SlashDot because he doesn't think we'll fix "idiotproof" in the future either.

My take: watch "Idiocracy" instead - with take-out.

Possible outcome: New York City government official reads book, proposes a ban on cooking at home for citizens' own good.

Re:Holy crap - what a long review. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42957253)

I think you got it backwards. The quote from the book is:

detailed recipes and instructional videos on how to cook the most exquisite dish have never been easier to find on Google.

The reviewer Bennett Haselton argues that the information he found on Google was inadequate because he couldn't figure out how to make jalapeno poppers.

Re:Holy crap - what a long review. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42957343)

Number on take away from this book: If you invite Bennett Haselton to a Super Bowl party, tell him just to bring beer, otherwise he will inevitably hurt himself trying to figure out how to cook something by watching youtube videos.
Wait, what was this book about?

Re:Holy crap - what a long review. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42957817)

Also, feed him one of your habenero poppers (remove the ribs? whaaaat?) and watch his reaction.

Not a very good definition (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957091)

"where the 'best' directions are judged according to the results that are achieved by genuine beginners who attempt to follow the directions without help."

That is not a very good definition of "best" directions. Many people are not 'genuine beginners' at what they're working on. Instructions that are "best" for genuine beginners won't be very good for most people.

A better way to use technology to prepare food (1)

lmcgeoch (1298209) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957183)

I have been using technology in food preparation for awhile. Those websites listed are very good for very basic recipes like I have a very very good bread recipe off of Allrecipes.com. But I really like cookbooks written by great authors. I have found these authors lately by their blogs. Free recipes are just that, free. Sometimes I will look at a video on youtube if I am unsure how to follow off of a book. Such as rolling sushi or poaching an egg much easier to watch on youtube than try to read it. Also I like watching Julia Child cooking shows on Amazon Prime Instant Video. By preparing a recipe over and over, I will learn how to substitute or for example to make a crepe with ease which then lends to creativity because I am comfortable with the overall process. Also sometimes I will peruse restaurant websites to get ideas on new combinations that I could incorporate into my own cooking. Technology can enhance creativity or take from it. It is entirely up to the user.

Surreal (2)

stillnotelf (1476907) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957335)

This thread is surreal. It claims to be a book review. Most of "TFA" is actually complaining (legitmately) about the sorry state of cooking instructions on the web, which is a tangent (in the strictest sense) to the book review. We never return to the book review. Then, most of the comments are about how the submitter's fingers are too sensitive to capsaicin!

Re:Surreal (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42958865)

Most of "TFA" is actually complaining (legitmately) about the sorry state of cooking instructions on the web, which is a tangent (in the strictest sense) to the book review.

I disagree that subby's complaints in regards to cooking instruction on the web are legitimate.

1) I don't see subby complaining about cooking instruction. I see subby complaining about recipes.

2) You don't learn how to cook from recipes any more than you'd learn basic physics from the latest journal articles.

3) Like you learn basic physics from a text book, subby should learn how to cook from a cook book. Any decent cook book will cover those basics not included in every recipe. Once you learn how to cook, then you can read a recipe, just like how once you have the basics down, then you can understand a physics journal article.

Re:Surreal (1)

bennetthaselton (1016233) | about a year and a half ago | (#42971761)

I agree about general techniques like boiling water -- a recipe ought to be able to say "Bring water to a boil" without telling you how to do that -- but I think my complaints about the jalapeno popper recipes are still valid for two reasons:
1. Jalapenos are a specific ingredient. A "general knowledge" cookbook can't tell you the specifics about handling every individual ingredient. If there is a certain handling that is specific to one ingredient but is not part of "general knowledge", then I would argue that should appear in the recipe.
2. If you read a recipe that says "boil water" and you don't know how to do that, at least you *know* that you don't know how to do that, and you can go and look it up. By contrast, if a recipe says "slice jalapenos and remove the seeds", you don't know that you're not being told two crucial pieces of information (wear gloves, and remove the white ribs as well as the seeds).

The web would be an ideal place to write recipes that have the best of both worlds, because specific instructions can be hyperlinked to pages that tell you how to carry out that step in detail. That way, experienced cooks can breeze right through the part that says "boil water", while inexperienced cooks could click on it for the details.

It wouldn't be that hard to do this. The larger point I was making is that nobody does this -- and in general, nobody writes good newbie directions -- because the free market in general, and Google in particular, does not reward it. If Google (or eHow, or wikihow, or about.com, or anybody else with a large built-in test audience) were to implement the system I described (for sorting instructions by the quality of results, so that the best ones would bubble up to the top), then maybe people would find it worthwhile to write those kinds of directions with built-in hyperlinks for more detail on specific steps. Or they might find some other way of writing good directions. My tenet was that good directions are the ones that produce good results, and it doesn't matter *how* you achieve it.

Re:Surreal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42972495)

Once you learn basic heating techniques and how to use and maintain simple kitchen tools like knives, 90+% of general cooking knowledge is learning about ingredients, learning how to prepare them and how they behave under different conditions.

