h a l f b a k e r yLike a magnifying lens, only with rocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
As a normal person, when I get hungry I go to the kitched, but there is a problem. When I get to the kitchen it always takes me a minute to decide what I want to eat because first I have to narrow it down to the things I feel like eating at the time. Next, I have to decide which food to get because I
dont know if i want to go through all the effort of putting something in the oven or if I want to just grab some chips and go to town on them. Therefore I have came up with an idea than all foods should have an effort level 1-5.
1 being the easiest and 5 being the hardest.
Something like snak cakes or chips would be a 1. Something to the effect of hamburger helper would be a 3, and anything that you have to make from scratch and bake, like a cake or muffins should be a 5.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I'm not giving the ^#%#$ chips a "1" until the flippin' bag is open! |
|
| |
Otherwise, I'm bunning this. It's yet another quantification of food, and I'm all for that. |
|
| |
I have the same issues with pistachios. |
|
| |
I think you want to retain a linear scale, but you'll need to span a range larger than 1-5. For example, chocolate and crisps are a 1, microwave food is a 2, but drive-thru food is a 4-8, depending if you're already in your car. Ordering a pizza is often a 7, since humans and waiting is involved. Opening a can and heating is an 8, and cooking ranges from a 6 for hot dogs, to a 12 for stir-fry, and a 25 for anything with soaking. |
|
| |
Sort and eat has to be 12 or better. |
|
| |
Let's take this one step further for dieters and put calories used preparing the meal against calories contained in the meal. |
|
| |
I notice that fast food hole-in-the-walls, read burger joints, can't seem to print calories and prices next to each other, either on their signage or on their pamphlets. |
|
| |
Nutrient value vs. price would be a slice of life. |
|
| |
Kill, slice thinly, and eat should be 100. |
|
| |
For this to be truly useful, there should be an accompanying chart of handicapping, to take account of how tired, lazy or buggered on booze and pharmaceuticals the prospective chef may be. This handicapping could be reasonably easily implemented by means of a website Q&A session ("How many pints of Stella have you had?") but it would be handier if there were an adjustable chart (two sheets of laminated card, the front with appropriate holes on it, the rear with food suggestions) that the cook can consult before attempting anything more complex than "eating a readymade tiramisu, right out of the packet while bathed in the light of the fridge door." |
|
| |
I don't object to such a scale existing, but what benefits
would its existence provide? What would its purpose be? |
|
| |
I suppose you could order your cupboards by "Effort"; so if
you're in a state of "Food, Now!" you can grab-n-go, but if
you want to "dine" you can go to where the more
complicated things are kept. |
|
| |
It needs to scale with the wealth of a consumer. Most people need to prepare their own food, but the middle class can much more easily buy pre-made food or go to a restaurant, the upper class can hire a cook, wealthy people can per-arrange catered meals with very little effort, and [MaxwellBuchanan] can just take a chauffeured golf cart down to the breakfast nook (the one beside the Michelangelo gallery) and find waiting for him a preposterously elaborate meal. |
|
| |