Kind of reminds me of the output of qdirstat.
Always loved these blobs!
wait, is qdirstat like windirstat but for linux? If so, I’m downloading it as soon as I get home
Yes. I don’t know if it’s still maintained, but I got my install through AUR and it works
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.
Sequoia view developed at my alma mater. This was cutting edge technology when I was there almost 25 years ago lol
Filelight is my go-to
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?
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.
This diagram is classic “engineer developing a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist in a domain they don’t understand”
The diagram does have benefits. For example it shows which steps can be performed in parallel if multiple people are cooking.
I don’t need a diagram to do that but maybe my experience is atypical
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.
I’m a software “engineer” and also passionate about cooking. Both are arts. You can’t reduce it to an algorithm
And concise! No more frantic scrolling on my phone with batter-covered fingers
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.
List it twice?
No.
Create a separate card for that ingredient, and in the main card list “add X% of <other card>”
I like that idea, if only for the fact that it opens the door to recursive recipes.
A pie with itself?
Can’t an ingredient be there twice?
But you want to do the first phase together
Then two tables? Or rows in the middle to mark the action to split the ingredient in 2?
rows in the middle to mark the action to split sounds the best to me
I have never seen that in my life and it’s perfect.
Why is mix included twice?
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 worseOh. 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.
Mix the sugar, vanilla, and coffee first. Then mix in the eggs.
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.
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’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.
anything can be Marie Kondo’ed, it would seem.
Needs a four chapter novel about something unrelated in front of it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You add an other column and put the ingredients you use first at the top.
Yes
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
That recipe design reminds me I should learn LaTeX, but I am also lazy, so…
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.
Either I cant calculate or the percentages don’t add up.
What is up wuth the two 100%?I had the same question and found the answer: https://modernistcuisine.com/mc/how-to-scale-a-recipe/
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
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?
This recipe is missing something. Maybe throw in a backstory.
Eggs from gay chickens and vanilla from gender-fluid vanilla plants.
Vanilla orchids are not gender fluid at all, they are hermaphroditic. And eggs from happy hens just taste better.
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
What am I even making here?
espresso brownies, apparently
Thank you for blindly trying out the recipe to see what it makes for us.
One remark. Preheating the oven is missing. The first step should be to set it.
It’s right at the top?
