Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Beyond Meat S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 439 posts

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#161

Post by ppseafield »

elhudy wrote: post #138
meowface wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point about wild animals is very accurate, but that's not considering that animals bred in captivity ("free"-range or otherwise) would not have been if not for meat demand. It's debatable whether non-existence is preferable to being raised and then killed, but the dichotomy isn't between wild animals vs. free-range animals. I think this is more an argument for an eventual plan to deal with wild animal suffering (…

>His point about wild animals is very accurate, but that's not considering that animals bred in captivity ("free"-range or otherwise) would not have been if not for meat demand. It's debatable whether non-existence is preferable to being raised and then killed, but the dichotomy isn't between wild animals vs. free-range animals The idea is is as follows. Might be worth just reading the article: "If ethical vegetarian…

This article starts with a false premise: "Vegans are against the suffering of animals."

But really the point, at least for myself as a vegan is that "Vegans are against the suffering of animals at the hands of humans."

Often vegans are also environmentalists in that human effort has put additional major stressors on wildlife - deforestation, oil spills, human-accellerated climate change, plastic pollution, etc. Factory farming by humans happens in addition to wildlife suffering.

Wildlife suffering happens with or without humans, but humans active choose to breed and kill animals when we don't necessarily need to. We could just not do that.

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#162

Post by Rafert »

xxpor wrote: post #145
saagarjha wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using those is far from “removing all the ambiguity”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales

Approximately 0 English speakers use the long scale. Exactly 0 do in the US.

You're completely forgetting about non-native English speakers who use the long scale in their native language. They make mistakes or might even not be aware of the difference.

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#163

Post by vageli »

goldcd wrote: post #95
slimsag wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

M is a stand-in for the Roman numeral Φ, or 'mille' which is the Latin word for 'thousand'. So MM is thousand thousand's, or million. The reason it was adopted in finance was because M means thousand, except in English where we adopted M to mean million. Of course metric units where M = million makes more sense today, though. It's a legacy thing that stuck around.

Well no it isn't.. MM would be 2 thousands - as in the representation of the year 2019 as MMXIX (2x1000 + 10 + (10-1)) Anyway, MM is clearly man-month or 2 digit month of the year when you stringify a date... we don't need more.

> Well no it isn't..

> MM would be 2 thousands - as in the representation of the year 2019 as MMXIX (2x1000 + 10 + (10-1))

> Anyway, MM is clearly man-month or 2 digit month of the year when you stringify a date... we don't need more.

Tell that to the entire practice of accountancy.

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#164

Post by henrikschroder »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #151
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you meant k = 1000, M = 1000^2, G = 1000^3, T = 1000^4, P = 1000^5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix

I'm not referring to the metric prefixes. Other than "k" which is well known and commonly used as meaning thousand, I doubt most people would be familiar with the other prefixes. It would seem easier to just use the first letter of million, billion, etc., words which are known by most everyone.

> It would seem easier to just use the first letter of million, billion, etc., words which are known by most everyone.

English is in the minority that uses short-scale, the majority of "everyone" uses long-scale, and would therefore assume a "billion" is 10^12, not 10^9 like you would.

(Which is why you got shot down by the grandparent, the metric prefixes are globally unambiguous, your suggestion is completely English-centric)

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#165

Post by firethief »

alimhaq wrote: post #45

This is probably an unpopular opinion here but I don't think these meat substitutes are sustainable for long term health in humans...our bodies are clearly designed to consume meat (especially apparent when you compare our bodies to those of our mostly herbivore relatives) and by extension we need these nutrients to thrive (not just survive, mind you). I understand the incentive for people to go vegan but people shou…

You would like the way they did science in ancient Greece. All abstract, reasoning everything from first principles, lofty concepts uncontaminated by earthly experience

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#166

Post by fragmede »

xxpor wrote: post #145
saagarjha wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using those is far from “removing all the ambiguity”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales

Approximately 0 English speakers use the long scale. Exactly 0 do in the US.

Metric is not universally known in the US, either, so the SI unit prefixes are also not universally known.

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#167

Post by robotron »

whitepoplar wrote: post #59
paulcole wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could there be? Products like Beyond Meat are barely a decade old.

So if we don't know its longterm health effects, why are people so eager to replace meat with it in their diet?

Is that how people's diet decisions work, generally? Do you think about the longterm health effects of everything you eat? Maybe but most probably don't or just latch onto the latest thing to eat/not-eat.

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#168

Post by djakjxnanjak »

rayiner wrote: post #35
kasey_junk wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a fairly strange reading of the US data. It’s only true because of the USA’s massive use of emissions in other parts of their lives. In non-relative terms it’s still a huge reduction & if we can get in front of developing nations eating of ruminants it would pay large dividends.

I don't know what's "fairly strange" about it. Meat consumption, for Americans, does not make up a big fraction of our CO2 footprint. Globally it's quite significant, but "get[ting] in front of developing nations eating of ruminants" is a much more politically fraught issue than doing the same in the U.S. My brother and I are 3-4 inches taller than my dad, because we grew up on a meat and dairy rich American diet, ve…

> Help me figure out the right messaging for what we should tell Bangladeshis that they shouldn't eat meat now that they're finally getting to be able to afford it.

Are you trying to say we shouldn’t save the world from environmental destruction because it might be awkward to ask some people to switch to fake meat?

How about this messaging: “we are destroying the world, we need to stop”

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#169

Post by sctb »

UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #41

>Have committed to $22MM of protein I've never understood this convention and it always causes my brain to short-circuit when trying to read it. Is that $22 Million Monies, or $22 MegaMillions I'm assuming that the shorthand is supposed to be read as: $22 Million So then I spend the next 5 minutes stuck in a feedback loop of what the hell am I supposed to be thinking.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19720814 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Beyond Meat S-1

#170

Post by freewilly1040 »

sammycdubs wrote: post #158

I've seen this said before (I forget from who), but I honestly think that over the next few decades meat is going to go through a similar transition to tobacco. I don't think it's ever going to disappear completely, but I think it's going to become something most people only enjoy once in a while if at all. I also think that meat consumption is going to be viewed in a significantly more negative light over time.

Why? Do you think global warming considerations are going to be that mainstream? Tobacco has a lot of things going against it - it's bad for you in any amount and it gives off an unpleasant odor that stains fabric and walls. Not much of this applies to meat.
Post reply on HN