I had no idea it was about too few words. I always thought it was that they add all that fluff to maximize their advertising revenue, making you scroll and scroll through a story before you find the recipe. Seems like either way, it’s thanks to Google….
Where's the box for the story about how mother used to make this years ago and how the author made it for a such and such party and guests were asking for the recipe and ...
I want to read the authors complete backstory and several holiday pictures and sales pitches on why I should buy their artisanal ingredients, scrolling until I nearly give up.
I feel like the recipe loses authenticity since there is no backstory about how their great uncle came up with the recipe after falling out of a guard tower during WWII.
That sounds cool and all, but can you vibe code a script that injects more heart tugging stories and additional AI images before I get to the recipe? It should feel like Im wading through slop to find what I'm looking for.
Or if any of the steps requires a more complicated instruction that can't be expressed in a few words. It wouldn't break the structure of the diagram, but it wouldn't be as beautiful.
It is a fun idea though, maybe there is another format that works.
Similarly, it also easily identifies which part of the recipe each ingredient goes to. You can do this by splitting up the ingredients list as well, but that doesn't really go against it being a good idea.
Same; but imo while "real cooking" is an art, following instructions (a recipe) is basically an algorithm. At least, expressing it as one doesn't change the opportunities for artistic expression.
I find this layout works best for in-the-moment reference while cooking, and the 2-dimensional nature of it is what really makes it useful. So I think of splitting an ingredient as like lifting some of it out into an imaginary third dimension before inserting it later at another step.
The point of the AI slop / random pointless exposition is to maximize the number of ads a user has to scroll past to see the actual recipe. What incentive would a website have to put that at the bottom?
Or its because it was a family recipe passed down and making the recipe reminds you of all the special times you spent with family and want to share the origins of that family tradition, rather than just sharing your grandma's secret recipe.
Also, more detailed instructions are needed. Mix for how long, till what consistency? Baking times and temps usually also say something like "... or until just brown", or "...until crispy with dark edges." Because, unlike machines with switches that do exactly the same thing each time, cooking has many variables that simple instructions don't account for.
It's best for recipes where you know the techniques already. These are reminders and not detailed tutorials.
Like my bread "recipe", which I don't even bother writing down anymore, is just: 1% gluten flour, 29% spelt, 70% AP, 85% water, 15% starter. Sit 90 minutes. 3% salt, 20-25% other. Stretch and fold every half hour until crackly. Split in two loaves, rise, bake at 500F w/steam tray 25 minutes, turn off oven 20 minutes.
There's a lot of unwritten stuff there, but it fits on a card.
Yeah that's a problem I've encountered with old recipes. Written by those who know the procedure they just need to write down the exact portions. My family's got foods lost to time that we know the ingredients of but not the method.
The donuts my family makes for Hanukkah, the recipe card just says "add flour until sticky" and like. Thanks great grandmother. Worse though is "add a can of cherries" because guess what has changed over time? Size of that can. By several ounces.
Mix until creamed, mix until stiff peaks form, etc. Any of the “action” steps that require further instruction are going to really mess up this tidy format.
I learned how to cook from this site like 20 years ago! I still use that format on my home recipe cards sometimes, but now I've just gotten so used to it all recipes look like this on my head. Great format, taters guna tate.
The real site also includes a paragraph description, this is just a quick reference card that's assuming you have already cooked the recipe a few times, not great for learning it the first time.
I don't know, what's a recipe without a popup video and six banners and a "jump to recipe" button that doesn't work, as well as 99 pictures of spaghetti?
I made an app where the the recipe is saved as a JSON file with ingredients separate from the steps. In the steps instead of saying "mix sugar and butter" if says "mix {sugar} and {butter}" and the app adds quantity there directly. I can scale the recipe and still have the quantities inside the body ("mix sugar (100g) and butter (55g)").
I saw cooklang but only after I made my app. It's interesting but for me the main goal was to use existing recipes. I wanted to just take something I found online and be able to use it, not have to rewrite it. And I wanted it to handle multiple languages. When the first decent LLMs came up I did some testing and they were capable of transforming recipes into JSON so I build my app around that but the JSON had to very simple. I later managed to add couple extra features (like groups of ingredients) but it's still way simpler than cooklang. Current LLMs could handle cooklang without issues but my app already does everything I need it to do so I'm not changing anything.