It may be less obvious when seeing instructions to prep a single ingredient, like jalepenos, that there is some hidden assumed knowledge, but that is there for a lot of things. Good general introductions to cooking I've seen before cover things like this for common ingredients. If you want to work with less common ingredients, you learn to either extrapolate from ingredients you have worked with before, to look it up, or realize it might take quite a bit of experimentation.

As a result of that, even though I've had quite a bit cooking experience, I still will look up information about ingredients when I come across something new. There are plenty of essays and write ups at several different levels for most ingredients, although they are definitely a lot less common than recipes. Having read such a thing, it will make a huge difference in how you cook and recipe that uses those ingredients, and even how you select them at the store. It is especially important for recovering from mistakes, or problems due to variations in the ingredients. But the additional benefit is that recipes become more guidelines, not step-by-step blind instructions, and you know what varying from the recipe will do. Heck, it is even more important with the internet, as it helps you choose between recipes or catch recipes online that are doing things the hard way or even wrong.

But that takes more time than just looking up a recipe. Not much more time, especially for simple things, and even less time once you pick up knowledge of the more common ingredients.

Re:Surreal (1)

bennetthaselton (1016233) | about a year and a half ago | (#42971641)

This was not intended as a "review" of the book. I submitted it under the title "Better Cooking Through Algorithms", intended as an essay expanding on *one* point made in the book (which is why the second paragraph says, "I'll have a full review of the book when it's released, but I think many of Morozov's argument are interesting enough to deserve an article in their own right"). An editor accidentally changed the title to "Book Review: Better Cooking Through Algorithms", which didn't make much sense.

I have no idea what proportion of the population has fingers too sensitive to capsaicin, but it is the active ingredient in pepper spray, which seems to have an effect on most people.

Re:Surreal (1)

stillnotelf (1476907) | about a year and a half ago | (#42971871)

I can totally see the editors mangling the submission type. I liked your idea a lot! I also think that most of the "no gloves" people are insensitive through acclimatization: they make stuff hot often enough that they've just deadened/quieted the nerves in their fingers. (In other words your fingers are normal.)

Review of the review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42957425)

Interesting review, but it seems to miss a few things It doesn't make sense to me for ALL recipes to cater to beginners - that seems like saying all math textbooks should assume you don't know math. It makes sense that there are different recipes for cooks of different skill levels - you are only a beginner for a short period, after which point those additional instructions are a waste of your time. The reviewer seems to be trying to optimize for saving time for the beginner, but clearly if you are concerned about reducing total time wasted, it is the other way around - you want to save time for the vast majority of your life you spend already knowing how to cook. Paper cookbooks get this right - they have a section generally explaining the basics, what the words mean (mince, chop, fry, etc), and how to select and store ingredients. Each recipe on apples then doesn't have to repeat the difference between types of apples and how to select, store, peel, and cut them.

The reviewer also seems to suggest all recipes should be accessible to non-cooks, by being reduced to a sequence of steps which can be performed by anyone with no experience. This is an interesting hypothesis - is cooking truly such a non-skilled activity that anyone can make anything, as long as the instructions are sufficiently detailed, and they have the right ingredients and equipment? It might be, I guess, if you are just making a known recipe. Unlike playing an instrument, for example, there isn't that much of cooking that requires manual dexterity that has to be learned, except to do it faster. An exception I can think of is throwing your own pizza crust - practice seems like the only way to master that skill. Another exception is dealing with the natural variation in ingredients, which requires "seasoning to taste" and adjusting amounts to reach certain consistencies (for example flour is very humidity sensitive). You have to know what taste or consistency you are aiming for, which is best achieved in the traditional manner of having someone show you how to make the dish, so you can experience the correct preparation steps. This is similar to medicine, which is also subject to the same debate - should doctors (and chefs) just be replaced by expert systems?

Write idiot-proof directions, or educate idiots? (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957451)

Focusing resources on improving the clarity of *each individual* recipe for beginners throws away the benefits that society can gain from real *education* that develops general thinking ability rather than task-specific expertise. Perhaps a more productive focus for improving cooking overall is not figuring out how to make each individual recipe work out best for a beginner, but discovering what more general introduction of cooking principles best enables beginners to produce great results from less-well-written recipes (i.e. moves people past the permanent-beginner stage, where they remain dependent on the quality of each recipe). Once a person starts to understand *how to cook* (instead of just how to re-create particular recipes), they'll be able to get great results even from great-grandma's terse and ambiguous recipe cards (which assumed a competent reader who didn't need to be coddled at every step). Overall, it should be much more productive to optimize a single source of cooking pedagogy to ease the beginner-to-expert transition than re-write every single recipe (in ways that maximize first-time results, but probably not the general educational potential of the recipe).

