[HN Gopher] Barilla passive cooker
___________________________________________________________________
Barilla passive cooker
Author : cunidev
Score : 111 points
Date : 2022-11-06 20:55 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.barilla.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.barilla.com)
| unpythonic wrote:
| The claim: reduces CO2e emissions by up to 80%*
|
| The asterisk: water boiling phase excluded
|
| When I boil pasta, I use full heat to get the water boiling, drop
| in the pasta, then let it come back up to a boil, then drop the
| temperature as low as possible to keep a slow boil going--about
| medium-low.
|
| Guesstimating that the boil takes about as long as the time to
| cook the pasta, I'd say that the pasta cooking portion only takes
| up about 1/3 of the energy of the total (cold pot to cooked
| pasta).
|
| The 80% savings only covers the pasta cooking phase, so overall,
| it's only saving 4/15 or 27% (roughly). If you use a lot more
| water, then that initial boil time further reduces your savings.
| ghayes wrote:
| The claim is weird, though. If they said "just add to boiling
| water and turn off immediately" then they would claim it's
| infinitely more efficient*.
|
| If you turn off your water right before it's boiling and cook
| your pasta, then Barilla is an energy generator :askterisk:
| jansan wrote:
| _Guesstimating that the boil takes about as long as the time to
| cook the pasta,_
|
| You need an new stove. _Edit: or a new pot_
| seized wrote:
| Or he is stuck with an electric coil stove that he can't
| replace. Those suck.
| wcarron wrote:
| Bringing 5+ quarts of water to a boil takes a lot of energy.
| Hell, it takes my jetboil 90s-120s to boil low-temp water in
| like...1 quart quantities. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me
| that a large pot of water takes 8-10 minutes to bring to a
| rolling boil.
| CrazyStat wrote:
| You don't need to cook pasta in a lot of water. Just enough
| to cover the pasta is fine.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| A better way to save energy is to use an electric kettle to get
| the water up to boiling.
|
| This is about three times as energy-efficient as a gas hob.
| Combined with passive cooking it could save real money...
|
| Technology Connections on YouTube has a good video about how
| electric kettles are the superior way to boil water:
| https://youtu.be/_yMMTVVJI4c
| jp0d wrote:
| This is not just efficient but also saves a lot of time. I do
| this with rice/pasta or anything that requires boiling. Also,
| using a pressure cooker can save a lot of time/energy with
| foods like legumes/meats etc.
| AaronFriel wrote:
| Alec, of the Technology Connections YouTube channel, shows
| it's not just energy saving, but faster and cleaner. Even
| with US outlet power limits a kettle will boil a volume of
| water much more quickly than a gas stovetop, and my indoor
| CO2 sensor won't spike by hundreds to a thousand PPM of CO2.
|
| While the time savings is modest, if you have an electric
| kettle it's a no brainer to prefer that over gas.
|
| Though induction stovetops can be faster yet, and just as
| clean.
| thefounder wrote:
| For some reasons I thought most of the people switched to
| electric induction cooktops.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| askvictor wrote:
| Americans don't really do electric kettles, largely on
| account of using 110V mains, which limits power to around
| 1100W, making it a lot slower than ~2000W electric kettles in
| the 200+V world.
| oliwary wrote:
| I do something similar to boil eggs:
|
| 1) Put eggs in pot, cover with water.
|
| 2) Put pot with lid on stove on full heat.
|
| 3) Wait for the water to boil, then turn off the heat.
|
| 4) Wait 6 minutes (for eggs with slightly soft interior)
|
| 5) Cover eggs with cold water, wait one minute, peel.
|
| Perfect eggs every time, and I am sure this saves a bunch of
| energy. They peel really well too.
| _whiteCaps_ wrote:
| Backpackers have been using this technique to save fuel - I've
| got a cozy for my cookpot.
|
| I also remember seeing this on one of the Victorian Farm shows -
| it was something like a pot roast brought to a boil in the
| morning, then put in a well insulated container to sit for the
| day.
|
| Edit: Whoa, I just clicked through to "The Product" section, and
| it's an open source design using an Arduino. Super cool!
| dluan wrote:
| I have a thermos vacuum pot, and do stews and soups with it
| once a week where I just bring things to a boil and leave it in
| the insulated thing overnight.
