Recipes are a guide for unfamiliar, but once you learn the profiles of each ingredient you can expand greatly.
I know it's a bit off your comments and I certainly search myself for new basis to play with, but I hope it helps :-)
There’s nothing wrong at all with “cook by numbers” and it’s especially great if you didn’t learn to cook as a child. It’s like learning at a coding boot camp where you learn to write some simple business logic based on a spec, or learning algebra in grade 8: basically syntactic transforms with no theory.
But Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat will teach you to look in the fridge when you’re hungry but unmotivated and quickly make something from what happens to be there that isn’t boring, faster and cheaper than ordering junk food delivery.
Yes you could turn into a fancy chef but the suggested advice is great for someone like me, who doesn’t really care particularly about food.
2. don't tell people their perception of things is wrong, instead consider why they're perceiving things that way, and if you can, do something* that may change their perception
* here, you can't
Baking is the only thing that requires some science know-how but it has its own building blocks [1] that demystify overly complicated recipes.
There aren't that many "shapes" of dishes.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Ratio-Simple-Behind-Everyday-Cooking/...
1. Saute aromatic base (like onion, garlic, pepper, celery etc)
2. Deglaze
3. Add meats, non aromatic vegetables (e.g. carrot, potato)
4. Add broth, simmer
5. Garnish
All it took was asking “why” a specific ingredient was used at a specific stage in the recipe. You get a lot of answers from that.
For example one of my staples is braised chicken and vegetables. I know I can use any of certain vegetables I might have (mushrooms, onions, celery, carrots, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, brussel sprouts, potatoes or sweet potatoes, shallots, etc), any of a couple liquids (water, chicken or vegetable stock, red or white wine, beer, etc) and spice it up with (heavy cream, fresh or dried herbs, mustard, garlic, pepper, bacon, butter, lemon, etc). And I know roughly how I want to cook it: flour the chicken and cook until brown and crispy in a pan, take it out and brown any firmer vegetables, add some spices, add the rest of the vegetables and my cooking liquid and bring to a small boil, put everything in a big oven dish, pop the chicken on top, bake at around 400 for 30-50 minutes until the chicken seems done, add any last things that might burn like cream in the final 5 minutes and then plate up and eat.
Now I don't have to go to the store and look for anything, don't have to worry too much about measuring ingredients, don't have to worry about cook time or technique. I can whip up a big family dinner pretty quickly with whatever I have on hand and experiment a bit with different flavors with confidence that it will turn out good.
The drop-off in results has been extremely pronounced for me, both for text and image search. Queries that should easily generate dozens of pages instead result in 1-3. The results are rarely what I’m looking for. It’s slowly been driving me crazy.
At this point, l’ve switched to mostly using individual site’s search functionality (GitHub, Stack Overflow, etc or using site: ) and bookmarking/taking notes on anything more obscure. I’m at a point where I’m tempted to scrape and index my bookmarks so I can search locally. Link discovery is a different matter of course.
https://gizmodo.com/googles-algorithm-is-lying-to-you-about-...
>I knew from personal experience that this was a lie. Recipes always said it took 5 or 10 minutes to caramelize onions, and when you followed the recipes, you either got slightly cooked onions or you ended up 40 minutes behind schedule. So I caramelized some onions and recorded how long it really took—28 minutes if you cooked them as hot as possible and constantly stirred them, 45 minutes if you were sane about it—and I published those results on Slate, along with a denunciation of the false five-to-10 minute standard.
Trusting Google is just as apt to get you in trouble.
It's shocking how gpt has almost no utility though because you can't actually TRUST anything it says. I've been thinking about that a lot lately.
The first page is just the same few domains. Meanwhile, websites dedicated to the disease and often maintained by supportive communities languish at the bottom of the pile.
Why? Because Google decided that “authority” of domains is important, not the content. So a generic article on WebMD will rank higher than a forum page filled with mountains of information from actual patients and medical professionals.