71–80 of 485 posts
> Only Based cooking. Can someone shed light on what "based cooking" is? It's rather tricky to Google for and am unable to figure out what the site's author means by that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Based" is a positive adjective in 4chan-ese. It's roughly analogous to "redpilled," and is used primarily (but not exclusively) by reactionaries and people in that general sphere. The owner of this website is one such person; the use of "based" is meant to be a (not so) subtle nod to his knowing audience.
Didn't "based" come from Lil B initially? I've heard the phrase "based and redpilled," but I've heard it separately. I interpret "based" as a compliment given to radical viewpoints that are completely impractical, without signaling assent. See Political Compass Memes for numerous examples. For example: anarcho-monarchism is based. It's a ridiculous ideology, and I wouldn't support it, but it'd be cool to meet someone…
The owner of this website is a reactionary with a relatively popular YouTube channel in which he openly espouses and trades in racist talking points[1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2eYFnH61tmytImy1mTYvhA
Maybe I'm in a minority, because everyone always hoots and hollers about how they hate modern recipe web sites -- and I get it, 6 pages of memories of trips to grandma or whatever is ridiculous -- but I can't see myself ever using a plain-text recipe with no clue as to who the author is and no reason to suspect that they know what they're talking about. At that point I would probably go to SimplyRecipes, where at lea…
I'm on your side. I need the author of a recipe to explain why their recipe is interesting, different, or better than others. And I need that to match with my own culinary reasoning and knowledge. Otherwise it's likely to be bland, boring, both, or worse. That said, we are in the minority. Most people just Google the recipe they want to make and use the first result. This very very very rarely produces a good result.…
It depends on your skill level / experience. Some people have a knack for cooking and just need a rough list of ingredients to figure out a dish.
Some people need detailed instructions and rely more on recipes. I don't have any idea how to season things apart from a liberal use of buillon cubes, so my best dishes are when I closely follow recipe instructions from good cookbooks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, people got recipes from books and magazines, which were considered reliable gatekeepers. Looking back at some of the gelatin casseroles of the 60s, of course, casts doubt on some of that reliability.
> Nope, people got recipes from books and magazines, which were considered reliable gatekeepers. You're making my point - they were gatekeepers because they were discoverable and promoted. That's what gave them credibility. Just as showing in search results does now. People didn't pick cookbooks because they had the most aimless stories that hid the actual recipe.
a) tell if it looks like something you'd enjoy
b) tell if it turned out right after it's done.
None of the recipes on this site have any pictures, which I think will hold it back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why most people's cooking sucks. It's not that recipes with meandering SEO tales necessarily have better recipes. It's that recipes without any explanation usually suck. If you pick something with a meandering SEO tale, it _might_ not be terrible. Possibly not terrible is better than definitely terrible.
> This is why most people's cooking sucks. I'd argue that recipes themselves are why a lot of people's cooking sucks. The recipes tell you what how much and how long but fail to account for the basics of seasoning, preparation and tool selection. If people apply a formal or acquired training to recipes they'd usually vary a lot from person to person much less the original recipe
Recipes are easy to find, especially now with the internet.
What's wrong with a "wikipedia for recipes"? I would LOVE that.
All the complaints about the quality of the recipes or the lack of more in-depth explaination of each one, some kind of voting/reputation system for the recipes and for the submitters and the voters, Yes those are all good ideas to make the db more useful than just a db.
But you have to start somewhere. How is the core idea here of a public cookbook not fundamentally awesome? I mean hello... GIT. Recipes that are living documents that can be honed over time, complete with viewable history of what changes have been made so you can decide if you agree with them. Branches and forks for all the hundred variations on any given thing. Revisions by better experts than the original submitter of some recipe.
So, today on day one it doesn't already have the benefit of years of contributions and incremental improvements and revisions, Quelle Suprise!
> Only Based cooking. Can someone shed light on what "based cooking" is? It's rather tricky to Google for and am unable to figure out what the site's author means by that.
The word "based" in slang has come to mean "not caring what others think", usually applied to being outrageous, controversial, or in some cases just outright offensive. So based cooking would be "I cook what I want". I offer up, as an example, "sketti": https://www.bakespace.com/recipes/detail/Honey-Boo-Boo-Skett... as "based" cooking.
Honey Boo Boo is not based.
Maybe I'm in a minority, because everyone always hoots and hollers about how they hate modern recipe web sites -- and I get it, 6 pages of memories of trips to grandma or whatever is ridiculous -- but I can't see myself ever using a plain-text recipe with no clue as to who the author is and no reason to suspect that they know what they're talking about. At that point I would probably go to SimplyRecipes, where at lea…
Besides, people looking for recipes are getting something of real value, sometimes hard won. That is hard to know, unless all that is shared too.
I play it like you do. The better sites offer context and serve up whatever AD helps them pay their way. Totally equitable.
One can always start really learning to cook too. Reasonable food is not too tough and being able to spiff up a recipe or substitute is the reward.
Great food is harder. I am getting there myself and I have a two generation body of recpies and notes to draw on.
My grannie was very sharp. Approached cooking like she did many things. She often had real mastery of stuff she wanted to do or was interested in. Similar values were present in my wife's side of the fam. A couple of those are over 100 years old! (Brought over on a boat from Europe)
In those books are notes, context, other info. Those are where the great was noted down, passed down.
That experience has given me a perspective on all this. People who share are doing something pretty damn high value.
It should be appreciated, funded, etc.
And no, our family books are getting scanned, but are not going online just yet. The women consider it personal.
I suppose it is.
It is also the food that brings people home every year too. I grok that.
Maybe the better people can end up on substack. Deliver the good recipes and context needed for people to get the great in them.
I may subscribe. Pretty sure my wife would, if it were someone she values somehow.
To me, being unable to be bothered some means maybe also not being all the concerned about the food.
Self correcting, IMHO.
"A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. " https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html