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

91–100 of 205 posts

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#91

Post by whyenot »

KevinEldon wrote: post #65
OoTheNigerian wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has practically disappeared and the submitted link was substituted[1]. I think this is a first. I doubt that PG is aware of this type of orchestrated manipulation going on. It is quite dangerous for the credibility of HN. Soylent seems interesting and potentially disruptive. However, it is FOOD and deserves to be put under the microscope. Anyone conniving to make them dodge scrutiny (especially via underhand moves…

Soylent is a food, like the McDonald's McRib sandwich, the Baconator from Wendy's, the Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast, and the delicious beef tacos from my local Mexican restaurant. Why does Soylent need more scrutiny than any of these or the hundreds of thousands of other food products on the market today?

> Soylent is a food

The company is claiming that it is a dietary supplement and NOT food in order to avoid FDA scrutiny. At least that is what the PandoDaily article that was originally linked to claims.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#92

Post by bane »

When I was younger and had my wisdom teeth out, they had to break my lower jaw to get the deeply impacted lower ones out. I spent six weeks eating nothing but Ensure. To this day I can't stand the taste of it.

Going back to solid food took a few days of introducing progressively more and more solid food back into my system and was not terribly fun.

I think the appeal of this, in terms of time savings during busy work periods, is intriguing. But there's already tons of these kinds of things in a very crowded market, and I don't even have to mix it myself. But as an extended, multi-week replacement? No thanks.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#93

Post by austinhutch »

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...

Thank you! I am on a life long mission to eradicate the use of the word "utilize". The only exception I make is in operations where "utilization rate" is a term that I have no issue accepting.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#94

Post by lbebber »

Sargos wrote: post #69
toomuchtodo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where would you rather eat on the go? Mcdonalds? Or a Soylent vending machine? I've had enough Mcdonalds for this lifetime. Bring on the Soylent vending machines!

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.

Hahah, delicious?

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#95

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

cgh wrote: post #57
lnanek2 wrote: post #38

I don't really understand why Soylent needs a factory anyway. Just white label some generic meal replacement shake like Ensure and they are done. The only thing interesting about the company is they managed to market a product that already exists as something new to a new audience.

Please see this discussion, in particular the response from "rob": http://discourse.soylent.me/t/comparing-soylent-to-existing-... Summary: Soylent aims for something more ideal than a suboptimal solution. It's a day to day meal replacement for otherwise healthy, active people. Given the ingredients of Ensure, I wouldn't want to try to live on it for 30 days. It's like Google vs. Altavista, if you'll pardon the strai…

zzbxdo comment, fourth from the bottom is also interesting.

People point out existing commercially available meal replacements, but I've been wondering about what hospitals use. There are already people that have to live for extended periods by being fed through a tube.

So has anyone done a comparison of soylent vs meal replacements vs medical products?

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#96

Post by oftenwrong »

KevinEldon wrote: post #65
OoTheNigerian wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has practically disappeared and the submitted link was substituted[1]. I think this is a first. I doubt that PG is aware of this type of orchestrated manipulation going on. It is quite dangerous for the credibility of HN. Soylent seems interesting and potentially disruptive. However, it is FOOD and deserves to be put under the microscope. Anyone conniving to make them dodge scrutiny (especially via underhand moves…

Soylent is a food, like the McDonald's McRib sandwich, the Baconator from Wendy's, the Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast, and the delicious beef tacos from my local Mexican restaurant. Why does Soylent need more scrutiny than any of these or the hundreds of thousands of other food products on the market today?

Because your local Mexican restaurant doesn't claim that you can eat nothing but their tacos and maintain perfect health.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#97

Post by Scramblejams »

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...

Now if only I could get everyone to stop using the word "performant." Good heavens, let's not rely on rusty old words like efficient or fast!

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#98

Post by jlgreco »

KevinEldon wrote: post #65
OoTheNigerian wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has practically disappeared and the submitted link was substituted[1]. I think this is a first. I doubt that PG is aware of this type of orchestrated manipulation going on. It is quite dangerous for the credibility of HN. Soylent seems interesting and potentially disruptive. However, it is FOOD and deserves to be put under the microscope. Anyone conniving to make them dodge scrutiny (especially via underhand moves…

Soylent is a food, like the McDonald's McRib sandwich, the Baconator from Wendy's, the Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast, and the delicious beef tacos from my local Mexican restaurant. Why does Soylent need more scrutiny than any of these or the hundreds of thousands of other food products on the market today?

Can you explain to me what the difference in purpose is between a McRib sandwich and Soylent?

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#99

Post by dragonwriter »

jonnathanson wrote: post #24
nether wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except liquid meal replacements already exist (Ensure etc.), and the entire world isn't Valley geeks. You could eat cheap fast calories everyday but gourmet restaurants still thrive. Not everyone is obsessed with food practicality.

Personally speaking, I think the B2B market makes a lot of sense for Soylent. Especially sales to the military, space agencies, and maybe even white labeling for big food companies. In the consumer space, sure, you have some "Valley geeks" who see food as more of a burden to be solved than a source of enjoyment or socialization. But you've also got folks like athletes, both professional and amateur (a much bigger con…

> Personally speaking, I think the B2B market makes a lot of sense for Soylent. Especially sales to the military, space agencies, and maybe even white labeling for big food companies.

Last I heard, the main focus of new food efforts for the military is long-shelf-life food that does a better job of emulating "normal" food. Because it makes a pretty big difference to morale.

> In the consumer space, sure, you have some "Valley geeks" who see food as more of a burden to be solved than a source of enjoyment or socialization. But you've also got folks like athletes, both professional and amateur (a much bigger consumer market).

A market that's highly saturated with well-established nutritional supplements and meal substitute powders, shakes, etc. The one space where Soylent has an advantage over established market players is in marketing to Valley geeks that are insulated from the other markets for this kind of product (some of which is of the "this product is a good fit for you" type, and some of which is "this product is a solution to all kinds of other things for which there are not currently solutions" type, but both of those are marketing messages for Soylent that are mostly successful with the same demographic.)

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#100

Post by codex »

There is some evidence that working with one's hands relieves depression and promotes happiness. I would like to see a clinical trial which attempts to measure the opposite effect from Soylent: that removing the food preparation ritual can contribute to depression, or at least ennui. Sometimes removing a piece of the natural environment is not good for an organism. Few suggest replacing all human walking with motorized transport, for example; I wonder if the same will hold for meals.

On the other hand, some people use food as a drug, and removing it may be helpful in a Buddhist desire-suppression kind of way.

Post reply on HN