Unpopular Opinions - General Thread

  • Thread starter Carbonox
  • 3,013 comments
  • 204,495 views
Not sure if this is exactly unpopular or not, but the BMW Z4 GT3 is one of the best looking, and sounding for that matter, GT racecars.
Alessandro-Zanardi-bmw-z4-gt3-10.jpg
 
Rare meat is horrible.
My father-in-law likes to say "walk it through a warm room" with regards to his steak's preparation, and while my rareness preference isn't quite that extreme, I do enjoy a rare steak--the key is knowing that you really do get what you pay for.

Beef isn't fresh when you or the restaurant you go to gets it. Really, unless you go out and kill a cow to eat, you're getting beef that's been aged, and you really don't want it fresh. What you (through your supermarket) or your average restaurant gets is wet-aged beef.

Wet-aging is much more cost-effective than dry-aging because a) it doesn't take nearly as long, b) it doesn't require the real estate and c) it doesn't lose moisture--it's actually aged in the bag while being transported to the final sale point. Because you're not losing moisture, you're not losing most of the metallic taste that the meat has naturally. There's still flavor development, but it's just not as good.

Dry-aging is where you've got a side of beef hanging in a walk-in refrigerator barely above freezing where any boxer can just come in and start punching it (okay, so Rocky was punching a pig, but you get the idea). This takes time, and I mean weeks. It also takes space; not only the basic refrigerated storage, but air needs to be able to move around it.

The nice thing about dry-aging is that the moisture loss means the enzymes still break down the protein strains to make the meat tender, but the good flavor is concentrated and the off flavors leave the meat. It seems counterintuitive, but this drying doesn't mean you get a dryer piece of meat in the end, either, because the cooked cut's moisture depends more on the fat (that didn't dry during aging) and the temperature to which it's cooked.

Edit: Completely forgot to note that cooking meat for longer periods of time subdues the off flavors of the wet-aged beef, so a higher internal temp (and resulting doneness) is preferable when that's what you're eating.
 
Last edited:
I've eaten steak tartare as often as any other kind of steak. I'm okay with meat being under cooked :scared::sly:
My grandmother made it for a family gathering ages ago, one to which I brought my then girlfriend to meet the family in a casual environment. I told her it was steak tartare and she said, "Hmm, it tastes like beef." Obviously it was, specifically raw beef with accoutrement, and I told her as much, at which point she cracked up and said, "I thought you said snake." Clearly she wasn't scared to try strange things. My grandmother, who witnessed the exchange, later told me to marry that girl...

I did.
 
My father-in-law likes to say "walk it through a warm room" with regards to his steak's preparation, and while my rareness preference isn't quite that extreme, I do enjoy a rare steak--the key is knowing that you really do get what you pay for.

Beef isn't fresh when you or the restaurant you go to gets it. Really, unless you go out and kill a cow to eat, you're getting beef that's been aged, and you really don't want it fresh. What you (through your supermarket) or your average restaurant gets is wet-aged beef.

Wet-aging is much more cost-effective than dry-aging because a) it doesn't take nearly as long, b) it doesn't require the real estate and c) it doesn't lose moisture--it's actually aged in the bag while being transported to the final sale point. Because you're not losing moisture, you're not losing most of the metallic taste that the meat has naturally. There's still flavor development, but it's just not as good.

Dry-aging is where you've got a side of beef hanging in a walk-in refrigerator barely above freezing where any boxer can just come in and start punching it (okay, so Rocky was punching a pig, but you get the idea). This takes time, and I mean weeks. It also takes space; not only the basic refrigerated storage, but air needs to be able to move around it.

The nice thing about dry-aging is that the moisture loss means the enzymes still break down the protein strains to make the meat tender, but the good flavor is concentrated and the off flavors leave the meat. It seems counterintuitive, but this drying doesn't mean you get a dryer piece of meat in the end, either, because the cooked cut's moisture depends more on the fat (that didn't dry during aging) and the temperature to which it's cooked.

Edit: Completely forgot to note that cooking meat for longer periods of time subdues the off flavors of the wet-aged beef, so a higher internal temp (and resulting doneness) is preferable when that's what you're eating.

I still don't like undercooked meat.

---

Everyone's Chewbacca impression is horrible.
Everyone's Arnold Schwarzenegger impression is horrible.

Everyone's. Why the lay public think two of the most distinct yet difficult sounds make for "fun" impressions is beyond me. They're two of the most horrible things you'll ever hear.
 
