The Biggest Pivot in YC History

I would be perfectly happy with decoupling "satisfying hunger" from "enjoying food", though: if I was never hungry, ever, but still able to eat and enjoy tasting (and consuming) food, that would be great; it would be like a guaranteed basic income for my body.

I don't need to have fancy gastronomical adventures three times a day; I imagine that really, without a need for it, it would be an indulgence to be pursued with about the same frequency as sex.

It is not clear to me from the article their relationship with YC. It begins "YC accepted our original idea, to build affordable wireless networks for developing countries, for the summer 2012 batch", before explaining how that didn't work out and they moved to "working on a handful of projects. Sometimes collectively, sometimes independently".

Then the article begins on Soylent and, aside from a few appearances from Paul Graham, YC isn't mentioned again (literally, I even used the find function to check I hadn't read too quickly and missed a crucial paragraph).

From when "YC accepted our original idea" has everything these guys have done been under a kind of YC umbrella? Did they break away then re-establish with YC when Soylent started taking off? I have no idea how any of this works. Could someone fill in what is between the lines here please?

On another note, I've enjoyed the passion and controversy of the Soylent topics on here and avoided commenting because someone has always said what I was going to - except they've said it hours ago and four people have made good rebuttals, and four more have made rebuttals to each those, and so on, to the point where I just want to drink it all in rather than join the noise. However, this part seems a new one on me:

"Rob would simply go to the pitcher, shake it once, and pour a delicious meal for himself"

Delicious? I was under the impression Soylent was either fairly tasteless or mildly unpleasant-tasting. Is it really delicious? In what way? Why? How?

Epicurus might disagree with your assertion that the pleasure of eating is only a recent thing or the fare only of the rich.

Although he's much misunderstood upon the layman as meaning luxurious foods and pleasures, it's understood he really meant to enjoy basic foods (usually grown in the communal garden) amongst friends.

Soylent would be great for many reasons; third world, developing world, a trip to Mars. But I also share the thought that food is a pleasure and I won't want to give that up.

As I type this I am eating, for breakfast, a sausage biscuit. I am unlikely to switch to Soylent. Now that you know my opinion, should I pretend to believe I have made you smarter? Maybe we can pretend to have made each other smarter together by expressing the same opinion.

Who gives a fuck if I am in the target market segment? The important lessons of Soylent are applicable beyond the specifics. They scratched their own itch, they're shipping, they're gaining the traction needed to build a clear brand, and above all the founders were not so in love with the contents of their own heads that they failed to recognize failure nor seize opportunity.

Sure it's not a product that contains interesting ideas expressed as computer code. Ain't the point. What matters is not the operands but the implementation of the operands.

Good luck to the Soylent team. Maybe you will convince me to be a customer, but no hard feelings if you forego wooing me.

Of course the olden days have to be taken with a grain of salt. I am aware that it was (and still is) true only for a small number of privileged people, and I am thankful to fall in that category.

If Soylent plays a part in reducing the hunger in the world, then I am a big fan. I reserve the hypocrisy for me to not be a fan of it in my own diet.