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

111–120 of 205 posts

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#111

Post by lambda »

gfodor wrote: post #70
lambda wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you just buy Ensure or Carnation Instant Breakfast? They already exist and are well known, that you can buy anywhere. Or make yourself a bowl of oatmeal. Or eat leftovers from the night before. I think that the only reason that anyone's interested in Soylent is the current startup/crowdfunding bubble hype, not because it's actually anything particularly new. Soylent is to Ensure as Groupon is to coupons. Be…

Ensure tastes like shit. If Soylent tastes reasonably OK, and has stronger guarantees that it can be a true meal replacement than supplements like Ensure, then sign me up.

I was replying to a comment that suggested he was interested in using it merely as a supplement (replacing only lunch). Ensure is perfectly capable of doing that. I'm not sure what "stronger guarantees" Soylent would have. Ensure has been used to replace meals for tons of sick people for 40 years; why do you think that a few computer geeks will be able to suddenly do better than 40 years of industrial research?

As far as the taste, it's too soon to tell. Indications are that it's pretty flavorless http://gawker.com/we-drank-soylent-the-weird-food-of-the-fut... (outside of joking reactions like "It was great and I love it. I don't want to eat anymore.") Given that they aren't particularly focusing on trying to make it taste good ("I'm not trying to make something delicious; there are already a lot of delicious things. It's all about efficiency, it's about cost and convenience."), I doubt it will wind up tasting much better than Ensure.

I just don't get all of the excitement over Soylent. It seems like a solution in search of a problem. It's pretty damn easy to get a healthy diet for cheap and extremely low effort, as long as you don't care about flavor and variety. Rice, beans, and grated cheese covers pretty much all of your nutritional needs (maybe toss in a multivitamin per day to be on the safe side), takes about 5 minutes of work and 15 minutes of waiting for it to simmer, you can prepare a week's worth in advance and reheat it over the course of the week, and it will cost you less than $5 per day in the US. How is Soylent supposed to be so much better than that that it will "disrupt the world food system"?

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#112

Post by TillE »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #58

Looking forward to a low-carb version, anything in the works?

For the same price (easily under $10/day), frozen vegetables and chopped meat. Just add spices and a bit of oil. Dump it all in a rice cooker if you're really pressed for time.

Not as trivially portable as a bottle of soylent, but otherwise superior in every respect.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#113

Post by Tehnix »

fleitz wrote: post #63
XorNot wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keeping bringing this up. What is so difficult about the concept that not everyone wants to, or even can, cook meals that are nutritionally suitable, healthy or even intended to be consumed collectively - all the time?

Imagine people said that you could save time and money by replacing friends with Facebook. Or you could stop walking a buy a segway. Soylent appeals to exactly those people. If we wanted to live like this we'd just buy a bag of rice and a box of vitamins. We all understand that it's technically possible to use soylent, just that like replacing all your friends with Facebook, or riding a segway, it's social suicide.

>Imagine people said that you could save time and money by replacing friends with Facebook. Or you could stop walking a buy a segway.

or, and hold on, not everyone lives with other people (like, say, students etc) and cooking a meal just for yourself is time consuming and requires you have the energy to do so.

That says nothing about your social life whatever, but, replacing friends on with facebook does. Soylent is in no way social suicide. Even if I wanted to replace my diet 100% with Soylent, that'd have little implication on my already thriving social life, because, you know, I don't only socialize over dinner, there are actual other things to do...

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#114

Post by criley2 »

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…

Fail: the whole point of soylent is to replace convenience meals, not meals of love with your family.

Nice to see a critic who obviously hasn't even read the basics of the idea...

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#115

Post by MarcusVorenus »

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.

Delicious unhealthy cheeseburger or a tasteless but healthy goop in a can? I guess you're right, it's a no-brainer either for people with self-discipline and for those without.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#116

Post by dragonwriter »

MarcusVorenus wrote: post #115
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.

Delicious unhealthy cheeseburger or a tasteless but healthy goop in a can? I guess you're right, it's a no-brainer either for people with self-discipline and for those without.

> Delicious unhealthy cheeseburger or a tasteless but healthy goop in a can?

I choose -- false dichotomy. Plenty of healthy and not tasteless quick meal replacements that already exist.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#117

Post by aianus »

jebus989 wrote: post #33

The fact a rat was spotted in a dusty old warehouse isn't really worth addressing. From what I've learned so far, the only factor letting this product down for me is the price. I'd guess $65/w is around what I'm spending on food now. Do we have any idea of their margin? Is the price expected to decrease once they get a decent production line up?

The $65 is the pre-order crowdfunding price and includes a (~$10) steel shaker bottle and free shipping. I'd expect the final price to be lower.

People who don't cook are looking to save a lot of money even at the $65/w price point.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#118

Post by MarcusVorenus »

smspence wrote: post #36
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.

In my mind, I think of Soylent as "food for people who don't like food". In the same way I think of Nickelback or American Idol as "music for people who don't like music". There are millions of these people worldwide. But yes, obviously this doesn't apply to 100% of all people.

Actually I like food a lot, it's just that health is more important to me than taste. After all, the pleasure we get from tasty food only lasts a moment, while the pleasure we get from having a healthy body and mind lasts a lifetime.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#119

Post by abuehrle »

endgame wrote: post #110
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...

Why say "use" when you can say "leverage"?

Because those two words have different meanings.

Re: Soylent on the latest Vice piece

#120

Post by rdl »

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...

This is also incredibly common among company/field grade military officers trying to appear "educated".

I use "use" when something is put to its intended or designed use; I use a shirt by wearing it. I utilize a shirt by wrapping it around my arm, as a pressure dressing, to stop bleeding.

Post reply on HN