/facepalm Your attempt to stretch the definition of ancdotal completely misses the actual point of the definition. Anecdotes imply personal experiences, not experimental tests. Cherry-picking your samples also implies that the results aren't duplicateable.

Seriously! :) I think you're backing up his point here- that with a little time and attention, even an amateur can do very well for themselves, and trying to emulate professional chefs and a professional environment is the wrong way of going about trying to cook good food.

Sorry, did you say something? I missed your point amidst all of the snark, ad hominems, and lack of cogency in your replies.

If you think his claims are anecdotal, you haven't read his article, or his work, so yeah - head back to school. :) He goes through his experimental methods very clearly, and describes his process in great detail and advises people to reproduce his tests and see for themselves.

Don't waste your time with him. He's pretty intent on poisoning this thread and trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with him.

Kenji cuts right to the heart of this whole "ask a professional chef!" "do it like steakhouses do!" "do what chefs do" BS that I see from some of the - okay, just one person - complaining: http://www.seriouseats.com/2013/06/the-fo…

I don't think you understand how science works. Speaking of going back to school, you may want to take your own advice there - and study what "anecdotal evidence" means before you come back and extoll its benefits.

Hear Hear.

Nice catch - he had a good attempt at credibility, but you can always tell a hack when they start going on about "searing in juices."

Ditch the Raichlen article and use this one instead if you're looking for myths: http://lifehacker.com/the-poke-test-…

Sounds like you work for them. Please, tell us more about their "plans."

Possibilities yeah - i think i could get behind it if you had any control over what was "news" and what wasn't according to this app. Pretty sure there are apps out there that let you provide the stories and they'll have people read it for you - those sound better, and they give people choices instead of take them…

It's not worth it - you really could just listen to the radio, or get news summaries from websites you like. Aren't there apps that will speak articles that YOU choose aloud? I think that would be a much better choice than this, imho.

Yeah, I love you guys, but this is really really useless. Like, it's perfect for the person who doesn't even want to think about the news they hear and let an app developer pick the news for them? I can't add my own sites or feeds? I may as well listen to the radio or download some podcasts - at least they're actually…

Haters gonna hate, it made me smile.

This. So much this.

They're all I need when you don't understand what I'm saying. Tell you what, here's another word you won't understand: Outclassed. :)

Keep doing your little dance, it's awesome watching people sorely outclassed pretend so hard! Keep it up, you do it so well - I don't even have to try anymore. :)

+++++++1 What happened to the "New" Gizmodo that was going to focus on smarter things without the snark, meanness, and insipid op-eds?

I hear the pay isn't good, but you get all the data you can read. :D