Inconsequential Things That Annoy Me Intensely

[Sledgehead]

Yeah, people are incredibly dense wrt microwaving, and, of course, it could not be simpler really. Oven cook and you have all kinds of factors to consider - and that's before you add the "double roaster" factor. Microwave? Just imagine the amount of water in whatever and if it's doubled, double the cooking time. Oil heats quicker, but the principle is the same. Personally, I have no idea what purpose those cooking guides serve that accompany microwave ovens; it's so intuitive, why bother?

ALSO, what is annoying and inconsequential is the serial lying about microwave cooking times that accompany canned food. Case in point, baked beans. Do they really take 2.5 minutes to heat with an 850W machine? Really? Honestly?

Some push this to the extreme, like Sainsbury's. They shrink the 2.5mins to 2mins for their kidney beans and then compound the lie with "After cooking" advice, to wit:

"Check the food is piping hot."

I don't need to. It will be tepid at best. Some of us may well eat beans for their health benefits, but many look at them as an affordable source of protein. They don't need to be lied to about the impact of beans on their energy bills!

[FedupTeddiBear]

And then there are those who REFUSE to microwave anything because it "causes dangerous radiation in the food that gets into your body and damages it," so they spend hours boiling all of their vegetables, heating beans in a saucepan on the hob, etc etc.

Usually the same idiots that refuse to eat anything that might be GM because "eating GM foods causes genetic mutations in your body."

[Sledgehead]

Cooking and all it entails has to be one of the richest veins for inconsequential annoyances (tho tbf FUTB, those attitudes you describe, when adopted en masse, do have consequences).

Take washing up, specifically preventing food from drying on utensils etc while you are eating. Why do people only put one inch of water in a pan to do this, when the food-tide mark is, say, 2" up the sides of said pan?Where is the sense in that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????

And why, for that matter, is one required to fill a dishwasher with almost spotlessly clean items or risk the sorry thing baking-on all your left-over crud during the drying cycle??? And is it too much to ask that a 'dishwasher' lives up to its name without requiring powders / liquid so caustic that they reduce the family crystal to a pile of sand???

[Sledgehead]

On 04/11/2018 at 14:29, Si1 said:

This is owing to the amount of feckless intellectually lazy morons that abound and try to use technical stuff.

Prepare to cringe as I identify a term commonly and yet perversely applied to these sorts:

.

.

'Tech-savvy'

.

Now there's an inconsequential thing that annoys the cr@p outta me.

Oh, so you know how to use a smart-phone? Newsflash: it's called 'smart' so you can be dumb. You use Facebook? It's a personal webpage for people who can't even code html and upload it to a server. You can put cartoon animal features on your pictures? Nuff-said.

We've had plenty of tech developments in the past. Take for instance the vacuum cleaner. Did anyone call housewives 'tech-savvy' for ditching the duster? Were cooks widely lauded for their insight just because they bought and used microwave ovens?

Let's be clear, the average teenager doesn't even know even how to swap out the battery in their phone, let alone diagnose a fault. Just how 'savvy' of 'tech' is that?

[Si1]

1 minute ago, Sledgehead said:

Prepare to cringe as I identify a term commonly and yet perversely applied to these sorts:

.

.

'Tech-savvy'

.

Now there's an inconsequential thing that annoys the cr@p outta me.

Oh, so you know how to use a smart-phone? Newsflash: it's called 'smart' so you can be dumb. You use Facebook? It's a personal webpage for people who can't even code html and upload it to a server. You can put cartoon animal features on your pictures? Nuff-said.

We've has plenty of tech developments in the past. Take for instance the vacuum cleaner. Did anyone call housewives 'tech-savvy' for ditching the duster? Were cooks widely lauded for their insight just because they bought and used microwave ovens?

Let's be clear, the average teenager doesn't even know even how to swap out the battery in their phone, let alone diagnose a fault. Just how 'savvy' of 'tech' is that?

Or bought an expensive VHS recorder and never learned how to use it.

