101–110 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A friend evaluated these folks about 4 months ago and concluded there was too much hype. Since none of this has happened, this is a pattern of not following through. You be the judge.
Can you be more detailed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adding a few of my own peeves: 4. Bitcoin is inherently deflationary, which is an awful idea if you talk to anyone who knows anything about money 5. Bitcoin is fundamentally backed by pointlessly wasting CPU cycles and wasting energy trying to reverse hashes.
re: 4. Deflation is bad for the asset rich, but good for the asset poor. Inflation is good for the rich and bad for the poor. Those who usually spout the 'inflation is better than deflation' argument are the rich. The argument that inflationary expectation is better than deflationary expectation because during period of deflation purchasing stops because 'it will be cheaper tomorrow' is flawed because such periods of…
I find it surprising that so many people here are reluctant to try soylent and afraid to "risk their health" because it is made by "a bunch of 20-something computer scientists". Do you really think the traditional food industry as it is is looking out for you? Most people I know have terribly unhealthy diets and almost anything that anyone put any thought in will be better for them. I'm not saying Soylent is perfect…
Whether it is safe or not, this is a great case study for nutritionists. But I don't want to be a guinea pig.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adding a few of my own peeves: 4. Bitcoin is inherently deflationary, which is an awful idea if you talk to anyone who knows anything about money 5. Bitcoin is fundamentally backed by pointlessly wasting CPU cycles and wasting energy trying to reverse hashes.
4. Last time I checked, gold was still very valuable. And it has been used for what... Thousands of years? The economies of the world did just fine without forced inflation and consumerism. 5. Printing paper money wastes way more resources. And how is using energy to create something of value a bad idea anyway? Bitcoin doesn't even require that you use a contaminating type of energy, for all I know you could be hashi…
Furthermore, there will be an energy cost to transactions even after no substantial number of bitcoins are mined, since just verifying transactions requires wasteful hashing.
The solar energy part is totally irrelevant--if you happen to have a solar panel sitting around, you could just as easily use it for actual work (and offset coal burning) rather than computing hashes.
Shitty mobile pix... Store-brand ingredients and nutrition info: http://screencast.com/t/KhqgkXT73Ofe Major-brand: http://screencast.com/t/KhqgkXT73Ofe
Same link twice, friend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, you're one of the people that believe that a perceived "sugar rush" has something to do with diabetic glycemic excursions? They're entirely different phenomena. Dismissed. But thanks for the irrelevant link!
What is it that you think sowhatquestion means by "sugar rush"? My guess is you think he means hyperactivity. What is the difference between a diabetic glycemic excursion (what you said) and a postprandial glycemic excursion (what I linked)?
There's no difference -- postprandial excursions are a diabetic phenomenon, and have nothing to do with what non-diabetic individuals think of as the effect of sugar and fiber on their health and mood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, marketing?
Well, sure, everything can be thrown under "marketing," because obviously if no one knew about it no one would be talking about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just wanted to correct this understanding. Just because I sell something doesn't make me exempt from the legal consequences of my actions prior. If I negligently claim that a product will make you healthier and it cripples you, then you can sue me regardless of whether I still own the product. Similarly, I could be prosecuted for dishonest advertising type offences (which aren't wiped clean simply by selling a busine…
So the founders are personally responsible for the actions of their corporation?
The corporate veil may protect them from liabilities of the company (barring fraud/breach of directors' duties), however in this particular instance we have a founder, Rob Rhinehart, who seems to have done most of his marketing and made most of his claims personally. That is, Rob, not Soylent Nominees Ltd, made the statements.
Therefore, if he has breached laws, civil penalty provisions or acted negligently in doing so, he is personally liable.
Source: I recently acted for a home owner who sued her (incorporated) builder in negligence (for building a house which fell down). The company was unfortunately insolvent. Luckily, the founder/director of the company made a number of claims about the expertise and abilities of the building company on the company website (which he hosted personally). We sued the director personally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just wanted to correct this understanding. Just because I sell something doesn't make me exempt from the legal consequences of my actions prior. If I negligently claim that a product will make you healthier and it cripples you, then you can sue me regardless of whether I still own the product. Similarly, I could be prosecuted for dishonest advertising type offences (which aren't wiped clean simply by selling a busine…
> Just because I sell something doesn't make me exempt from the legal consequences of my actions prior. Actually, yes, selling your stake in the corporation that was the legally-responsible actor does mean that you are no longer at any financial risk for the actions of the corporation prior to you selling it, at least not in the main way that you were prior to selling it (that the consequences imposed on the corporat…
If you manage to sell the corporate entity to a third party without making any warranties about latent claims, you will not be concerned about the corporation's liability. And the purchaser of that corporation is pretty foolish.
However you are still responsible for your own personal liability when you operated the company. Did you breach your directors' duties? Did you commit fraud? Did you sign a guarantee for the obligations of the corporation?
There are three ways to become personally liable off the top of my head. I'm sure there are several more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to this: I was in the same boat. Tried Nestle Boost because I didn't want to wait for Soylent. It left me hungry. Reportedly, Soylent doesn't do that. I also tried Ensure very briefly, and got the same impression, but I'm only like 98% sure that, like Boost, it will also leave me hungry.
I've been having Glucerna for breakfast every day for the past two months and it hasn't left me hungry. I don't know how well it works out as a complete meal replacement, but at least as a breakfast it's filling (and I'm normally a heavy breakfast eater whose very sensitive to hunger).