Fast and fresh. If it’s not fast i might change my mind before it’s ready. I already to pay for my food so I don’t lose anything that way. Time is my problem, and fresh requires time also.
Agreement. I’m not in that big a hurry. I usually only eat one meal a day anyway, in the evening, so I’m used to waiting.
Fresh & Free
Fresh and free.
Groceries are a huge expense where I live. And I’m still thousands of dollars in debt.
Not picking the Fast option means AFAICT that I can only eat twice a day. I get up at 6am. I’m hungry, but I can’t eat until 11am. I eat enough to last me maybe five hours. So I am hungry again at 4 o’clock. I have to wait until 9pm. Unless I wake up at 2am, I have to repeat the cycle. Sorry, no thanks. Fast and Fresh.
Regards,
Shodan
Free and fresh.
Game the fast option by waking up hungry, skipping breakfast and ordering lunch. When lunch comes but before I eat, so I’m still hungry, order supper. When supper comes order breakfast (something that will hold overnight) and then eat supper. When I wake up the next morning, order my lunch and then eat the breakfast that came last night. I’m eating free and only missed the one meal.
I think you guys are misinterpreting the OP’s intention of “not fast”.
It’s not a matter of having to plan ahead- they specifically say that it’s more like when you decide you want to eat, THAT is when the 5 hour clock starts counting down. So wake up at 7 and are hungry? Have a good lunch, because that’s when your food will be available.
According to them, it’s based on when you were actually hungry, and you can’t game the system into giving you food when you think you’ll want it by claiming to be hungry 5 hours earlier.
I suspect that a LOT of people wouldn’t choose this if they actually thought through what it entailed. I’m pretty sure Cyros’ scheme would break down, in that it wouldn’t let you get dinner by being hungry before you eat the food you wanted at breakfast. You’d eat your lunch 5 hours after waking up hungry… and then not be hungry (and consequently be able to start the timer again) until some time later. I suppose you could sort of game it by eating a bunch of small, non-satisfying meals, but you’d just be constantly hungry that way.
pssst, post 16, he changed the rules.
*" what it means is that…the five hour countdown doesn’t start until you are hungry and actually want to eat right then. There is no planning in advance. The timer doesn’t start until you’re like “Okay, I’m ready to eat now…very hungry. When is the food going to be ready?” Five hours starts then."
So with that change, he made 'fast" a required option.
I don’t know about that. I like approaching a meal slowly. I enjoy making pasta from scratch, then a sauce likewise, eating hours after initiating a meal.
I like making fresh dough, forming it into a roughly bowl shape and baking it, eventually filling the bread bowl with a soup made from scratch.
Fuck instant gratification; if I had no grocery bill I could afford to cut back my work hours and work in my kitchen.
Fast and fresh. I don’t care about the cost.
If I wait 5 hours from when I’m hungry, I won’t be hungry anymore. Under this arrangement, I doubt I would eat more than once every 48 hours. I’ve certainly gone that long without eating before when I’ve been distracted. Hunger is an extremely fleeting thing for me and mostly tied to a schedule. If I miss my feeding timeslot, I no longer want to eat.
I’m with you on all of this. If the OP said I had to spend 5 hours cooking everything I made, I would actually consider that a fair trade.
But I don’t think the OP’s criteria permit what you’re describing. As I understand it, you won’t even get the ingredients to make your pasta or bread until five hours after you’re really, really hungry for it.
That’s how I read it too.