I tried recreating this style of recipe card and ended up using a JSON tree structure to store the recipe. I also added fields for a little more description so that I could generate a little more traditional lists for ingredients and instructions.
If you are tired of reading of grandma's hardships in the great depression here is a trick:
Add "cooked.wiki/" (without the "") to the beginning of any recipe URL, and it will strip away everything but a column with the ingredients and a column with the recipe.
You have to make an account to store recipes, but that's totally optional.
F-droid is an alternative to the Google App Store, but upcoming changes by Google will prevent all third party stores from working on standard Android phones.
Someone mentioned an app for this, there's also one called Paprika 3 that does something similar. This one you don't need an account to store recipes though. It can also translate weight to imperial measurements, and solve ingredient quantities for portions like 1/2, etc.
Also generally you can hit the in-page "print" button and the print version is often a one-sheet that cuts out the "my family xyz" bs. To be fair, some of those have real tips or hints or substitutions they don't include in the recipe proper, but a lot of the time it's just fluff as you can't copyright recipes without significant extra steps and exposition.
I think it depends on how much of a verbal versus visual thinker you are. I'm very much the latter, and I've been using the Cooking for Engineers template for years. One nice thing about it is still having an ingredient list for shopping or mise en place and steps together without repeating a bunch of text.
Also, bigger recipes will usually have parts that are done concurrently, and the boxes with those steps will stack vertically. The example is one sequence all involving the butter, so that's already really the worst case scenario for this format.
The hallmark of recipe design imo was modernist cuisine and the following books on pizza and bread. A lot of the recipes were obnoxious and it’s written by a notorious ex Microsoft cto that turned into a patent troll to finance his cooking nerd bullshit (morally justifiable to pirate all of the obnoxiously expensive books) but props for their recipe format
Very clear, in order of addition, scaling percentages, and in the actual book clear instructions follow which is extremely helpful in the bread one especially
Would’ve probably been helpful to add that, whoops. But once you understand it it makes scaling a recipe much easier. This is less important for stuff like Mac and cheese tbf, but if you go to the bread or pizza book the ratios are much more important
You should probably mix together the dry ingredients before folding them in. So the big blank square in the bottom middle should be "mix" but I guess that ruins the cascading aesthetic and makes it more cluttered, which would've also showed the weakness of this design
Also why would you fold in the dry ingredients, maybe this is just some "lorem ipsum" recipe but unless there's a foam you're trying to keep inflated you don't really need to fold stuff in.
So the big blank square in the bottom middle should be “mix”
is see that as an improvement. that square was empty and unbalanced space before
showed the weakness of this design
i guess when you generate such a design per script, then you can replace some of the straight lines with flowing/wavy lines and get a nice design again. (i am thinking like a sankey diagram maybe? but there are probably other more compact variants possible)
It's a neat diagram, but I'm unsure what they mean by "ignore it." This is exactly how good recipes have been designed for many many decades, minus the nifty visual cheat sheet and with better instructions. [i.e. Do you beat the eggs? How thoroughly? How do you know when it's done baking?]
I absolutely get that this might help those who are more visually based learners, but the structure of recipes already follows this pattern. This turns the written instructions into a simplified chart, and I hope more thorough written instructions are simply being elided here.
I do like it though. It would certainly make a nice visual shorthand to glance over at during prep.
I first saw this notation technique on a recipe card pinned to a stove from the 1850s at a preserved historical village display. I have no reason to doubt that it was the original card, or descended from it.
This is kind of a normalized process diagram to illustrate functional programming paradigms. I read this as it was posted in a programming community here on Lemmy a couple of months ago:
Means lift some of the mixture with your spoon, turn it over and press it in again. It's a technique for mixing without squeezing the air out, so it will rise in the oven.
Absolutely love this way of setting it up! but it's only almost perfect. It has weight in mass instead of volume and temperature converted to celsius. I only need a proper measure of the pan and it would let me make it without any conversions.
This example is imperfect because you also need to mix the dry ingredients together before the folding in. I know that but it looks like this chart assumes everyone knows it. But the idea is sound. I like it.
It's actually kind of crap. The first two lines are things you do, then suddenly it shifts to lines being ingredients and columns being things you do. As someone else pointed out, it's not completely obvious which ingredients go into the mixing step one after the other. Also, if you have a recipe where you have steps to make ingredients used later on, it kind of falls apart.