|
| Oxtail soup, pork spareribs, chili, biryani, hunter's stew,
| etc. Helps it with getting everything really nice and tender,
| and easier than a slowcooker.
| jimmySixDOF wrote:
| Also yoghurts have been made using a jar in some insulated slow
| cool down method for centuries
| hammock wrote:
| It's how pit barbecues work as well. You heat rocks on a fire
| and then bury the food (like a lamb) with the rocks under the
| ground, using the dirt as an insulator.
|
| Or, cover the rocks and food (like lobster or oysters) with wet
| seaweed to steam the food.
| mrighele wrote:
| The most reduction in CO2 could be achieved if all the people
| that regularly overcook the pasta would just take it out after
| the amount of time written on the package. (only partially /s :-)
| )
| mattmaroon wrote:
| You can tell from the comments in here that most people are
| overcooking their pasta and don't know it, and in the general
| public I'm sure it is even worse.
| jontro wrote:
| Not sure everyone agrees this is a good method
|
| Quoting from https://www.finedininglovers.com/article/can-
| passive-pasta-r...
|
| "The response was swift, and it came from starred chef Antonello
| Colonna. The Roman cook rejected Parisi's solution, claiming that
| with this procedure the pasta becomes "rubbery", and impossible
| to serve in a high-level restaurant. Colonna considers the method
| a failure and proposes cooking on an open-fire grill, with pots
| that have fed entire generations like a cauldron. The chef claims
| this traditional low-temperature technique lowers electricity
| costs in his restaurant."
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Burning wood or charcoal lowers the electricity bill? Who would
| have thought!
|
| Also, what is "low-temperature technique" supposed to mean? The
| open fire needs to maintain the water at 100C regardless. If
| low-temperature means lower water temp, then its the same as
| the passive method..
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Not worthy of a high end restaurant seems like pretty faint
| condemnation.
| epolanski wrote:
| I mean you can try and decide for yourself how much you like
| it.
|
| Boiling water can't get hotter than 100C anyway, and water
| needs lots of energy to both heat and cool. If you cover it and
| turn off the heat the water inside realistically won't get much
| colder in ten minutes.
|
| I always used the half technique: if it says 12 minutes I boil
| it for 6 and then turn off the stove. Never ever got it wrong.
|
| Anyway I highly doubt the biggest pasta brand in the world
| would ever publicize a method that makes their product any less
| good.
| zagrebian wrote:
| That web page doesn't render without JavaScript.
| nemo1618 wrote:
| > When the water boils, pour in your pasta.
|
| Why even wait for the water to boil? I always pour my pasta into
| the cold water right from the start, and it doesn't seem to make
| any difference.
| andoli wrote:
| this might work for you barbarians, but for us italians this a
| big no-no ;)
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Did you confirm with the Chinese?
| [deleted]
| thewebcount wrote:
| Wouldn't that increase the time it takes to get a boil going?
| Doesn't that increase the thermal load (or whatever the
| appropriate term is)?
| nielsbot wrote:
| maybe not? if the water and pasta are at the same temp to
| start with. I'm assuming heating pasta also takes less energy
| that heating water.
| wtallis wrote:
| The term you're looking for is heat capacity. Water has a
| much higher _specific heat capacity_ (on a per unit of mass
| basis) than most other everyday materials, and it comprises
| most of the mass of a pot+water [+pasta] system being heated,
| so the time and energy required to boil won 't be changed
| significantly by the presence or absence of the pasta.
| depingus wrote:
| Different stoves take different amount of time to boil water.
| Kinda hard to follow the timing directions on the box if you
| start with cold water.
| mertd wrote:
| Hint: There is a direct way to tell if pasta is almost done.
| chihuahua wrote:
| Oooh, maybe we can build a $400 IoT device that requires a
| $60/month subscription around this idea?
|
| Oh... just tasting a piece of pasta? Never mind.
| antisthenes wrote:
| You could maybe call the device Pastero.
|
| It would need to have several precisely calibrated
| pressure sensors to test the done-ness of pasta. With
| machine learning of course.
| wtallis wrote:
| I suspect that makes it harder to get the timing right, because
| how long the water takes to heat up varies a lot more than how
| much it cools down in the first ~10 minutes after turning off
| the burner.
