If you cook in 5-10l of water you will dilute the starch and the pasta won’t stick. Also if you mix the sauce through the pasta post cooking and let it rest for 5-10 mins it will soak up the sauce
All the oil is doing is helping the pan not boil over while on a high heat as it makes the formation of bubbles at the surface more difficult. So… it kind of helps because you can cook more easily at a high heat but yeah it does nothing for the pasta.
And of course as long as your cooking pot is large enough and you are actually being present, then there shouldn’t be any risk of it boiling over and thus no need for any oil.
I think your comment is the source of a lot of people’s problems with sticking pasta. If there pots aren’t big enough and stove not powerful enough, a large amount of pasta can cool the water enough to stop the boiling and the pasta will stick if not stirred.
For small portions that probably will work. Plenty of times I’ve put pasta in only to have it stick if I don’t stir a little in the first minute or two. There’s just not enough room for the boiling to agitate the pasta enough to prevent sticking.
yes, this is the answer! patience! a proper boil that stays boiling until the pasta is done. no sticking ever. salt and oil are never needed in the cooking water.
It’s not the same effect. Then the sauce will be salted, and the pasta will maybe absorb some of that salt.
But, in my opinion, that’s an inelegant solution.
I personally do not want any more salt in the pasta sauce than what’s already in there. I do, however, want my pasta to take in a little salt from the water.
For those reasons, I add a little salt to my water as it’s boiling
I read that quote regularly. Any clue who it originates from? I think it’s a romantic overstatement and does not hold as a general pasta rule. Salty pasta water is needed when you use a sauce or a pesto that has little salt in it. However, when using a particularly salty sauce or pesto, your end result can easily turn out too salty, if you put too much salt in the pasta water. When I make japanese miso-butter pasta for example, I don’t put any salt in the boiling water, because combined with the miso-butter, that would make the end result way too salty.
Seawater is two teaspoons salt per cup of water. That’s a little more than half a cup of salt per gallon of water. That is an unhealthy amount of salt.
Cooking pasta correctly is an art, but there are some basic rules to follow if you want consistent results.
If you want to avoid this situation in particular, take the pasta out just before it’s done along with about 1/4 cup of the water and add both to your sauce and finish cooking the pasta there. You’ll end up with pasta that is cooked perfectly with a sauce that readily adheres to each noodle and no stickyness
The sauce itself should be quite thick before adding the pasta water. I let my bolognese reduce for at least an hour and a half before starting to boil water for the pasta.
Well, you only use a bit of the pasta water, it depends how much tomato sauce you’re making.
Pull out about a cup of the pasta water.
Dump the pasta. Don’t rinse the pasta, ever.
Now either slowly pour in a bit of the pasta water into the sauce, stir it, look at it, there should be a sheen. The pasta water makes the red sauce very silky.
Or, take a frying pan, turn the heat on. Add butter and olive oil. When the butter gets melted, dump diced veggies (or not) into the pan. Cook the vegetables to almost desired tenderness. Dump garlic in for no more than one minute.
Dump some pasta water in, just a little, and throw the pasta on top. Mix it up. After a short time, 15 seconds maybe, pour the red sauce on top of the spaghetti and veggies, stir.
After about a minute or so, add pasta water, just a bit. Stir. Taste. Is it shiny and silky? If not add a little more water. Repeat until it’s tasty.
Rinsing the pasta is fine for making a cold pasta salad or something like that, removing the free starch stops it from sticking. But for a dish with sauce, definitely don’t rinse.
A ttrpg called .dungeon got a remaster recently and I keep coming back to one of the screenshots on the store page, because I’m such a big fan of the rules for community moderation it enumerated:
I like that! For more minor infractions that aren’t a perma-ban, I hope that they explain to the person THAT they got banned, and WHY.
It also helps that they said upfront that they’re liberal with bans, rather than saying that all bans are forewarned and then simply not giving the warning.
#5 is the worst rule there. I’ve been called that for the most milquetoast of statements. You really have to be more specific. This community sounds like an annoying pain to be a part of tbh, I don’t have time to feel like I’m stepping on glass every day
Nothing says bootlicking by applying the same bad-faith thinking you accuse others of having without caring about the fact that humanity has had to operate on good faith the entire time it’s existed.
That should be in the rules instead of "bootlicking," then. Well-defined rules make it harder to enforce them unfairly. The fewer questions the community has to ask about guidelines, the easier it is to follow them.
Thank you for answering in good faith, by the way.
Bootlicking’s easier for people to type and say, and most people do have an understanding of what it means. It’s just not really officially codified yet.
And it’s all good. There is far too much bad faith bullshit going on on this platform that goes unabated for me to not at least try to speak in good faith. I wish the others would learn to do the same. 🤦
It may be easier to type and say (as are most words in comparison), but "antidisestablishmentarianism" has a well-defined meaning that would make for a less-vague rule. "Bootlicking" means a lot of different things to a lot of people, and not all of those people have common sense, to put it nicely. I've been called a bootlicker for saying I don't want to tear down the entirety of every government everywhere, ever, for instance, which I imagine isn't what that rule is trying to convey.
There's a reason "legalese" is the language laws are written in. It's very specific, with any potentially ambiguous words given clear definitions before any of the rest of the law is presented (at least that's the intent in the US, anyway). If you were to, say, define "bootlicker" in the beginning of the rules to mean "excessive praise for police violence," then I'd say it's quite safe to use elsewhere in said document. Leaving such a vague word undefined in what amounts to a paralegal document opens up avenues for abusive interpretation, both from moderators and community members.
TL;DR: Clear definitions of what your rules mean leads to a healthier, easier to moderate community overall.
Or just accept that bootlicking is synonymous and stop quibbling over semantics.
There is no definition that will be clear enough for bad faith actors and pressing the issue just makes you look sus. Using language requires some effort on your part. It is impossible to just be on us.
I probably should’ve clarified its the last few that I felt were relevant to this post. I understand it sucks when you feel like anything you say may get you banned due to someone else’s interpretations, but in practice I don’t think it really becomes an issue.
Perhaps be a bit more careful when first joining a community as you learn how the community tends to act and behave, and where the lines tend to be drawn, but then after that you should have a general sense of what’s allowed, and if you do go over the line the mods are much more likely to just give a warning instead of a ban if you’re a regular.
I mean hey, by all means if you think a community is too hive mind-y or echo chamber-y then by all means don’t join. That’s the beauty of small highly customized communities - it can be moderated in a way all the members agree with, and anyone who doesn’t like it can find or found a different one.
I don’t know what exactly you’re imagining such a community would disallow, but I feel like whatever it is, I’d agree with it being disallowed. Disagreeing with someone is typically fine in most communities I’ve seen, it’s just hate speech or any -ism or -phobes that aren’t. And that’s fine.
A lot of moderated instances with vague rules like that have quite a bit of nuance. The mods usually arent jerks looking to ban everyone who doesnt agree with them, and if they are then they did you a favor good riddance. One of the issues with the classic “but mah free speech” sea lioning that occurs on reddit is it makes it hard to actually keep things moderated and civil. People get outraged and start going “the rule says that Im not allowed to be an asshole, but I was specifically being a asshat and I think if you really wanted no asshats you should make a rule about it”
Which does lead to granular rules that actually do remove nuance and discretion from enforcement.
Clearly you have no sense for nuance. Not everything anyone disagrees with is siding with genocide and oppression just because they disagree. It’s concerning that that’s immediately what you assumed.
memes
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.