I use an adjusted version of this format, and yes, one of my adjustments was putting all steps including initial setup together on the right.
Also, for many ingredients introduced together in one step, I simply order those ingredients top-to-bottom in whatever order it's ideal to add them in. I can't think of any recipes where that alone wasn't enough, but if I did need to provide more info, that would either be done in the text or justify splitting that step into multiple steps.
Because normal people are idiots. They are not going to understand any of this whatsoever. That's why you have to put the actual instructions with the ingredients.
I mean yeah but most recepies don't have proper instructions on how to sift flour or measure wet vs dry ingredients in them either. I know how to do it and I appreciate the conciseness of this view.
I feel like itd be easier to just put a mix block next to those directly below the one for the wet ingredients, keep the fold box to the side, and add bake as a wide one beneath it all like preheat is at the top
People already complained about every other aspect but my favorite is "completely authentic 100% original guarantee just like the origin city" and you open up the ingredients list to see half the stuff using localized substitutes.
If I wanted to make a homemade half assed version of the thing, I would have done it myself. I'm here to see how it's actually made dammit.
Jalapenos are not substitutes for thai chillies just because they're both peppers.
it's two different steps, but I don't find the chart so intuitive, IMO there shouldn't be borders between the actions and ingredients edit: that would make it worse
Oh. I think then the table would benefit from an additional row up top of subheading columns featuring step numbers (1, 2, 3, etc) to make that clearer.
159 Comments
bullsworth@pawb.social · 195 pts · 27d
Annoying that they did not even mention the original site: https://www.cookingforengineers.com/
Which does seem down right now, so archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260729050049/https://www.cookingforengineers.com/
WaterSword@discuss.tchncs.de · 107 pts · 27d
The site being down fits with the ‘for engineers’ theme
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 26d
Just because we can't code for shit and insist on doing everything ourselves…
Anivia@feddit.org · 5 pts · 26d
Joking aside, it was down because it got Reddit hugged to death, since a post on the frontpage of /r/all mentioned it in the top comment.
Now it's back online
cannedtuna@lemmy.world · 49 pts · 27d
Damn, even that site has a life story before a recipe
Very cool tho
turtlesareneat@piefed.ca · 24 pts · 27d
If you put a recipe on your webpage Google will ignore that shit. Butter and eggs? So few words, many numbers. Boring.
So you have to add a narrative if you want search engines to pay any attention, or even count the page as content.
Google could just fix this, but no, we've all adjusted to it.
skittle07crusher@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 26d
I had no idea it was about too few words. I always thought it was that they add all that fluff to maximize their advertising revenue, making you scroll and scroll through a story before you find the recipe. Seems like either way, it’s thanks to Google….
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social · 4 pts · 26d
Maybe originally a couple decades ago, but every food blog template added a "jump to recipe" button pretty shortly after those started to be a thing.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 27d
Interestingly, not the whole site is down, but the homepage is
RestlessNotions@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 27d
This guy was the foundation of my cooking skills... 20 years ago. Damn.
Dave@lemmy.nz · 2 pts · 26d
I found the recipe but apparently the design in the OP wasn't perfect, they have slightly updated it: https://www.cookingforengineers.com/recipe/327/Espresso-Brownies
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · 122 pts · 27d
Where's the box for the story about how mother used to make this years ago and how the author made it for a such and such party and guests were asking for the recipe and ...
BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca · 36 pts · 27d
I want to read the authors complete backstory and several holiday pictures and sales pitches on why I should buy their artisanal ingredients, scrolling until I nearly give up.
Widdershins@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 27d
I feel like the recipe loses authenticity since there is no backstory about how their great uncle came up with the recipe after falling out of a guard tower during WWII.
alltomorrowsregrets@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 26d
"When I was eight my great uncle Pete introduced me to his Schweddy balls..."
cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 26d
I actually vibe coded a script that would jump your browser to the recipe for that exact purpose.
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 26d
That sounds cool and all, but can you vibe code a script that injects more heart tugging stories and additional AI images before I get to the recipe? It should feel like Im wading through slop to find what I'm looking for.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 26d
justtherecipe.com is pretty great for cutting out that crap, although not as efficient as the system in OP pic
als@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 76 pts · 26d
Here's an open source library for generating these from markdown https://mossblaser.github.io/recipe_grid/tutorial.html
nekusoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de · 65 pts · 27d
I believe this design breaks down once you prepare an ingredient that then gets split for use in two or more later steps.
