Looks like option 1 is worse in every single way, why would anyone choose it? I guess you may have a favourite dish, but you’ll eat a mediocre version of it, and you’ll grow to hate it in a week.

I live this life. I choose the same mediocre meal. Except, I am the chef (cook, actually; a chef manages a restaurant and is a business owner whose business is food service, and a cook is someone who cooks: a chef is probably a cook, but most cooks are not chefs). I eat high protein/low carb for most of my meals.

I have undisclosed allergies, so I don't tend to experiment very much. I'm not willing to try balut or haggis. I'm not willing to try a lot of seafood because a lot of seafood has made me sick, but I love tuna. Tuna is safe.

Anyway, it's a question of safety vs risk and I've made this choice IRL.

Definitely option 2

I have adventurous tastes, and I LOVE haggis

Random. 100%.

It'd be interesting.

Option 1 is my actual life the past two years. Option 2 sounds great. I like 90% of the foods I try and I’ve always enjoyed asking people who work at restaurants for recommendations for food they think is good but not ordered often.

Option 2 hands down.

No allergy issues and it's not going to be inedible, nutritional needs are also met.

Just weeding out picky eaters with #1

I am/was an adventurous eater, so there's no downside that way. The thing is, I also gave up meat at some point, so I guess I have to go with the mediocre meal on ethical grounds. Please tell me it's at least free, I can't pay a damn chef.

So at first I thought you were saying you can pick anything every day but it would be mediocre vs random top chef type meal but reading it again it sounds like you are saying you have to eat the same thing for every meal every day. so like you couldn't have a different thing for breakfast and lunch and dinner?