Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Soylent Campaign

campaign.soylent.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 608 posts

Re: Soylent Campaign

#61

Post by trebor »

volandovengo wrote: post #38
sp332 wrote: post #11

I got curious about this statement: 2 million people are killed annually by smoke inhalation from indoor cooking stoves alone. This is just wrong enough to be misleading, since that figure actually includes heating, not just cooking. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/ So soylent wouldn't help in the cases where indoor pollution is caused by heating.

Really?? From all the comments about this idea/execution/etc, this is what you chose to focus your attention on?!

It's a pretty important fact. If the creator is trying to justify the adoption of Soylent as a meal replacement by using this fact (obviously not by itself) then they need to be careful to use facts clearly. The phrasing in the pitch blames 2 million deaths upon indoor cooking, which is inaccurate.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#62

Post by marknutter »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #47

Limited market appeal (folks who eat to live vs live to eat) and it lacks the credibility of a clinical study done under the supervision of folks who have the experience to evaluate the results. So in that way it is simply another "look, eating this probably won't kill you, at least not quickly." product. There are many of these introduced and produced every year. That said, to the extent that this guy can get tracti…

In the end though, it's just food. I could launch a kickstarter campaign that sold veggie shakes and claim it makes people feel healthier when they drink them and it would be no more harmful than this campaign.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#63

Post by nemof »

If any of you are foolhardy enough to try this stuff, please please please get your physician to do a full workup before, and do regular repeat checkups.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#64

Post by tunesmith »

Xanza wrote: post #29

I'm actually really pissed off at this product -- as with many, I've had both high hopes and reservations since the start of this whole ordeal. With me being a college student with a VERY limited budget I get very little nutrition that's needed for my body to operate normally. I was so turned on to this product because it was initially advertised to cost the creator between $50 and $100 per month. Now, all of a sudde…

Re-read his first post. It initially cost him a little over $150/month.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#65

Post by chasing »

"Soylent is perfectly balanced and optimized for your body and lifestyle, meaning it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition."

Bull-fucking-shit.

This is a product made by four twenty-somethings, none of whom appears to have a background in nutrition or any kind of health studies. To trust your health to these people would be fucking stupid. Jesus.

Also: They've got to be violating some kind of FDA rules. So that'll be fun. When they get sued. Or accidentally harm someone.

Please. Do not back these people.

-----

Edit: What FDA rule do I think they're violating? I don't know, exactly. But I doubt you can say things like "it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition" without having some actual data backing you up.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#66

Post by Afforess »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #47

Limited market appeal (folks who eat to live vs live to eat) and it lacks the credibility of a clinical study done under the supervision of folks who have the experience to evaluate the results. So in that way it is simply another "look, eating this probably won't kill you, at least not quickly." product. There are many of these introduced and produced every year. That said, to the extent that this guy can get tracti…

The same could be said for a McDonalds.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#67

Post by jgj »

marknutter wrote: post #34
deathcakes wrote: post #30

I can't help but feel that this is such an 'engineers' solution to something that isn't really a problem - whilst I agree that a cheap, reliable and efficient way to feed a lot of people is something that the world is sorely in need of, I can't understand why someone would opt for this through choice and not necessity. Which is nothing more than a failure of my imagination, of course, and I'm not seriously suggesting…

For me one of life's greatest annoyances is the preparation and consumption of food, like 90% of the time I have to eat. To each their own, I guess.

Agreed. I'm a pretty good cook, but I can't stand doing it upwards of 99% of the time. I appreciate the shit out of a good meal, but I appreciate a mediocre meal that took me 0 effort to acquire much, much more than even the best meal that took me so much as 1 effort to acquire. Pour water into container and shake is about as low effort as I can imagine for a nutritionally complete meal, and if I die from liver failure after a month then I just wasn't meant to be.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#68

Post by NickM »

This would possibly interest me, but including nootropics without listing them seems incredibly scary. It's one thing to include all the normal vitamins and minerals your body needs, but to take it a step further and include mind-altering substances seems absurd and questionably legal.

Maybe by "nootropics" they just mean everyday vitamins that have been shown to benefit your brain, but that's certainly not what I think of when I hear that term. Then again, maybe there's somewhere online where they actually list what they're using, but I couldn't find any details on the campaign page.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#69

Post by [deleted] »

gojomo wrote: post #15

I'm glad such eccentric projects are pursued – they're how progress happens – but it's still the case that... (a) Both the 1973 Charlton Heston movie and mixed, some-negative health connotations of the word 'soy' make the chosen name for the product problematic. (b) The argument for its safety – "We have been testing Soylent on ourselves for several months and the data shows it to have a positive nutritional benefit"…

[deleted]

Re: Soylent Campaign

#70

Post by Afforess »

chasing wrote: post #65

"Soylent is perfectly balanced and optimized for your body and lifestyle, meaning it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition." Bull-fucking-shit. This is a product made by four twenty-somethings, none of whom appears to have a background in nutrition or any kind of health studies. To trust your health to these people would be fucking stupid. Jesus. Also:…

Wow, it's like the "Hacker News Is Depressing" Article didn't happen. I trust the Soylent folks more than I trust myself purchasing frozen meals in a grocery store. It's hard to be worse than that benchmark.
Post reply on HN