But now I'm thinking which kind of diagram could be used as well. Some adaption of an UML activity diagram maybe?
dracc@discuss.tchncs.de · 37 pts · 27d
List it twice?
lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 27d
No.
otter@lemmy.ca · 23 pts · 27d
Or if any of the steps requires a more complicated instruction that can't be expressed in a few words. It wouldn't break the structure of the diagram, but it wouldn't be as beautiful.
It is a fun idea though, maybe there is another format that works.
lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 27d
This diagram is classic "engineer developing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist in a domain they don't understand"
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 27d
The diagram does have benefits. For example it shows which steps can be performed in parallel if multiple people are cooking.
0ops@piefed.zip · 9 pts · 26d
And concise! No more frantic scrolling on my phone with batter-covered fingers
lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 26d
I don't need a diagram to do that but maybe my experience is atypical
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 26d
Similarly, it also easily identifies which part of the recipe each ingredient goes to. You can do this by splitting up the ingredients list as well, but that doesn't really go against it being a good idea.
lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 24d
I'm a software "engineer" and also passionate about cooking. Both are arts. You can't reduce it to an algorithm
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 24d
Same; but imo while "real cooking" is an art, following instructions (a recipe) is basically an algorithm. At least, expressing it as one doesn't change the opportunities for artistic expression.
BozeKnoflook@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 27d
Create a separate card for that ingredient, and in the main card list "add X% of "
nekusoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de · 6 pts · 27d
I like that idea, if only for the fact that it opens the door to recursive recipes.
Viceversa@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 26d
A pie with itself?
pez@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 26d
Sounds like we're close to inventing sourdough from first principles
phase@lemmy.8th.world · 4 pts · 27d
Can't an ingredient be there twice?
VAK@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 26d
But you want to do the first phase together
phase@lemmy.8th.world · 1 pts · 25d
Then two tables? Or rows in the middle to mark the action to split the ingredient in 2?
VAK@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 24d
rows in the middle to mark the action to split sounds the best to me
gamerdonkey@lemmy.sdf.org · 4 pts · 26d
I ran into this exact issue when I was making these diagrams for my own recipes: https://git.tilde.town/gamerdonkey/recipes_for_engineers#known-issues . My workaround was just to have instructions to set some aside and use it later.
I find this layout works best for in-the-moment reference while cooking, and the 2-dimensional nature of it is what really makes it useful. So I think of splitting an ingredient as like lifting some of it out into an imaginary third dimension before inserting it later at another step.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 26d
I've never seen a 3-dimensional recipe (ink in a cookbook notwithstanding), aren't they all 2-dimensional?
VAK@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 26d
I suppose you could show a split. Doesn't cascade anymore but flow still works.
Blackmist@feddit.uk · 63 pts · 26d
But where am I going to put the six paragraph AI generated anecdote about my grandmother?
Rooster326@programming.dev · 29 pts · 26d
In white text on white background at the bottom of the page where the rest of the SEO goes.
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 15 pts · 26d
You know, I don't hate this.
Let's simplify websites significantly. Everything SEO/AI slop appears below the fold in white text.
Taldan@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 26d
The point of the AI slop / random pointless exposition is to maximize the number of ads a user has to scroll past to see the actual recipe. What incentive would a website have to put that at the bottom?
Croquette@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 26d
It started as a SEO thing where websites with longer texts got a better indexing on Google, thus more ad revenue.
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 26d
Then put it at the top,
ya big foolGlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 26d
Or its because it was a family recipe passed down and making the recipe reminds you of all the special times you spent with family and want to share the origins of that family tradition, rather than just sharing your grandma's secret recipe.
NottaLottaOcelot@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 26d
“And Nanny only used Hershey cocoa powder. Click my Amazon link to buy it from my shop!”
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 46 pts · 27d
Works for some recipes, but not all.
Also, more detailed instructions are needed. Mix for how long, till what consistency? Baking times and temps usually also say something like "... or until just brown", or "...until crispy with dark edges." Because, unlike machines with switches that do exactly the same thing each time, cooking has many variables that simple instructions don't account for.
ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 26d
Add an asterisk or number to reference a footnote for the steps that need more instruction. This would work really well for a lot of recipes.
rbos@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 26d
It's best for recipes where you know the techniques already. These are reminders and not detailed tutorials.