| [deleted]
| Exmoor wrote:
| Not really "passive" cooking as you're just not actively pumping
| heat into already boiling water and just cooking pasta in
| steadily cooling water.
|
| You can actually soften pasta and many other similar foods by
| just leaving them in room temperature water for a much longer
| period. Some backpackers do this to reduce weight and it's been
| the only way I've ever prepared food while backpacking.
| Admittedly, cold noodles, oatmeal, rice, etc. is a lot more
| appetizing if you're many miles from the nearest civilization and
| have worked up a huge hunger from hiking.
| qroolen wrote:
| i did once, with lentils; but nothing beats cooked food, no
| matter if it is pre-soaked or not...
| riffraff wrote:
| Pasta needs to reach something like 80 degrees to "cook", if
| you just soak it at 35 it will not be the same result.
|
| The method described here (which has been around for centuries)
| instead gets you the same result as cooking in constantly
| boiling water, saving a lot of gas/electricity.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| I really doubt it's a lot. I really don't think it's much at
| all, and that's why they've got the asterisk on the number.
|
| Water has really high specific heat capacity, and there's a
| lot more water than noodles (by mass). You're using a lot
| more energy to heat the water than the noodles. Most people
| switch to low heat (the water just has to stay boiling, how
| fast doesn't much matter) at about the same time this would
| have you switch it off. So you're saving a little bit of
| energy for the last maybe 25% of the process.
| sulam wrote:
| Couscous is pasta and "cooks" just fine for in a cold soak.
| Doesn't even take that long.
| almog wrote:
| True but unlike most pasta, store bought couscous is
| usually pre-steamed/cooked. That plus its small size (large
| surface area) makes it perfect for cold soak.
| almog wrote:
| A cold-soaking only approach works well with instant noodles,
| dehydrated pasta and freeze dried pasta (all of which are
| pre-cooked).
|
| However, a hybrid approach, meaning cold-soaking your meal an
| hour or so before dinner then heating, can help speed up the
| cooking process and thus save fuel (weight).
|
| Having tried all of the above I can say that for me at least,
| many Korean ramens + peanut butter are a godsend that lend
| themselves really well to cold-soaking not just in ease of
| use but in taste too.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Wait, how long would you soak rice to make it edible? I'd
| imagine it's longer than 24 hours.
| Exmoor wrote:
| I've never done it by timer, but a quick search indicates
| about 90 minutes should be good. I'm always pressed for time
| and just let it soak while I set up camp, so its usually a
| little crunchy still when I'm done.
| s0rce wrote:
| I don't think you'll ever get the same texture without heat
| due to lack of starch gelatinization.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| It doesn't work very well with rice. It's one of the worst
| thing to take while backpacking. It doesn't soak well. It
| takes a long time to soften while cooking and it's not very
| good when it's slightly undercooked.
| hidelooktropic wrote:
| It will get moldy before it ever gets cooked. Learn from my
| fail.
| OJFord wrote:
| No mould will grow on soaking (i.e. submersed) rice.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| Confidently dismissing someone else's firsthand
| experience, exactly the level of intelligent conversation
| this site is renown for.
| _whiteCaps_ wrote:
| Typically you'd use instant / minute rice when backpacking.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I'd imagine the pressure-cooked (ie: autoclaved) ready-to-
| eat products like Uncle Ben's Express (or whatever they
| renamed it) will take over a lot of this, at least for
| those not on a serious budget.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Backpackers typically use parcooked instant rice. Anywhere
| from like 30 minutes to all day will make it soft. A lot of
| folks put their cold soaking food in water at the start of
| the day so it gets jostled around and softened all day as
| they hike.
| [deleted]
| yafbum wrote:
| Here's another simple way to reduce your pasta cooking CO2
| emissions: cook with nuclear electricity
| twawaaay wrote:
| Not sure what's so special. I would assume everybody knows that
| most of the energy during cooking is wasted:
|
| 1. By the water evaporating
|
| 2. By the hot gasses escaping without actually heating up
| anything
|
| 3. With the water poured away after cooking
|
| Which is why I:
|
| 1. Put a lid on the pot whenever I can. Once it boils it usually
| is enough to reduce the burner to absolute minimum to keep the
| simmer unless I am adding large amounts of ingredients.
