> exact measurements are not something a human palate can do, and I think there is a lot of posturing in recipe writers who insist on such To be clear, when I'

> exact measurements are not something a human palate can do, and I think there is a lot of posturing in recipe writers who insist on such To be clear, when I'm saying more precise, I mean in the sense of "a cup of something is whatever fits into the cup in my cupboard", not using ISO standards with accuracy +/- 1 millilitre. > who was the superhuman tester Again, I'm talking about the difference between "This is clearly uncooked" dry rice, and "this is no longer rice, it's just vaguely rice-coloured mush". Both states are relatively easy to achieve with absorption method cooking, because you have a lot more variables to consider. It depends not only on the rice, but the cooking vessel, the stove and it's performance, and a bunch of other things. Perhaps you don't have this issue and are naturally skilled at this. If this is true then I'm happy for you. Please, however, do understand that there are many many people however who do have this, and find using a rice cooker a much more convenient tool. Some of them would find cooking rice on a stove with a pot would either be difficult or stressful. This is the answer to your question: "Can someone explain? Why is a rice cooker needed?"