= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Risto_Saarelma comments on Procedural Knowledge Gaps, part 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (88)
Yes.
I guess that's better than when metric recipes measure everything in grams and I'm all "I do not have a kitchen scale!"
Using weights instead of volumes in recipes is weird. You need cups to cook, but not a scale.
Nitpick: grams are for mass*
And I've heard they do it because it is (arguably) more useful in evaluating nutritional value and hunger-satiation / stomach-filling power.
I can see getting by on estimates for lots of cooking tasks, but I'm sure I recall from somewhere that you bake... how on earth do you achieve that without a scale?
Volume measures. Measuring cups and measuring spoons. (I also eyeball a lot of stuff, but I do actually break out the cups and spoons for baking.)
Oh, haha, yeah. I had forgotten that's how it's done in America! I'm always a bit bewildered by American recipes ("...but my cups are all different sizes!").
Scales are actually better for powders (i.e. flour); volume measurements can vary significantly depending on how hard you pack the stuff in.
(Having said that, it seems relevant that my plastic kitchen scale met a sad melty end on top of my toaster oven and I haven't replaced it.)