|
| 2. I use induction whenever I can.
|
| 3. I try to avoid wasting water. I use minimum amount of water
| necessary to boil pasta (you really don't need as much as you
| think you do). I also steam rather than boil vegetables like
| potatoes or carrots -- you get away with half of a cup to a cup
| of water at the bottom. Steaming does take a bit more time but I
| think it is still more efficient than poring huge amount of water
| into the pot.
|
| I am still waiting for a real Dewar pot that would have double
| sided sides and also double sided lid. Probably would require
| precision heating (possibly with integrated heating element in
| the base as well as integrated temperature sensor).
| djur wrote:
| In the US, when it comes to Italian food, there's a lot of "you
| must prepare it this particular way or else Nonna will burst
| out of her grave and flog you with a pappardelle whip"
| discourse.
|
| With that in mind, it's kind of fascinating comparing the en-US
| and en-GB Barilla websites. The GB site emphasizes
| sustainability ("100% Plastic Free", a page on sustainable
| basil farming, this Passive Cooking thing), while the US site
| emphasizes the quality and authenticity of the product
| ("Barilla al Bronzo", "Vero Gusto", "Chef's Corner"). No
| corporate responsibility promotions at all.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| I hope the pasta in the US is plastic free too!
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > I also steam rather than boil vegetables like potatoes or
| carrots -- you get away with half of a cup to a cup of water at
| the bottom. Steaming does take a bit more time but I think it
| is still more efficient than poring huge amount of water into
| the pot.
|
| Pressure cooker my friend! Chemical reactions at 115C will by
| ~3-4 faster than at 100C.
|
| In my opinion, electric grids should give away free instant
| pots as a part of their energy conservation strategies.
| keepquestioning wrote:
| Any benefits of passive cooking must be offset by encouraging
| folks to 3d print some (non) biodegradable junk piece of plastic.
| epolanski wrote:
| You can do it without that bs gadget.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Hey, it specifically says it prints it with biodegradable junk
| plastic! Though I think the landfill at the end is the least
| problematic environmental issue here
| OJFord wrote:
| That's a bizarre objection to 3D printing in the home. I don't
| do it for such reasons, but I assure you everything I've ever
| printed would have had a far worse environmental impact if I'd
| bought/had it made elsewhere. If I'd even been able to.
| keepquestioning wrote:
| How? For all intents and purposes PLA is not biodegradable
| dnissley wrote:
| Interesting there are so many different names for these types of
| cookers. I've always heard this referred to as a haybox:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haybox
| yegle wrote:
| Huh I have a thermal cooker at home that we frequently use:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_cooking
|
| Seems like they are using the same concept.
| _whiteCaps_ wrote:
| Oh, thank you - that led me to episode 2 of Wartime Farm on the
| BBC that I was thinking of.
| bravura wrote:
| According to Kenji, you don't even need boiling water to cook
| pasta:
|
| https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boi...
|
| https://www.seriouseats.com/tips-for-better-easier-pasta
|
| "Want to get even more crazy efficient? Try soaking pasta in
| water as your prep your other ingredients. By the time your sauce
| is ready, you can just add the pasta (along with some of its
| soaking liquid) to the pan and, with a minute or so of cooking,
| your meal will be ready to go. One less pot to clean and a pretty
| satisfying magic trick to boot. Still skeptical? Here's the
| science to back it all up. The one exception here is fresh pasta
| --because it contains eggs, it needs to cook in boiling water to
| set properly."
| b3morales wrote:
| Harold McGee himself (author of the food geek bible On Food and
| Cooking) also presented this idea back in 2011:
| https://www.splendidtable.org/story/2011/01/15/you-can-cook-...
|
| > I just did the experiment of cooking a pound of pasta in just
| enough water for it to absorb. I thought, "While I'm at it, why
| don't I play with the heating as well? I'll start them in cold
| water and see what happens."
|
| > I found that starting in cold water means that the pasta
| doesn't stick to itself, which is great. Then it turns out that
| it heats up, it cooks just fine and you end up with pasta that
| is not at all sticky. The liquid is a little thick, but that's
| wonderful because you can make a sauce out of it.