Like my bread "recipe", which I don't even bother writing down anymore, is just: 1% gluten flour, 29% spelt, 70% AP, 85% water, 15% starter. Sit 90 minutes. 3% salt, 20-25% other. Stretch and fold every half hour until crackly. Split in two loaves, rise, bake at 500F w/steam tray 25 minutes, turn off oven 20 minutes.
There's a lot of unwritten stuff there, but it fits on a card.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 26d
Yeah that's a problem I've encountered with old recipes. Written by those who know the procedure they just need to write down the exact portions. My family's got foods lost to time that we know the ingredients of but not the method.
RebekahWSD@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 25d
The donuts my family makes for Hanukkah, the recipe card just says "add flour until sticky" and like. Thanks great grandmother. Worse though is "add a can of cherries" because guess what has changed over time? Size of that can. By several ounces.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 26d
Mix until creamed, mix until stiff peaks form, etc. Any of the “action” steps that require further instruction are going to really mess up this tidy format.
Pencilnoob@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 26d
COOKING FOR ENGINEERS!!!
I learned how to cook from this site like 20 years ago! I still use that format on my home recipe cards sometimes, but now I've just gotten so used to it all recipes look like this on my head. Great format, taters guna tate.
The real site also includes a paragraph description, this is just a quick reference card that's assuming you have already cooked the recipe a few times, not great for learning it the first time.
BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 26d
I don't know, what's a recipe without a popup video and six banners and a "jump to recipe" button that doesn't work, as well as 99 pictures of spaghetti?
Brickhead92@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 26d
This recipe is missing something. Maybe throw in a backstory.
Felis_Catus_Domesticus@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 26d
Eggs from gay chickens and vanilla from gender-fluid vanilla plants.
mig@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 26d
Vanilla orchids are not gender fluid at all, they are hermaphroditic. And eggs from happy hens just taste better.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 29 pts · 27d
I made an app where the the recipe is saved as a JSON file with ingredients separate from the steps. In the steps instead of saying "mix sugar and butter" if says "mix {sugar} and {butter}" and the app adds quantity there directly. I can scale the recipe and still have the quantities inside the body ("mix sugar (100g) and butter (55g)").
djmikeale@feddit.dk · 12 pts · 27d
Nice! I thought about doing the same and then discovered https://cooklang.org/ - looks like it's a similar approach that you describe
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 4 pts · 27d
I saw cooklang but only after I made my app. It's interesting but for me the main goal was to use existing recipes. I wanted to just take something I found online and be able to use it, not have to rewrite it. And I wanted it to handle multiple languages. When the first decent LLMs came up I did some testing and they were capable of transforming recipes into JSON so I build my app around that but the JSON had to very simple. I later managed to add couple extra features (like groups of ingredients) but it's still way simpler than cooklang. Current LLMs could handle cooklang without issues but my app already does everything I need it to do so I'm not changing anything.
djmikeale@feddit.dk · 2 pts · 26d
Ah very interesting! I found cooklang to be overkill for my needs as well but the fact that there's an obsidian plugin resulted in me using it now.
MurrayL@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 27d
What if the recipe steps include modifiers like ‘add half of the butter’?
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 8 pts · 27d
It will simply say "Add half o the butter (100g)" and you have divide it yourself. It's very simple.
BUT
Some recipes will have the same ingredient multiple times like:
and the app will distinguish between them and put the correct amount in the correct part of the body.
WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 27d
Sauce or is it proprietary?
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 16 pts · 27d
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.curiana.recipes/
Desktop (Linux only) version is here: https://github.com/kandrelczyk/twili-recipes/releases/tag/0.2.10
Disclosure for AI vegans: The app integrates with external LMMs to parse recipes into JSON but they can also be added manually.
Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 27d
sugar and butter do tend to go into sauces
echodot@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 26d
Plus then when I want to swap out eggs for I don't know mustard or something it's so much easier.
gamerdonkey@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 26d
I tried recreating this style of recipe card and ended up using a JSON tree structure to store the recipe. I also added fields for a little more description so that I could generate a little more traditional lists for ingredients and instructions.
https://git.tilde.town/gamerdonkey/recipes_for_engineers/
Example recipe: https://tilde.town/~gamerdonkey/recipes/lemony_olive_oil_zucchini_bread.html JSON representation: https://tilde.town/~gamerdonkey/recipes/lemony_olive_oil_zucchini_bread.json
RecursiveParadox@piefed.social · 22 pts · 26d
If you are tired of reading of grandma's hardships in the great depression here is a trick:
Add "cooked.wiki/" (without the "") to the beginning of any recipe URL, and it will strip away everything but a column with the ingredients and a column with the recipe.
