121–130 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wanted to compare the ingredients and their amounts but I can't seem to find the formula for Ensure Complete. If you know where to find it, please post a link. If not, I guess that would be one reason why Soylent is preferable to Ensure Complete.
Where can one find a list of ingredients in Soylent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wanted to compare the ingredients and their amounts but I can't seem to find the formula for Ensure Complete. If you know where to find it, please post a link. If not, I guess that would be one reason why Soylent is preferable to Ensure Complete.
http://ensure.com/products/ensure-complete-shakes Click the [+] to expand ingredients etc.
Just as Soylent is disrupting the traditional food industry Huh? I've asked this before and never got an answer. How is Soylent different from Ensure Complete? Is it cheaper? Better made? Easier to order? Tastes better? Better for me? Higher quality? Because if it isn't really any different then what Soylent will need to do is market better than those other companies. Because I'd definitely trust Abbott with my healt…
Do you believe generally that Big Food makes healthier products than independents? I believe the reverse is usually true in the US. You can trust Big Food to pump their products full of sugar because testing shows it makes consumers buy more. Sugar is second on Ensure's ingredient list ( http://ensure.com/products/ensure-complete-shakes ) while Soylent is not sweet.
I guess Soylent can say whatever they want in their marketing spiel. Some people may even believe it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tried Ensure Complete? I got so impatient while waiting for my Soylent order to arrive that I actually did. First of all, it's loaded with sugar, and lacks Soylent's heavy dose of fiber to balance out the glycemic index. Result: sugar rush followed by a nasty crash. Secondly, it lacks some of Soylent's extras like creatine and MCT fats. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it's expensive: it would be almos…
At $200 a month I wonder how Soylent would compare to, say, beans and rice. If Soylent wants to market itself as an affordable product, it should be at least comparable to a home-cooked diet that can be had for $100 a month (which should also be able to include fruits, vegetables, and occasional meat [1]). 1. http://www.onehundreddollarsamonth.com/mondays-with-mavis-ho...
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…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Historical_examples
Notice how nothing good ever comes of deflation? That should be a hint. I would be highly suspicious of the unsourced "In Ireland" section:
http://byline.timetric.com/2010/11/25/ireland-deflation-debt...
though there were some upsides: http://marketmonetarist.com/2012/08/14/good-deflation-the-ca...
I'm not against Bitcoin per se, but all this anti-inflation crap is, quite simply, at odds with historical data to the point that it has become essentially "views differ on shape of planet". If economics is to be useful at all, it has no choice but to be empirical, and everything we've ever measured has always told us that deflation is bad.
Perhaps Satoshi simply felt it was easier to implement finite Bitcoins than a constantly increasing supply. I don't think he can be blamed for that. Bitcoin is, if nothing else, certainly intriguing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe generally that Big Food makes healthier products than independents? I believe the reverse is usually true in the US. You can trust Big Food to pump their products full of sugar because testing shows it makes consumers buy more. Sugar is second on Ensure's ingredient list ( http://ensure.com/products/ensure-complete-shakes ) while Soylent is not sweet.
I trust Abbott far more than some random startup with zero experience in long-term production of food supplements and replacements. I'm sorry, but living off of a concoction for a few months and then claiming that it is better for you than X is crazy. Look, Soylent may not kill you. It might actually be good for you. But until there have been multiple, years-long studies, this just isn't going to fly. Hell, get some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With a bit of patience, you can also just train yourself to break your fast later in the day.
Was that an attempt at a pun, or a serious comment? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying.
Fasting in any form is something you get better at with practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure. Let's start with a thought experiment: I have something very rare, which has no practical uses but which is easy to give to others. Will you give me your car for a big pile of it? How does the success/value of gold not completely destroy this line of reasoning? I'm not saying it is destined for success or failure, just that this is not a coherent argument against Bitcoin.
Go buy your lunch with a lump of gold if you need to be reminded that gold is not used as a currency outside of a few highly niche markets.