| ericmcer wrote:
| I always wondered if you could just put spaghetti in your
| Nalgene while backpacking and it would be ready by the end of
| your hike. People always look at me weird when I suggest it but
| I am down to drink starchy water all day and then eat spaghetti
| when I get there haha.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Having had to rehydrate pasta while hiking to save on fuel as
| a beginner backpacker, I can confirm it does work.
|
| Still, I now only bring semolina and polenta on multiple days
| hike. Both can be eaten fine after an hour of soaking in cold
| water.
| jamincan wrote:
| I once had a pasta salad backpacker meal (forget which brand)
| that was pretty much this method exactly (except we
| rehydrated it in its original bag). Some of the freeze-dried
| veggies still had a little bit of crunch, but the pasta was
| good and it was quite enjoyable for camping food. I haven't
| seen it available since, though.
| sulam wrote:
| Should work fine. I only cold soak these days. Saves a lot of
| weight and is actually faster (my food is "cooking" while I
| hike, so it's ready immediately after I stop for the day.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| Other things you can use this on than pasta? Are there
| recipes for this kind of low-effort camping meals somewhere
| online?
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Yes, a significant part of the time needed to cook dry pasta is
| for rehydrating them. Fresh pasta only needs two minutes. So if
| you soak them long enough you can cook them quite fast.
| kibibyte wrote:
| I was gonna say, Serious Eats talked about this method
| (starting with a boil and then cutting the heat, mentioned in
| the article but not in the comment) so many years ago; only
| that they didn't call it "passive cooking". It comes with the
| nice benefit that you'll never have to worry about the pot
| boiling over except during the first minute, and, from what
| I've noticed, it seems to better align with the suggested
| cooking times on retail packaging.
|
| I've argued with people about this and could never convince
| them to try it, mostly because of the "grandma did it this way"
| reason.
| peppertree wrote:
| It's a pretty common technique for cooking rice noodles but it
| never occurred to me to try it with pasta. Thanks for posting
| this!
| xaduha wrote:
| Don't cook on gas if you really care about that kind of stuff.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I have a gas stove because it just came with my apartment, but
| I went and got a $70AUD ikea portable induction stove and I'm
| very surprised, it's significantly nicer to cook with, the
| heating range is both lower and higher than what my gas stove
| can achieve. Boiling a pot of water on the induction is so much
| faster than on gas. For pasta its a no brainer.
|
| Eventually I want to replace my gas stove with a full induction
| one but unfortunately it's quite expensive.
| femto113 wrote:
| The 80% less CO2 number is BS, since the claimed savings are only
| after "water boiling phase excluded". Guessing this is more like
| 10% overall, assuming you turn your stove down to a low boil
| after the pasta is in.
| [deleted]
| mertd wrote:
| You can reduce the energy consumption drastically by boiling way
| less water than "a large pot" as every packet recommends. Just
| enough to cover the pasta + some evaporation margin is good
| enough.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| That's why I tend to avoid spaghetti these days. A smaller
| pasta fits in the small pot better.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| just rip it in half
|
| (runs!)
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Angel hair will soften pretty quickly. You can fold it in
| half once its steeped a short while from one end.
| OJFord wrote:
| Just stick one end in, wait a few seconds, push, flip it
| over, repeat.
|
| That said, since I discovered bucatini I don't think I have
| any desire ever to eat spaghetti again. (And also much more
| desire to eat 'long thin tubular pasta'.)
| antisthenes wrote:
| Is that something that even needs to be said?
|
| Does any functioning adult actually cook pasta in such a way as
| to use _way more_ water than necessary?
| kibibyte wrote:
| It's pretty common. Most pasta cooking directions say to use
| 4-6 quarts of water for a standard 1-lb pack of dry pasta.
| Many Italian grandmas (I'm making a guess off n=1 person with
| Italian heritage who learned it this way) do it like this.
| Because this technique is so ingrained, it's less obvious to
| reduce the amount of water.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| This is a mistake though from a cooking perspective. You use a
| lot of water because you want to have a very high ratio of
| thermal mass of water to thermal mass of noodles. You want the
| noodles to heat up as fast as possible so that the outside gets
| soft while the inside stays a little firm (al dente) and if you
| use less water, you'll take longer to cook the noodles,
| allowing more even heat transfer because it's a diffusion
| process. Basically what you're going for is the opposite of
| sous vide/low temp cooking.