You have to make an account to store recipes, but that's totally optional.
IjonTichy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 26d
For Android there's also this: https://f-droid.org/packages/com.flauschcode.broccoli/
Does the same on your phone just share a link to the app.
abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 25d
I've never seen much about f-droid. Is some sort of framework/launcher?
gramie@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 25d
F-droid is an alternative to the Google App Store, but upcoming changes by Google will prevent all third party stores from working on standard Android phones.
LandBasedDaveyJones@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 25d
Someone mentioned an app for this, there's also one called Paprika 3 that does something similar. This one you don't need an account to store recipes though. It can also translate weight to imperial measurements, and solve ingredient quantities for portions like 1/2, etc.
Also generally you can hit the in-page "print" button and the print version is often a one-sheet that cuts out the "my family xyz" bs. To be fair, some of those have real tips or hints or substitutions they don't include in the recipe proper, but a lot of the time it's just fluff as you can't copyright recipes without significant extra steps and exposition.
NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 26d
Is there a way of calling on the mods to pin this, cause that's useful as hell
magnolia_mayhem@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 26d
Kind of reminds me of the output of qdirstat.
glitchdx@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 26d
wait, is qdirstat like windirstat but for linux? If so, I'm downloading it as soon as I get home
Ava@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 26d
Perhaps less relevant for you on Linux, but for any using Windows, WizTree is a hugely faster alternative to WinDirStat in case that's a pain point.
Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 26d
Filelight is my go-to
qevlarr@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 26d
Sequoia view developed at my alma mater. This was cutting edge technology when I was there almost 25 years ago lol
magnolia_mayhem@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 26d
Yes. I don't know if it's still maintained, but I got my install through AUR and it works
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 26d
I immediately thought this was windirstat too!
ddplf@szmer.info · 1 pts · 26d
Always loved these blobs!
needanke@feddit.org · 1 pts · 26d
Why loved past tense?
cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 26d
Flattening out nested trees can be tricky.
apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 27d
My dyslexic brain hates this. Words and lists are better.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 14 pts · 27d
My typical brain hates this too.
ericwdhs@discuss.online · 2 pts · 26d
My (probably) autistic brain loves it.
starik@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 26d
Somebody has been sleeping in my brain - and she’s still there!
djmikeale@feddit.dk · 18 pts · 27d
This seems like it wouldn't scale well for more complex recipes, and for the given example I'd prefer a list of steps instead, e.g.
MoffKalast@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 27d
Could always make a few of these for any required subassemblies and then one that puts them together.
But yeah it's hard to beat a succinct list.
ericwdhs@discuss.online · 2 pts · 26d
I think it depends on how much of a verbal versus visual thinker you are. I'm very much the latter, and I've been using the Cooking for Engineers template for years. One nice thing about it is still having an ingredient list for shopping or mise en place and steps together without repeating a bunch of text.
Also, bigger recipes will usually have parts that are done concurrently, and the boxes with those steps will stack vertically. The example is one sequence all involving the butter, so that's already really the worst case scenario for this format.
djmikeale@feddit.dk · 2 pts · 26d
Those are good points! Thanks for sharing.
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 17 pts · 26d
The hallmark of recipe design imo was modernist cuisine and the following books on pizza and bread. A lot of the recipes were obnoxious and it’s written by a notorious ex Microsoft cto that turned into a patent troll to finance his cooking nerd bullshit (morally justifiable to pirate all of the obnoxiously expensive books) but props for their recipe format
Very clear, in order of addition, scaling percentages, and in the actual book clear instructions follow which is extremely helpful in the bread one especially
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 26d
Either I cant calculate or the percentages don't add up.
What is up with the two 100%?
LePoisson@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 26d
I had the same question and found the answer: https://modernistcuisine.com/mc/how-to-scale-a-recipe/
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 26d
Would’ve probably been helpful to add that, whoops. But once you understand it it makes scaling a recipe much easier. This is less important for stuff like Mac and cheese tbf, but if you go to the bread or pizza book the ratios are much more important
Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 26d
I have Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking, and I believe its written in the same way...
okay it is a little different, because there is no % or weight measurements, but it is in order similar, with similar instruction style, printed 1970.
testaccount789@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 26d
That recipe design reminds me I should learn LaTeX, but I am also lazy, so...