Re:Write idiot-proof directions, or educate idiots (1)

bennetthaselton (1016233) | about a year and a half ago | (#42971841)

I think you're right. And I would say the way to do this is to produce a few recipes for beginners, which do spell out the techniques in detail (as vetted by the direction-quality-sorting method that I described near the end of the article), so that even the beginner cooks can produce a few edible recipes. Then that's what would give them the education they need to understand all the other less-well-written recipes.

The problem is that I've never even seen *any* recipes that come with directions that work for true beginners. Hence the direction-quality-sorting algorithm.

In any case I think my point still applies to the jalapeno popper recipes because no matter how much "general knowledge" you possess, if none of it is jalapeno-specific, you wouldn't "automatically" know that (a) you have to wear gloves or your hands will burn, and (b) when the directions say "remove the seeds", you have to remove the seeds *and* the ribs, or the finished product will be inedible. So we should use the direction-quality-sorting algorithm not just to produce a group of recipes that can be used as a kind of hacked-together basic instructional course, but also for recipes that require knowledge specific to the ingredients in that recipe.

Do not eat desiccant (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about a year and a half ago | (#42957611)

Well, there are two important things that should be in every jalapeno popper recipe, or the recipe is doing more harm than good just by being out there on the web...

Seriously, it does more harm than good, if the directions lack something?

Not all directions are for beginners. Not all directions are only useful to beginners. You can know how to handle jalapenos and still benefit from recipes which use them.

I can't comment on things which are seriously "aimed" at beginners (e.g. "..for Dummies" books, or cookbooks which are litererally marketed as being "for people who don't know how to cook"), but I can tell you this: there is a Shitload of very useful information out there, on topics every bit as wide as all the sphere of human endeavor, which isn't aimed at beginners, and is incredibly useful to non-beginners.

I am hardly a cooking expert, but most of my cookbooks are not "for people who don't know how to cook" and no where on the cover or back page, are any such claims made. And the books can still have immense value.

"good" means "produces good results when followed by someone with no prior knowledge in this area".

Most of us don't define "good" that narrowly. Sometimes we do; sometimes you're right, and that's what we're looking for. Most of the time, no. I routinely look for information about things that I'm not a beginner at. I bet you do, too.

When you are reading a book about all the different sports that you can play with Happy Fun Ball, not every damn sport description has to tell you Do Not Taunt Happy Fun Ball. Sometimes it's ok for the author to make assumptions. You did survive long enough to buy the book...

I learned from a book (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42959483)

I'm a good cook - ask any of my friends, or my two husbands. I learned most of it from a book called The Joy of Cooking. Each chapter begins with an "about" section. It explains things well - like why pie crust gets tough if you handle it too much (it's the gluten), and why you have to handle bread dough a lot (it's the gluten), and why you should use different kinds of flour for each (it's the gluten). If you have never tried, of it you have tried and failed, you read the 'about', else, you go straight to the recipes. I can also recommend The Science of Good Food. It has no recipes, but information that helps you understand them. As a chemist, I appreciate that type of information - knowing the properties of the materials you work with is crucial.

My reading was followed up with years of trial and error to arrive at a level of mastery. Gee, not so different from learning PHP after all!

The airline industry is already having trouble with their automation. Not because it doesn't work, but because it works too well. Some brilliant person decided that because the autopilot would do so much, you could cut back on pilot training. Many planes have crashed because the autopilot was doing the wrong thing and the pilot either couldn't shut it off, or didn't know that shutting it off was the appropriate thing to do.

Instructions and guides are great, but total reliance on them is not. There are things you must learn how to do yourself. As Mark Twain once said "A many who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way".

Re: Haselton's "To save everything . . ." review (1)

sumergo (2510518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42960327)

1. It's a classic usability issue. "Become your client" - address your intended audience. 2. Technical writing is an art not a science - you've either got the talent or not - you can't spray-on creativity. 3. General heuristic #1: if you are new to a process or activity - ask someone who might know or RTFM. 4. Specific heuristic #35924 - if it's burning your fingers, don't touch your eyes ;-)

The Chinese Room revisited (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42960941)

So if you follow the instructions on the cards and make Dim Sum, do you actually know how to make Chinese food?

**ARTICLE TITLE IS WRONG**. Editors changed it. (1)

bennetthaselton (1016233) | about a year and a half ago | (#42971441)

I'm posting this urgently without reading more than a handful the comments that people have posted. This article WAS NOT intended as a "review" of the whole book, and I submitted the article with the title "Better Cooking Through Algorithms". This was intended as a preliminary commentary on one point made in the book, to be followed later by a review of the full book. (Note that the second paragraph ends with, "I'll have a full review of the book when it's released, but I think many of Morozov's argument are interesting enough to deserve an article in their own right.") An editor changed the title to "Book Review: To Save Everything, Click Here", which, as multiple commenters have pointed out, makes no sense for an article that only comments on one small point.

(As of the moment I'm posting this comment, the title on the article is "Book Review: To Save Everything, Click Here". I'll try to get the title changed. If you're reading this after the article title has been fixed, that's what happened.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?