|
| And with with more water, you'll remove more of the starch from
| the pasta, making it less gummy.
|
| A big pot is, of course, less energy efficient but the results
| are noticeable if you care about noodle quality.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I've tested this a bunch and you can reliably get nice al
| dente pasta using a low volume of water. If you boil a small
| amount and add the pasta, then bring it back to a boil the
| whole process is faster. Kenji has a good article about it,
| and I assure you that it always works for me.
| pohl wrote:
| Better still, put it in while the water is cold. Start you timer
| when the water reaches 180degF/80degC or so, and -- when it
| reaches the boiling point -- turn it off & cover.
| alatkins wrote:
| I feel like we perhaps still have some bigger levers we can pull
| to reduce emissions before we meddle with our linguine.
| privacythrow23 wrote:
| Water is really a great thermal mass. I'm surprised it makes that
| much of a difference. 80% is significant.
|
| Now the important question: Can China Coal and Saudi Aramco cook
| their pasta like this too?
|
| https://www.activesustainability.com/climate-change/100-comp...
| filleokus wrote:
| My dirty little secret I've only dared to shared with my closest
| friends (fearing social ostracism) is that I cook by pasta by
| putting it in cold water and then turn the heat on.
|
| Roughly when the water starts to boil I start periodically
| checking the doneness of the pasta.
|
| Works just fine for me. Would never dare to it when cooking with
| friends however (only slightly /s).
|
| However, it would be neat with a device similar to the one in
| TFA, but more sophisticated. Having some internal model of pasta
| doneness as a function of the time in the water, and the water
| temperature over time.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I see this in lots of 'how to boil an egg' guides, where
| cooking time matters.
|
| When explaining it on the internet, the best way is to dump the
| egg into boiling water, and drain and cool with cold tap water
| after X minutes, because it removes other variables.
|
| Buuuuut, if you learn your pot and water volumes and starting
| water temperatures and heating rate, you can cook your egg
| faster by starting with cold water, and maybe even knowing when
| to turn off the heat once the water is hot.
| filleokus wrote:
| For eggs I've seen people use something like this [0], which
| I guess can be helpful if you switch pots a lot. Also
| trickier to test if a (boiled) egg really is boiled then with
| pasta.
|
| [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Norpro-Egg-Perfect-
| Timer/dp/B00004UE7...
| mattmaroon wrote:
| This assumes you're trying to cook to an even heat internally
| (like a boiled egg) rather than an intentional gradient (like
| pasta noodles, a steak, etc.)
| jansan wrote:
| How about not pouring the hot water down the drain immediately,
| but leaving it in a pot with a lit on until it is cooled down?
| This way the erergy that you used to heat the water can
| contribute to heating your kitchen.
| [deleted]
| dctoedt wrote:
| Steel-cut oats:
|
| 1. Boil water in an electric kettle (because we buy wind power,
| it's a Texas thing).
|
| 2. Pour the boiling water into a pot, add the oats, bring back to
| a boil on the gas range (briefly).
|
| 3. Turn off the gas, put the lid on the pot, put the pot on a
| trivet, cover with a dish towel.
|
| 4. Come back in an hour or two -- the oats are cooked and still
| hot.
| pynchia wrote:
| Hey, c'mon, this is advertising and must be removed
| chadlavi wrote:
| I got bad news for you about 95% of the content that gets
| shared on HN
| paxys wrote:
| A 145 year old pasta company just published open-source 3D
| printing models, Arduino circuit layouts & code and a bluetooth-
| enabled smartphone app on its website, that too with a decent
| sized marketing push. All so that you can build an overengineered
| kitchen timer from scratch in your bedroom. This is exactly the
| wild future I imagined as a tech enthusiast building cheap PCs
| two decades ago.
| hakanensari wrote:
| That part is tongue in cheek. They're just being funny.
| theCrowing wrote:
| It wasn't Barillas idea. Looking at the quality and stuff used
| it was most likely thought up by a "Creative Technologist" in
| an ad agency with the sole purpose to win awards.(...and some
| PR but trust me it was done for the awards.)
| Mo3 wrote:
| Yup. What a time to be alive.
| fatuna wrote:
| Passive cooking; great idea Building electronics + app to help
| people measure some time? terrible solution
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-06 23:00 UTC)