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

Soylent Campaign

campaign.soylent.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 608 posts

Re: Soylent Campaign

#201

Post by justincormack »

DanBC wrote: post #195
marknutter wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever bought a red bull? Read the can. It says "vitalizes body and mind." I'm sure a lot of people read than and believe it's true. Heck, it may even be true. But it's not breaking any FDA rules, and it's not a harmful claim any more than the claims the Soylent folks are making. Do we not hold any responsibility for what we put into our bodies?

"vitalizes body and mind" is carefully constructed meaningless nonsense. "For anyone that struggles with allergies, heartburn, acid reflux or digestion, has trouble controlling weight or cholesterol, or simply doesn't have the means to eat well, soylent is for you." is not carefully constructed. It has clear and specific meaning, but it is untested and not yet proved. Have Soylent really thought about that sentence?…

In these parts "red bull gives you wings" intended even less seriously. It is not 80-100% of your diet.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#202

Post by sliverstorm »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #47

Limited market appeal (folks who eat to live vs live to eat) and it lacks the credibility of a clinical study done under the supervision of folks who have the experience to evaluate the results. So in that way it is simply another "look, eating this probably won't kill you, at least not quickly." product. There are many of these introduced and produced every year. That said, to the extent that this guy can get tracti…

Limited market appeal (folks who eat to live vs live to eat)

Are we that rare?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#203

Post by garry »

vecinu wrote: post #197
iandanforth wrote: post #88

I really enjoy this campaign because it gave me an excuse to compare it with snake oil labels. ( https://www.google.com/search?q=snake+oil+label&tbm=isch... ) The characteristic of this kind of marketing that I enjoy the most is the presence of what I call 'linguistic asymptotes.' These are words that imply a product has unparalleled or infinite properties. On the soylent page we have "ubiquitous", "perfectly", "opti…

That's a very good point and very observant. I too am highly skeptical of ALL of these claims. My main gripe with Soylent (ever since I first saw it here on HN a month ago) is that they are making cooking seem like a horrible chore that nobody wants to do. Shopping is convenient because I go whenever I have time and only buy exactly what I need. At the same time, I also ensure I only buy the best ingredients I can at…

Most people would regard riding a horse as a pleasant thing to do in leisure time, but most today would also balk at the idea of having to care, feed, and maintain a horse to get to work every single day.

I realize this is anathema (I love food as much as anyone else) but there are moments in my life where I'd like to code or create things rather than worry too much about my next meal.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#205

Post by aarondf »

Eliezer wrote: post #194

I'm in for $65, because I've run out of patience with everyone wisely nodding caution and not trying to solve the problem themselves. Like a lot of metabolically disadvantaged people, I feel betrayed and tossed off a cliff by a society that doesn't understand and doesn't care. You want to know how desperate we are? Read this: http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35... That's the next alternative…

Same, in for $65.

As a type one diabetic if 80% of meals were the exact same, my long term health prospects would be brighter.

Here's to hoping!

Re: Soylent Campaign

#206

Post by jckt »

Eliezer wrote: post #194

I'm in for $65, because I've run out of patience with everyone wisely nodding caution and not trying to solve the problem themselves. Like a lot of metabolically disadvantaged people, I feel betrayed and tossed off a cliff by a society that doesn't understand and doesn't care. You want to know how desperate we are? Read this: http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35... That's the next alternative…

Do you mind explaining why Soylent is the solution for metabolically disadvantaged people as opposed to a "traditionally balanced diet"?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#207

Post by mongol »

troebr wrote: post #93
Xanza wrote: post #29

I'm actually really pissed off at this product -- as with many, I've had both high hopes and reservations since the start of this whole ordeal. With me being a college student with a VERY limited budget I get very little nutrition that's needed for my body to operate normally. I was so turned on to this product because it was initially advertised to cost the creator between $50 and $100 per month. Now, all of a sudde…

I don't think it's really cheaper than making your own food. If you buy it for a month and you eat it three times a day, it ends up being about $2.5 per meal, or $7.5 a day. My breakfast costs me $.5 to $1, so that leave $3.5 per meal. It's probably what I average already, if not less. I think I spend about $100 maximum on groceries per week for my girlfriend and me, and that includes extras like an occasional bottle…

I don't understand how it ever can be cheaper than making food from raw ingredients. This powder they are selling are a mixture of processed ingredients, that must have originally been extracted from something from something harvested, right? It is a more complicated process to make it, compared with letting things grow in the sun mostly by themselves, and then harvesting.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#208

Post by tokenizer »

w1ntermute wrote: post #192
fredsters_s wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are EVERYthing that is wrong with startups. I would advise you to quit criticising the audacity of a team that is trying to change the world for the better. How many startups can legitimately say that?!

In your boundless zeal for "innovation," you have completely failed to comprehend what I was saying. Putting someone in the hospital is no laughing matter. You can't just "iterate" and "learn from your mistakes" in biotech. We're talking about life and death here, not some filtered hipster cat photos.

Not get caught up in the hate/arguing, but if they're raising money for this, and will be apparently working within the FDA guidelines, wouldn't they have strenuous testing before they release this to market?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#209

Post by gus_massa »

Afforess wrote: post #70
chasing wrote: post #65

"Soylent is perfectly balanced and optimized for your body and lifestyle, meaning it automatically puts you at an optimal weight, makes you feel full, and improves your focus and cognition." Bull-fucking-shit. This is a product made by four twenty-somethings, none of whom appears to have a background in nutrition or any kind of health studies. To trust your health to these people would be fucking stupid. Jesus. Also:…

Wow, it's like the "Hacker News Is Depressing" Article didn't happen. I trust the Soylent folks more than I trust myself purchasing frozen meals in a grocery store. It's hard to be worse than that benchmark.

I didn't like the insults and the tone of the comment. I think that it could have been written in a more polite way.

Anyway, I agree that it's advertised as a too good to be true product, and it was created by people without the needed background. In the last update they added sulfur!!! ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5609546 ). It's one of most common elements in the human body, not a very strange unexpected thing.

Most of the vitamins were discovered because some people aet a very restrictive diet. Usually because more diverse food were not available (in the middle of the sea), or because they didn't have money to buy more diverse food (semi slavery). A diverse diet of complex food protect you form not eating the thing that you don't know you should eat. Eat only this at your own risk.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#210

Post by justincormack »

DanBC wrote: post #17

Some people said that it was only a matter of time before this person started charging money for this crank product, and I guess this proves them right. He's making a number of health claims on that page. I'm curious about the legality of doing so; it's not legal in the UK unless he meets some pretty strict criteria. > If not for this waste there would be plenty of food to adequately nourish everyone alive. Waste foo…

The reason for the stoves and kerosene lighting is that there is little other energy available. And its not cheap. There are startups working on funding solar panels which can provide electricity cleanly by funding the capital costs.

Rather more worthwhile than some bullshit diet for Americans who can't cook.

Post reply on HN