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 17 pts · 26d
You should probably mix together the dry ingredients before folding them in. So the big blank square in the bottom middle should be "mix" but I guess that ruins the cascading aesthetic and makes it more cluttered, which would've also showed the weakness of this design
Also why would you fold in the dry ingredients, maybe this is just some "lorem ipsum" recipe but unless there's a foam you're trying to keep inflated you don't really need to fold stuff in.
bort@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 26d
is see that as an improvement. that square was empty and unbalanced space before
i guess when you generate such a design per script, then you can replace some of the straight lines with flowing/wavy lines and get a nice design again. (i am thinking like a sankey diagram maybe? but there are probably other more compact variants possible)
PNW_Doug@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 27d
It's a neat diagram, but I'm unsure what they mean by "ignore it." This is exactly how good recipes have been designed for many many decades, minus the nifty visual cheat sheet and with better instructions. [i.e. Do you beat the eggs? How thoroughly? How do you know when it's done baking?]
I absolutely get that this might help those who are more visually based learners, but the structure of recipes already follows this pattern. This turns the written instructions into a simplified chart, and I hope more thorough written instructions are simply being elided here.
I do like it though. It would certainly make a nice visual shorthand to glance over at during prep.
solarspark@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 27d
I think the diagram is especially useful for those who have done a recipe numerous times.
This seems like a great visual summary and useful for those who can refer to it and use experience to fill in the details.
Nothing substitutes a raw cooking instruction in plain language.
ICastFist@programming.dev · 12 pts · 27d
Instructions unclear, went all in before folding, now I'm baked
Acid_Burn@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 26d
Same, but not about the baking just the baked part.
rbos@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 26d
I first saw this notation technique on a recipe card pinned to a stove from the 1850s at a preserved historical village display. I have no reason to doubt that it was the original card, or descended from it.
passepartout@feddit.org · 9 pts · 27d
This is kind of a normalized process diagram to illustrate functional programming paradigms. I read this as it was posted in a programming community here on Lemmy a couple of months ago:
https://www.lihaoyi.com/post/WhatsFunctionalProgrammingAllAbout.html
troglodytis@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 26d
What does that mean? What does fold in mean?
BlackPenguins@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 26d
You just fold in the cheese, David.
OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 26d
You fold it in. I don’t think I can be more clear.
xistera@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 26d
Oh good... now I see bubbles.
David! What does burning smell like?
spittingimage@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 26d
Means lift some of the mixture with your spoon, turn it over and press it in again. It's a technique for mixing without squeezing the air out, so it will rise in the oven.
Smokeless7048@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 26d
Not sure if joking or not.
When you have a fragile mixture, like whipped eggs, if you mix like standard you will squeeze most of the air out
When you fold, you make a vertical circle, from the bottom and flopping on top, in a what that doesn't so much 'beat' but fluffs.
BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 26d
It's a scene from Schitt's Creek.
Smokeless7048@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 25d
Didn't know that, really needa watch it
BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 25d
It's the best!
hirihit640@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 26d
I didn't know the meme and this genuinely educated me so thank you
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 8 pts · 26d
Oh great. Now I want to lay out all my own recipes like this.
... I have too many projects already. XD
kamen@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 26d
While they were at it, they could've solved the problem with "pre-".
"There are only two states an oven can possibly exist in: heated or unheated!" - Carlin
virku@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 27d
Absolutely love this way of setting it up! but it's only almost perfect. It has weight in mass instead of volume and temperature converted to celsius. I only need a proper measure of the pan and it would let me make it without any conversions.
tigermountain@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 26d
What am I even making here?
WanderingThoughts@europe.pub · 10 pts · 26d
espresso brownies, apparently
helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 26d
Thank you for blindly trying out the recipe to see what it makes for us.
brap@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 27d
I have never seen that in my life and it's perfect.
RBWells@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 25d
This example is imperfect because you also need to mix the dry ingredients together before the folding in. I know that but it looks like this chart assumes everyone knows it. But the idea is sound. I like it.
mattreb@feddit.it · 6 pts · 25d
...and this table would still work, since you could write this in that empty square at the bottom!