[Si1]

Oh here's another one.

People who drop £400 on a really nice TV and then obliviously watch everything in the wrong aspect ratio setting so the pictures either squashed or elongated. And they don't want to change the settings because it's a bit confusing.

People who have an iPhone and don't use contactless payments on it. I'm not an iPhone fan BUT one of its best features is extremely secure contactless payments. My SIL literally did this. Has a £35 per month iPhone contract and still gets caught out on the supermarket without her debit card. Hasn't worked out the irony of using her iPhone (with secure contactless payments) to phone someone to come and rescue her....

[Si1]

People who refuse to try an automatic car because they think it will be harder to drive than a manual. Seriously.

[Sledgehead]

1 minute ago, Si1 said:

Or bought an expensive VHS recorder and never learned how to use it.

My Dad.

LOL

He got this JVC thing with a little slow-glide, push-to-eject, programming console. It had VU led bars (both channels!). The works. It came just before the bar-code reader versions that took all the fun out of programming.

1 minute ago, Si1 said:

Oh here's another one.

People who drop £400 on a really nice TV and then obliviously watch everything in the wrong aspect ratio setting so it's either squashed or elongated. And they don't want to change the settings because it's a bit confusing. 

People are just too lazy to figure stuff out. They throw money at things, maybe presuming that is enough, or maybe it's the amount of throwing (pricetag) taht really matters: as long as everybody know they paid heaps, well, who cares if they can work it or not. The last TV my Dad bought had features he hadn't a clue about. Then again, it also claimed it had features it never had!

[Si1]

4 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

My Dad.

LOL

He got this JVC thing with a little slow-glide, push-to-eject, programming console. It had VU led bars (both channels!). The works. It came just before the bar-code reader versions that took all the fun out of programming.

People are just too lazy to figure stuff out. They throw money at things, maybe presuming that is enough, or maybe it's the amount of throwing (pricetag) taht really matters: as long as everybody know they paid heaps, well, who cares if they can work it or not. The last TV my Dad bought had features he hadn't a clue about. Then again, it also claimed it had features it never had!

It's brands.

[Si1]

Sonos hifi. Very poor sound quality for the money.

[Trump Invective]

18 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Sonos hifi. Very poor sound quality for the money.

Absolutely. Avoid anything like those nonsensical lifestyle audio systems

[Si1]

4 minutes ago, Trump Invective said:

Absolutely. Avoid anything like those nonsensical lifestyle audio systems

There are good cheap distributed audio options out there that play nicely with good hifi. Chromecast audio, iTunes family library and airplay, and more. Would take half an hour's research though so no.

[Riedquat]

17 hours ago, Si1 said:

Oh here's another one.

People who drop £400 on a really nice TV and then obliviously watch everything in the wrong aspect ratio setting so the pictures either squashed or elongated. And they don't want to change the settings because it's a bit confusing.

The early days of widescreen TVs, when everything was still broadcast in 4:3. Never understood why anyone wanted to stretch the picture, let alone pay more just to do so.

[Riedquat]

17 hours ago, Si1 said:

People who refuse to try an automatic car because they think it will be harder to drive than a manual. Seriously.

I've never driven an auto so given the choice I'll take a manual. So from that perspective it will be harder - something you've not done before is always going to be harder than something you've got a lot of experience of. Of course starting from scratch it would be easier, and easy enough to pick up without needing any extra training. But I don't see the point in automatics and haven't ever driven one (although I have driven an electric car once, which is presumably pretty much the same thing from the point of operation).

[Si1]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

I've never driven an auto so given the choice I'll take a manual. So from that perspective it will be harder - something you've not done before is always going to be harder than something you've got a lot of experience of. Of course starting from scratch it would be easier, and easy enough to pick up without needing any extra training. But I don't see the point in automatics and haven't ever driven one (although I have driven an electric car once, which is presumably pretty much the same thing from the point of operation).

