News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Better-cooked spaghetti using a ruler and fundamental phy... by bob1029 on Saturday March 12, 2022 @12:18PM (#30652905)
I find highly repeatable success by using one pressure cooker on a precise timer and strictly measuring my pasta by weight. The procedure is so reliable that I can switch my brain off and essentially meditate for the ~24 minutes it takes to complete the entire meal prep cycle. You'd think all the extra pots & pans would equate to higher quality outcomes, but I can make something that I find extremely agreeable using just the one vessel, assuming all of the various metrics are held to specification.

For me, hack #2 is just the passage of time. Eating this stuff right after its done is not peak quality (especially considering the breakneck pace at which I prep). Reheating a few hours later or next day is where the magic kicks in. As a consequence, I usually meal prep a few days in advance, so that these effects can take hold while I finish off the previous batch of whatever.

Re:Better-cooked spaghetti using a ruler and fundamental phy... by TillE on Saturday March 12, 2022 @12:40PM (#30653107)
Measuring ingredients by weight is so much easier, faster, and more precise than doing it by volume. All you need is a cheap electronic kitchen scale that's accurate to the gram. It's unfortunate that American recipes have standardized on expecting you to have measuring cups instead of a scale.
Re:Better-cooked spaghetti using a ruler and fundamental phy... by carlob on Saturday March 12, 2022 @01:30PM (#30653562)
You cook pasta in a pressure cooker for 24 minutes? I thought pressure cookers decreased cooking time and the longest cooking time I've ever encountered for pasta is 17 minutes.
Re:Better-cooked spaghetti using a ruler and fundamental phy... by bob1029 on Saturday March 12, 2022 @02:58PM (#30654372)
Just to confirm - No, the pasta does not cook for 24 minutes. It cooks for 9 minutes. 24 is the overall time it takes to get things to a state of completion (i.e. ready to start making portions for freezer).
Re:Better-cooked spaghetti using a ruler and fundamental phy... by gramie on Saturday March 12, 2022 @01:37PM (#30653619)
I'm guessing that's the entire time, including getting the cooker up to the desired pressure, and possibly a slow release. Maybe only 5 minutes of that is full-pressure cooking.
Re:Better-cooked spaghetti using a ruler and fundamental phy... by samstave on Saturday March 12, 2022 @02:00PM (#30653840)
Yup.

I cook a LOT in my Instantpot. Rice button sets for 12 mins after it gets up to pressure, so its ~30 mins to said rice - however, I usually just leave it in while I cook the other things - and typically its been an hour that the rice is done and just sitting there waiting to be eaten.

FYI - if you dont yet have an instant pot, it will change your cooking life.

Get one.

Re:Better-cooked spaghetti using a ruler and fundamental phy... by tigershark on Saturday March 12, 2022 @01:41PM (#30653652)
Then what is the point of using the pressure cooker if he wastes 24 minutes? Spaghetti are ready in 10 minutes in a normal pot, and with a good induction hob the water is boiling in something like 5 minutes.
Re:Better-cooked spaghetti using a ruler and fundamental phy... by fsckboy on Saturday March 12, 2022 @01:53PM (#30653771)
I'm not him, so just speculating here, but maybe he's making sauce and pasta together all-in-one? And perhaps uses thick pastas or doesn't want al dente?
Re:Better-cooked spaghetti using a ruler and fundamental phy... by wolverine876 on Saturday March 12, 2022 @08:50PM (#30657087)
That assumes start-end time is more important than labor time.
Re:Better-cooked spaghetti using a ruler and fundamental phy... by tigershark on Saturday March 12, 2022 @01:38PM (#30653633)
So you are eating destroyed pasta? Cooking it for 24 minutes, even in a normal pan not in a pressure cooker, will absolutely obliterate it.
Re:Better-cooked spaghetti using a ruler and fundamental phy... by jacksnipe on Saturday March 12, 2022 @02:23PM (#30654030)
In this case, at t=0, the water is cold.