In no particular order:
(1) Dunkin' Donuts' doughnuts. They always look better than they actually taste. Even if I have but a Munchkin, I am left thinking, "I wasted my time on this???" Once upon a time, they were made on premises. It seems those days are long gone, with little to show by way of quality doughnuts. Shame on you, Dunkin'. I shall be forced to purchase my confections elsewhere. (In fairness, I can't remember the last time I purchased a doughnut; someone brought some into work today, so I tried one. Meh.)
(2) Judges who don't understand the rules of evidence. It's one thing to put your thumb on the scale in order to favor the prosecution. I get that. I'm used to that. It's irritating, but not so bothersome as to cause fits of spavins and heaves. However, I had a judge actually say, sitting as tryer-of-fact, "If you're going to enter this in not for the truth of the matter asserted, you may as well be entering in a blank piece of paper, as I'm not going to read it." The evidence in question was a written statement, entered only to show that the statement was made and available to a certain individual. It was relevant to show how the individual responded upon receiving it. Surely, one would think reading it would be necessary. But not this judge. He just decided to create an appellate issue. For fun!
(3) Taylor Swift.