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

Soylent on the latest Vice piece

blog.soylent.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 205 posts

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#81

Post by endtime »

StavrosK wrote: post #61
md224 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm glad to see so many people disagree with me. It means I'm on the right track. Does anyone else find this "first they ignore you" style of belief-reinforcement to be vaguely troubling? Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't just believe your critics without further inquiry, but the presence of critics shouldn't be used as supporting evidence in and of itself . You risk creating a kind of insular belief system where a…

Very true. You can't use the fact that someone has something bad to say about you to actually improve your perceived value. It's strictly[1] more probable that you're worse if there is criticism than if there isn't. [1] EDIT: as pasquinelli noted, I didn't actually mean "strictly" here, I meant >=. Also, pasquinelli, you've been hellbanned.

I think the related but slightly more general claim is that you cannot update your beliefs in the same direction for both of two exhaustive and exclusive outcomes. In this case, if people disagreeing with you reinforces your beliefs, then it should be the case that everyone agreeing with you makes you question those beliefs. (This might be reasonable if you are e.g. in a mental asylum.)

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#82

Post by aaron695 »

berberous wrote: post #43
contextual wrote: post #10

Soylent will likely become a billion dollar global enterprise, and even "disrupt" the food industry. It will also ultimately be a failure and frowned upon in modern society. Why? Because a Soylent-saturated world would rob families and loved ones of the ritual and benefits of eating together. Eating together civilizes people. It's emotionally and socially edifying. Studies show that families that dine together stay t…

Is every single meal a social event for you? I eat out at least a few times a week with friends. But if I'm stuck at the office working late or home alone one night, I don't cook. I order off seamless, and a lot of it is garbage. Sure, I should learn to like cooking, but I've failed to do that and that's unlikely to change. So in my mind, replacing the shitty delivery meals with something optimally nutritious would b…

Given you're at a computer using HN, then at any off time a good meal is no meal. You can safely say stuffing more food into you is not needed.

So the only real reason you eat in these off periods is enjoyment of food, stopping feeling hungry and habit.

This is not what Soylent is for as far as I can see.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#83

Post by [deleted] »

contextual wrote: post #10

Soylent will likely become a billion dollar global enterprise, and even "disrupt" the food industry. It will also ultimately be a failure and frowned upon in modern society. Why? Because a Soylent-saturated world would rob families and loved ones of the ritual and benefits of eating together. Eating together civilizes people. It's emotionally and socially edifying. Studies show that families that dine together stay t…

[deleted]

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#84

Post by hawkharris »

Many startups put the word "utilize" in their press releases to sound fancier and more official: "This...prompted us to utilize more robust packaging."

You can always say "use" instead of "utilize" to avoid buzzwords and sound more conversational. In fact, there are only a few specific cases (mostly in science writing) where "utilize" is necessary:

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/use-versu...

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#85

Post by bentcorner »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #76
Sargos wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, delicious cheeseburger or tasteless goop in a can? That's a tough one. Maybe my sarcasm detector is off but I don't see how this is a real question.

Because there's nothing I love more than factory farmed animal protein and excessive, unneeded carbohydrates. Delicious cheeseburger? Have you even eaten at a McDonalds?

Let's recognize the fact that McDonald's food actually tastes good to a large portion of the population, for better or worse. To do otherwise is, IMO, harmful to the discussion of improving what we eat as a society.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#86

Post by ryanSrich »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #76
Sargos wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, delicious cheeseburger or tasteless goop in a can? That's a tough one. Maybe my sarcasm detector is off but I don't see how this is a real question.

Because there's nothing I love more than factory farmed animal protein and excessive, unneeded carbohydrates. Delicious cheeseburger? Have you even eaten at a McDonalds?

That's what YOU want. Compare that to the status quo and it's hard to argue against the fatty, grease filled cheeseburger.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#87

Post by enraged_camel »

md224 wrote: post #54
contextual wrote: post #10

Soylent will likely become a billion dollar global enterprise, and even "disrupt" the food industry. It will also ultimately be a failure and frowned upon in modern society. Why? Because a Soylent-saturated world would rob families and loved ones of the ritual and benefits of eating together. Eating together civilizes people. It's emotionally and socially edifying. Studies show that families that dine together stay t…

> I'm glad to see so many people disagree with me. It means I'm on the right track. Does anyone else find this "first they ignore you" style of belief-reinforcement to be vaguely troubling? Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't just believe your critics without further inquiry, but the presence of critics shouldn't be used as supporting evidence in and of itself . You risk creating a kind of insular belief system where a…

It's a form of self-delusion whereby you start from a place of supreme self-assurance and the existence of critics only serves to further your confidence.

I mean, make no mistake: the parent not only has no idea what he's talking about, his thinking also suffers from multiple logical fallacies. Let's go through a few of them.

1. Eating together civilizes people. It's emotionally and socially edifying.

Sure. Who said you need to consume your Soylent all by yourself? I told one of my coworkers that I ordered a week's worth, and guess what: she asked me if she could try it with me.

2. Eating real food persisted throughout human history because it's more than about eating.

No, eating "real food" (whatever that means) persisted throughout human history because we did not have any alternatives. It's kind of like aging: because it kinda just happens, we have accepted it as a normal thing. But that doesn't mean it is normal, or should be accepted as such.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#88

Post by jamesaguilar »

md224 wrote: post #54
contextual wrote: post #10

Soylent will likely become a billion dollar global enterprise, and even "disrupt" the food industry. It will also ultimately be a failure and frowned upon in modern society. Why? Because a Soylent-saturated world would rob families and loved ones of the ritual and benefits of eating together. Eating together civilizes people. It's emotionally and socially edifying. Studies show that families that dine together stay t…

> I'm glad to see so many people disagree with me. It means I'm on the right track. Does anyone else find this "first they ignore you" style of belief-reinforcement to be vaguely troubling? Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't just believe your critics without further inquiry, but the presence of critics shouldn't be used as supporting evidence in and of itself . You risk creating a kind of insular belief system where a…

Yes, it is totally inaccurate. It is like the people who performed witch hunts: "If she doesn't admit to being a witch, she must be lying. If she admits to being a witch, then obviously she is because why would anyone admit to that?" If either outcome of a test -- criticism, ~criticsm -- increases your prior belief estimate, you need to have another look at Bayes' theorem.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#89

Post by oftenwrong »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #76
Sargos wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, delicious cheeseburger or tasteless goop in a can? That's a tough one. Maybe my sarcasm detector is off but I don't see how this is a real question.

Because there's nothing I love more than factory farmed animal protein and excessive, unneeded carbohydrates. Delicious cheeseburger? Have you even eaten at a McDonalds?

Millions of people eat at McDonalds and like it. Most people would choose the McDonalds burger. The people that give a shit about factory farming and nutrition are in the minority.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#90

Post by OvidNaso »

hawkharris wrote: post #84

Many startups put the word "utilize" in their press releases to sound fancier and more official: "This...prompted us to utilize more robust packaging." You can always say "use" instead of "utilize" to avoid buzzwords and sound more conversational. In fact, there are only a few specific cases (mostly in science writing) where "utilize" is necessary: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/use-versu...

It may be different where you live, but at least in Southern California English, 'utilize' is quite commonly used and would sound conversational in tone to many an ear.
Post reply on HN