Bro, you're just plain wrong, the transition is very easy, at least if you're under the age of 70. But it's inconsequential so I won't hold it against you

[Riedquat]

I didn't say it isn't very easy, but given the choice between getting in to a car I already have no trouble with vs. one that's a bit different the former is still easier. Even though that difference would be eliminated pretty fast. When you're perfectly competent with a manual an automatic offers not advantage and a slight disadvantage if you've not driven one before.

[Si1]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

I didn't say it isn't very easy, but given the choice between getting in to a car I already have no trouble with vs. one that's a bit different the former is still easier. Even though that difference would be eliminated pretty fast. When you're perfectly competent with a manual an automatic offers not advantage and a slight disadvantage if you've not driven one before.

Seriously no you have no idea. You would thank me if you got an auto.

https://recombu.com/cars/article/clarkson-why-would-anyone-buy-a-car-with-a-manual-gearbox

 

[Riedquat]

11 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Seriously no you have no idea. You would thank me if you got an auto.

https://recombu.com/cars/article/clarkson-why-would-anyone-buy-a-car-with-a-manual-gearbox

That appears to be making the assumption that I'd prefer a autmatic because automatics were bad and this is no longer the case. The issue is that it hasn't established a problem I've got that needs to be solved by an automatic.Whilst there may be no problems with automatics I also see no point in changing either. Operation of a manual gearbox is pretty much subconcious. What would I be thanking you for? Changing gear simply isn't something that causes me any bother or hassle at all.

And I dislike automating things that I already have no problem with, but aside from that whether it's automatic or manual just doesn't enter into whether I'd pick one car or another.

[Si1]

23 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That appears to be making the assumption that I'd prefer a autmatic because automatics were bad and this is no longer the case. The issue is that it hasn't established a problem I've got that needs to be solved by an automatic.Whilst there may be no problems with automatics I also see no point in changing either. Operation of a manual gearbox is pretty much subconcious. What would I be thanking you for? Changing gear simply isn't something that causes me any bother or hassle at all.

And I dislike automating things that I already have no problem with, but aside from that whether it's automatic or manual just doesn't enter into whether I'd pick one car or another.

Ok worries

[Sledgehead]

Surely, automatics are more fuel efficient and less polluting, so maybe this is 'consequential'?

Still, we've prolly done it to death, but I will say that the first time I drove an automatic was on arrival in a foreign country (hire). Didn't phase for more than a second and that's with driving on the wrong side plus freeway ramp systems. Got so bored I engaged cruise control and let the scenery fly by.

Clarkson gives thumbs up as does my petrol head bro, tho tiptronic prolly swung it for both.

[Sledgehead]

People who think that 'spinning' needs to be "taught".

We all know that "riding a bike" is so easy it has leant itself to an idiom frequently used to describe facile tasks. Moreover, of the 'skills set' required to perform riding, only balance needs a little practice.

Spinning, however, doesn't require balance. Indeed, spinning doesn't even require road-sense, steering or braking - arguably the lesser skills of riding. Basically spinning requires the ability to walk while sitting. And yet people still claim to "teach spin", and try and enroll you in their "classes". Please: you are not teachers but motivators, and as such, I have no need for you.

[Si1]

It's just a shed load less multitasking and particularly handy in urban traffic, gives your left leg a nice rest.

[Sledgehead]

22 hours ago, Si1 said:

It's just a shed load less multitasking and particularly handy in urban traffic, gives your left leg a nice rest.

Just so as we're on the same page, we are both talking about using a fancy (frequently gym-locked) exercise bike, right?

[Si1]

15 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

Just so as we're on the same page, we are both talking about using a fancy (frequently gym-locked) exercise bike, right?

Absolutely

[Si1]

People who think Bryan Adams, Bon Jovi and Nickelback are borderline heavy metal.

People who get the rack and pinion steam train up Mount Snowdon in Wales and then won't even leave the visitor centre to venture onto the mountain proper when they get to the top. They stand at the edge of the paving with a look of terror on their faces.