IzzyJ@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 25d
Im mgl, I actually cant decipher op super easily
iknewitwhenisawit@fedinsfw.app · 5 pts · 27d
It's actually kind of crap. The first two lines are things you do, then suddenly it shifts to lines being ingredients and columns being things you do. As someone else pointed out, it's not completely obvious which ingredients go into the mixing step one after the other. Also, if you have a recipe where you have steps to make ingredients used later on, it kind of falls apart.
I would not want to use this to make lasagna!
ericwdhs@discuss.online · 2 pts · 26d
I use an adjusted version of this format, and yes, one of my adjustments was putting all steps including initial setup together on the right.
Also, for many ingredients introduced together in one step, I simply order those ingredients top-to-bottom in whatever order it's ideal to add them in. I can't think of any recipes where that alone wasn't enough, but if I did need to provide more info, that would either be done in the text or justify splitting that step into multiple steps.
Tot@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 27d
Now I want chocolate cake or whatever this is making.
ratofkryll@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 26d
Brownies. I'd go with this recipe over the one in the OP, though.
Tot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 26d
Ah yes, can’t go wrong with basically anything from Sally’s. Thank you!
DudeWhoYapsTooMuch@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 26d
Because normal people are idiots. They are not going to understand any of this whatsoever. That's why you have to put the actual instructions with the ingredients.
phase@lemmy.8th.world · 4 pts · 27d
I started to draw recepts as git trees with mermaid. This presentation is just better.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 25d
Mix how?
CannedCairn@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 25d
Well
rbos@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 27d
I do my recipe cards like this
kayohtie@pawb.social · 4 pts · 26d
Ah yes, recipes for people who think "what do you mean you can't cook, the recipe is right there."
Usually because they've never examined why people don't rave about their pie crusts or cake texture.
abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 25d
I mean yeah but most recepies don't have proper instructions on how to sift flour or measure wet vs dry ingredients in them either. I know how to do it and I appreciate the conciseness of this view.
Felis_Catus_Domesticus@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 26d
anything can be Marie Kondo'ed, it would seem.
bus_factor@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 26d
Needs a four chapter novel about something unrelated in front of it.
Leviathan@fedinsfw.app · 3 pts · 26d
What if you wanted to first sift, combine and whisk the dry ingredients before folding in, would you put that in the big blank square box?
VAK@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 26d
Yes
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 26d
You add an other column and put the ingredients you use first at the top.
IzzyJ@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 25d
I feel like itd be easier to just put a mix block next to those directly below the one for the wet ingredients, keep the fold box to the side, and add bake as a wide one beneath it all like preheat is at the top
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 26d
I’ve also invented similar recipe design on note cards, mainly because I fucking hate having to find quantities of things I didn’t premeasure.
Fuck mise en place I want to see quantities as o add them.
brown567@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 25d
The guy is pursuing a patent for it, so I'm not sure other people can use it XD
Shanmugha@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 26d
Hucking fell. Ima just download it to remember this exists. Thank you
UninvestedCuriosity@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 8d
I made cream cheese cupcakes for my team off this dudes site back in 2008 and they were the bomb.
Expensive to make but really good. I never baked again.
mlg@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 26d
People already complained about every other aspect but my favorite is "completely authentic 100% original guarantee just like the origin city" and you open up the ingredients list to see half the stuff using localized substitutes.
If I wanted to make a homemade half assed version of the thing, I would have done it myself. I'm here to see how it's actually made dammit.
Jalapenos are not substitutes for thai chillies just because they're both peppers.
sheridan@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 27d
Why is mix included twice?
friek@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 27d
Mix the sugar, vanilla, and coffee first. Then mix in the eggs.
whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 27d
it's two different steps, but I don't find the chart so intuitive,
IMO there shouldn't be borders between the actions and ingredientsedit: that would make it worsesheridan@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 27d
Oh. I think then the table would benefit from an additional row up top of subheading columns featuring step numbers (1, 2, 3, etc) to make that clearer.
phase@lemmy.8th.world · -4 pts · 26d
One remark. Preheating the oven is missing. The first step should be to set it.
aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 26d
It’s right at the top?
phase@lemmy.8th.world · 1 pts · 25d
I didn't see it... Since my brain is filtering advertisements, it also filter headers. Thanks!