As we move into the holidays, the importance of finding delicious treats and meals for ourselves and for delighting friends and family becomes a top priority. This time of year is an opportunity to share family traditions and secrets gained through the trials of preparation. However, knowing exactly what to prepare and the best way to do it can be more complicated than most might think.

There are certain foods that can be either incredibly great or terribly boring, depending on how well you prepare them. Do they have the right amount of spices? Were they cooked at the right temperature, and were they sliced and diced to create a wonderful textural experience?

In a r/AskReddit thread, the seasonally important question was asked, “What food has the largest disparity between being really good or really bad, depending on who is making it?” Redditors flooded the comments section with personal horror stories and spectacularly delicious choices.

simple foods, American, staple foods, redditors, Reddit, hungry, dishes, chef techniques
Hungry and ready. Photo credit Canva

Simple foods that can be amazing or awful

Simple, basic dishes can delight or disgust, depending not only on the preparation style but also on the chef’s skill level, as they put their techniques to the test. Redditors argued that, though these foods are hard to ruin, even the simplest of dishes require a deft touch to be satisfying.

mac and cheese, maccaroni and cheese, powder cheese, box stuff, creamy, zesty, crunchy top
The mac and cheese staple presentation. Photo credit Canva

It’s time for macaroni and cheese

Probably one of the most iconic American dishes is macaroni and cheese. Some prefer the finest of cheeses, while others crave brand-name powdered cheese from a cardboard box. These were some Redditors’ opinions:

“We spent Covid perfecting our Mac and cheese. In the last couple of weeks, we also made it a couple of times to ensure we can nail it. Ours tastes amazing, is creamy, yet has amazing cheese pull, develops a perfect crunchy top crust, and reheats perfectly.”

“Macaroni and cheese is my thought. Box stuff is fine, but a lot of people try to make it from scratch and slave away for a significantly worse product than a $1.99 (thanks inflation) box of Kraft.”

“Top with more shredded cheese and bake till you like how it’s browned. That’s about it, and it turns out AMAZING! Some things are meant to be simple. I imagine I’m forgetting a seasoning, but I do keep it simple cause mac n cheese is all about the mac and the cheese!”

pizza, deep dish, thin crust, cardboard, great taste, sugary sauce, tomatoes, cheese
Pizza ready from the oven. Photo credit Canva

Almost everyone loves a slice of pizza

Many people argue that any slice of pizza is a simple and delicious win. There is no doubt that people have their favorite version and style, be it standard or deep dish. However, Redditors have strong opinions on what makes good pizza and what makes a failed attempt.

“I always was told that pizza is like sex, even if it’s bad, it’s still good. That was until I moved from Connecticut to South Carolina and realized that is not true.”

“False. You ever had someone dump a bunch of sugar into the pizza sauce? Like pizza sauce sweeter than ketchup? I had a chef coworker who did this. YUCK, bro! Unsalvageable.”

“I’ve also had pizza where the crust was overwhelmingly doughy and flavorless, sauce was bland, and cheese was sub-par in either quantity or quality. In an office I worked years ago, there was a nearby food court that had a pizza place…it was super convenient if you were in a rush to get lunch because they always had slices ready to go, and it always looked so good…but was also always so disappointing. I honestly don’t know how they managed to make such bad pizza.”

BBQ, barbeque, grill, meats, steaks, pork chops, brisket, Texas
Friends hover around the barbeque. Photo credit Canva

Getting it right off the grill with BBQ

Food cooked on the grill often smells delicious and will satisfy even the hungriest—when it’s done right. Whether it’s actually prepared to taste or following a specific temperature zone, do it right or don’t do it all. After all, humans have been cooking over fire for millions of years. It’s one of our oldest skills for a reason.

“BBQ. It can be a religious experience when good. When your neighbor Steve makes it, it can be gag inducing.”

“Your BBQ sucks Steve. We were just being polite because we like your dog.”

“Another trick I used would be to smoke a pork shoulder for an hour in with the pellet smoker then bring it inside, let it cool a bit, before bagging it and putting it in a sous vide water bath for 36 or more hours. Best pulled pork I’ve ever had until I got a real smoker. Just….buttery smooth and amazingly flavourful.”

“Brisket When done really well, it is comparable with a great steak. But it is extremely hard to get it to that quality. I live in Texas and have visited most of the best bbq places and only a handful are able to get it to this level. When done poorly it is a tough rubbery lump of grizzle and fat.”