I still don't like undercooked meat.
That's fine, and I hope that didn't come off as me saying you should. My comments were intended to shed light on why that might be the case, rather than why you're not supposed to. Actually, I suspect a significant number of people feel obligated to go rare or medium rare--either due to societal pressure or because they "can," unlike with pork or chicken--even when the steak they're getting should probably be cooked more thoroughly for it to taste the best it can. If I really want a steak regardless of quality, and know it's going to be wet-aged, I'm going to get it cooked to 160 so that those off flavors are minimal. Also know that it's not uncommon for fine dining establishments that generally offer dry-aged beef to have wet-aged cuts for well-done orders.
 
Rare meat is horrible.

Texture, taste or both?

I was never a fan of steak tartare or anything with raw meat on it, but I was enlightened by the sublime pleasure of a carpaccio salad in my young adulthood and fell in love with raw, rare and medium rare meat ever since. I understand people being put off by the taste, each palate is very unique.
 
I still don't like undercooked meat.

---

Everyone's Chewbacca impression is horrible.
Everyone's Arnold Schwarzenegger impression is horrible.

Everyone's. Why the lay public think two of the most distinct yet difficult sounds make for "fun" impressions is beyond me. They're two of the most horrible things you'll ever hear.

Chewbacca's voice is a composite of various sound effects, people that try and do it are just embarrassing themselves.

Arnie on the other hand... no reason not to be able to do it well with a little practice.
 
Should have put a man and woman on the cover to shut the whiners up. No doubt they would still have complained though.

A bit late to the party, but there is no pleasing people... especially considering they did this

11775143-2134581282251115.jpg


image



Also people seem to have completely side-tracked the argument and made gamers that complain about the appearance of female playable characters on the frontlines to be sexist. It's an ill-founded argument in my opinion.

The woman represented in the CO-OP trailer is clearly English. There were NO female English resistance fighters. You can't sit and make some wild speculation by stating she's a part of the French resistance... and let's not even talk about Blue Kratos and the prosthetic arm.

Fans were shocked because A) this was the first "gameplay"trailer they got of the game B) unfounded gender equality was shoved down the viewers' throats and C) it was god awful as a trailer.

Devs promised realism and we got steam punk.



I understand they're trying to show off the customization; that's been the main talked about point. However when you use words like authentic, realism, immersion, etc. you're setting quite the tone for your game. So don't be surprised when you throw a curve ball like that hideous trailer that you're going to get backlash.

The dev team presented the game in arguably the worst ways one could possibly do so, and handled the backlash in an even worse fashion.



This is probably the only time I've looked to YouTubers for hope to explain what the game was actually about.



Anyway, BFV rant over...







New unpopular opinion:

France didn't deserve that win, especially after that scandalous game against Belgium.

Two matches in a row they've won because of own goals and shoddy referees.


Also, Pussy Riot, the people that ran through the WC final, picked the wrong moment and the wrong venue to protest their points.

I respect what they stand for, but any other means would've accomplished it. They arguably ruined a key Croatian counter attack that would've made the game significantly more interesting.



Also, Grizeman is a 🤬 for that celebration after the wrongful penalty.
 
It's a video game that's not 100% accurate, with new options for added customization, that look interesting, if not 100% accurate as well.

If people like it, they'll use it. If they don't, they either won't use it, or they won't buy the game.

I'm sorry fake, 3D renderings of nonexistent people make others so unhappy.

EDIT: Sorry if I came over as a bit abrasive, but it just seems funny to me that people are taking this molehill of an "issue" and turning it into a mountain.
 
Last edited:
Fans were shocked because B) unfounded gender equality was shoved down the viewers' throats and

Devs promised realism and we got steam punk.


I understand they're trying to show off the customization; that's been the main talked about point. However when you use words like authentic, realism, immersion, etc. you're setting quite the tone for your game. So don't be surprised when you throw a curve ball like that hideous trailer that you're going to get backlash.

Come on, if people are frothing at the mouth over the female characters in this game then they seriously need to re-evaluate their lives.
I genuinely thought the trailer was good but we know the moaners will buy the game anyway.

If people like it, they'll use it. If they don't, they either won't use it, or they won't buy the game.

I'm sorry fake, 3D renderings of nonexistent people make others so unhappy.

EDIT: Sorry if I came over as a bit abrasive, but it just seems funny to me that people are taking this molehill of an "issue" and turning it into a mountain.

Yeah imagine not buying battlefield for this reason, pretty pathetic really.
 
Come on, if people are frothing at the mouth over the female characters in this game then they seriously need to re-evaluate their lives.
Or, for that matter, over gamers objecting to the appearance of female characters in the game. There are far more overt, malignant instances of sexism against which to establish a resistance.

Anyway...

It was a small sample of just four couples and perhaps not enough to draw any real conclusions, but last Saturday we hosted a small gathering for those who missed out on our group's July 4th festivities and I made margaritas.

Half were fine having theirs blended from a mix and half wanted something a little fancier over crushed ice, but I was the only one to have it on rocks--I was also the only one that didn't want salt on the rim.
 
Unpopular opinion: extra dark chocolate is the best tasting chocolate. I just love the rich, strong cocoa flavor of it. Regular dark chocolate and milk chocolate is too sweet, and white chocolate shouldn't even be called chocolate to start with.

Most people I know think extra dark chocolate is too bitter, but I like it.
 
Unpopular opinion: extra dark chocolate is the best tasting chocolate. I just love the rich, strong cocoa flavor of it. Regular dark chocolate and milk chocolate is too sweet, and white chocolate shouldn't even be called chocolate to start with.

Most people I know think extra dark chocolate is too bitter, but I like it.
I've always been a big fan of dark chocolate. After dropping a huge amount of carbs from my diet, I like it that much more.
 
Texture, taste or both?

I was never a fan of steak tartare or anything with raw meat on it, but I was enlightened by the sublime pleasure of a carpaccio salad in my young adulthood and fell in love with raw, rare and medium rare meat ever since. I understand people being put off by the taste, each palate is very unique.

Steak tartare is now one of my favourite dishes but I used to detest the idea of it! I used to refuse to eat steak unless it was well done, then about 10 years ago I decided to try a steak cooked medium-rare. I loved it so the next time I tried it rare and enjoyed that even more; nowadays I only ever eat it this way.
 
Last edited:
I got two today.
First off. The Chevy Cruise hatchback... this is my own personal unpopular opinion (look a little further back, and you will see my "love" for GM). I love the look of that damn car. Someone where I live took the time to do some rather tasteful mods and that damn turbo 4 sounded surprisingly good. SMH... hell must have froze over....
The second is everyone on youtube posting themselves up as "homesteaders." Churning your own butter, or dropping a tree on your property does not make you a homesteader. You got power to your house? you didnt have to go out into the wild back country of the untamed west and build your house by hand, till the land by horse drawn plow? No? You are not homesteading!
 
In Forza Motorsport, I dislike Fujimi Kaido. I don't think it's a fun track to drive on, it has way too many harpins to my liking.
 
Not sure how unpopular this really is, but I love plain broccoli either raw or steamed. As long as it's fresh that is, frozen vegetables of any variety besides corn pretty much suck.

I got two today.
First off. The Chevy Cruise hatchback... this is my own personal unpopular opinion (look a little further back, and you will see my "love" for GM). I love the look of that damn car. Someone where I live took the time to do some rather tasteful mods and that damn turbo 4 sounded surprisingly good. SMH... hell must have froze over....

I like it as well and it's pretty much the only GM vehicle I would consider buying from their current lineup (in fact I'm considering one to replace my PT).
 
Not sure how unpopular this really is, but I love plain broccoli either raw or steamed. As long as it's fresh that is, frozen vegetables of any variety besides corn pretty much suck
I agree, I’d much rather just get the fresh veggies and put in the little bit of extra effort. It definitely is a big difference, in my opinion.

Although for corn, I’d still prefer to just get the canned version before the frozen.
 
though for corn, I’d still prefer to just get the canned version before the frozen.

I do as well on the rare occasion I buy corn, but a few people I know always get the frozen stuff and it's decent enough.
 
I do as well on the rare occasion I buy corn, but a few people I know always get the frozen stuff and it's decent enough.
I love corn in general, so I wouldn’t really complain anyways. I usually just eat it by the spoonful straight from the can lol.
 
Although for corn, I’d still prefer to just get the canned version before the frozen.
Cannot, will not do canned corn--it's a definite no-go for me. If I really need corn and don't have fresh readily available, I will do frozen, but I'm too often disappointed by dessicated kernels. Birds Eye seems to be frozen sooner after processing than, say, Sno Pac, meaning it's sweeter, but also seems to be dessicated more than the latter.

Something I will actually take frozen over fresh (but never canned--the canned stuff tastes like feet) is peas. Frozen peas tend to retain their moisture because their internals aren't exposed during processing, and shelling fresh peas is too much of a hassle unless you have a mechanical sheller, which I don't.

I used to live on Veg-all in college...*shudder*...and there are very few things for which I'm willing to open a can anymore.

:lol:
 
Back