“I’m not sure if it’s how prevalent meat thermometers are now or what, but my parents made horrible tough pork chops, too. My wife and I make unbelievable pork chops by using thicker cuts and actually checking temps.”

“Someone that understands good slow-and-low cooking vs someone that grills it until the juices are gone and slathers it in $2 bbq sauce.”

seafood, poke, lobster tail, shrimp, chilled, seafood buffet, Maine, scallops
Seafood platter on the beach. Photo credit Canva

Get fancy or keep it simple with seafood

Seafood lends itself to all kinds of cooking skill levels—if you’re careful and know what you’re doing. If not, it could be a total disaster. Keeping food safety and proper preparation in mind, the perfect seafood dish could be as simple as chilled shrimp in cocktail sauce or as succulent as a lobster tail dipped in warm, clarified butter.

“My wife insisted she HATED squid – then she had a dish at Cocina Hermanos Torres in Barcelona that wound up being her favorite dish, ever. Our lesson: try things we think we may not like, as it’s possible every chef before was having an off night. And be open to great chefs changing your mind!”

“Yes!!! I laugh when people say they are looking for a seafood buffet. Seafood is only good if it cooked in small batches and served fast. The taste of lobster in Maine on those “side of the road” places is second to none! Steamed and served nothing better. Once it gets cold that’s it.”

“My wife hates seafood but as a kid she only had access to the really bad stuff. It’s a shame, because good seafood is one of the greatest things there is imo. Fresh poke in Hawaii, fresh shrimp in Florida and fresh lobster in Maine are possibly the greatest food I have ever eaten.”

“Overcooked seafood is a disaster and there are fine lines between under, good, perfect, okay, and disaster. Scallops require a hot pan, fat, and close attention. If you get a nice sear, you’re typically good to go because of carry over – particularly if you baste at the end.”

garden, vegetables, carrots, boiled water, cook, fresh veggies, preparation, roasted
Scarecrow watches over a vegetable garden. Photo credit Canva

Health-conscious people like a daily dose of vegetables

Some people just don’t like vegetables. For those who love them, though, the argument usually follows that the haters just haven’t had them prepared correctly.

“Anything eggplant-related. So many people insist they hate it until they have it at a good restaurant or have the right dish.”

It’s one of those vegetables where the texture can be great or awful depending on how it’s prepared. When it’s good, it’s very, very good. When it’s bad, it’s horrid.”

“I couldn’t understand why everyone on Reddit seems crazy for roast vegetables and only recently learned they’re talking about veggies oil roasted on a tray, not mushy, water-logged, vaguely meat-flavoured “Sunday roast” carrots. Makes so much more sense now.

“I’m not saying there isn’t a way to make Brussels sprouts delicious, I cook them all the time. I’m saying covering something in bacon is not a valid recipe for cooking vegetables. It’s a pretty obvious sign someone is not a serious cook, they’re covering up the flavour of them instead of expanding it.”

“I remember my ex-wife being astonished that my stepdaughter was inhaling the Brussels sprouts I made for dinner one time. She said “she’s always hated those!” I asked her how she normally prepared them, and when she started with “first, I open the can,” I just stopped her right there and decided I was going to teach her how to make fresh veggies with good, complementary spices. Turns out, her kid loves vegetables, she just hates canned s*** like the rest of us.”

“I liked canned beets. I absolutely love pickled beets, but roasted are infinitely superior. Corn is better frozen, as is chopped spinach, but fresh better still. The only vegetable that is a personal exception is lima beans, which I find vile in every iteration, and even then I had them once where they weren’t awful, and I never had that experience again.”

How do you prepare your food?

According to a 2025 article in the Journal of Future Foods, new techniques such as sous vide and controlled emulsification give chefs greater control over achieving exact textures and flavors. Staples like boiling vegetables in water are being replaced by new methods, such as steaming. A 2025 study in MDPI found that both techniques had a similar effect on the dietary fiber profiles of vegetables such as broccoli and cabbage. For those who prefer the flavor and texture from steaming, science says go for it.

For those curious about even newer tech gadgets entering the kitchen, a 2024 study reported at Cornell University introduced YORI, a dual-arm robot kitchen system. The system doesn’t cook things perfectly without the chef, but it shows where cooking precision is heading with technology. Whatever your flavor palate, finding the right preparation method goes a long way toward making choices that offer both tasty meals and healthy options for the holidays and beyond.

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Ian Taylor PhotographerTwo young children play in the grass.

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Culture Stories

Internet

Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.