Soylent Campaign • Hacker News Board

Re: Soylent Campaign

#531

Post by allenu » Wed, May 22, 2013, 8:00 AM UTC

btbuildem wrote: post #37

Yes, because a handful of smiley tech nerd kids know nutrition better than professional researchers with decades of experience, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Hey, no need for scientific rigor here when you're crowdfunded and are operating a startup. Move fast and break things, right?

In all seriousness, kudos to these kids and their ambitions. However, the software model of iterating fast doesn't always translate to the physical world, especially when it comes to items ingested by human beings.

It's one thing to "pivot" on your Instagram clone, but taking some experimental goop that hasn't been rigorously tested with good unbiased science (not to mention with a sample size larger than one 24-year old) and deciding to market it is another thing--especially when none of your "team" are nutritionists by trade. There's a reason we have the FDA. I get that this is the "startup culture", but let's take a moment to realize the physical world doesn't allow us to recompile and try again very easily.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#532

Post by DanBC » Wed, May 22, 2013, 8:01 AM UTC

volandovengo wrote: post #233

DanBC wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soylent got a fact wrong. Either they deliberately misreported something; in which case they're lying while trying to raise money. Or they made a mistake. And if they get something this simple wrong why should I trust them when they're making something that I'm supposed to be able to live on?

I was mostly commenting on the state of commenting on hackernews. Somebody comes out with an idea to drastically transform the way that we consume food + the top comment, at the time, was about one small detail in his vid. Is it wrong to ridicule that kind of comment?

> Somebody comes out with an idea to drastically transform the way that we consume food

No. Liquid feed has existed for a long time. You can walk to a shop and buy it. There's a small convenience store across the road from me selling it next to coca cola and pepsi.

We are polite to people who are sincere, even if they are foolish and ignorant. We are rude to people who are engaged in blatantly dangerous scamming.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#533

Post by cmccabe » Wed, May 22, 2013, 8:03 AM UTC

Ugh, every discussion about soylent follows the same pattern.

person #1: But he hasn't proven it's safe!

person #2: But you haven't proven that it isn't!

person #1: But he doesn't have a PhD or any qualifications in food science!

person #2: But you don't either! And anyway the real experts admit they don't know what they're doing anyway. The fake experts are busy pushing colon cleanse products and miracle diets.

person #1: But he's playing with people's lives! Think of the children!

person #2: But so are the guys who invented the Doritos taco shell, the twinkie, and the super-sized french fries. Why the double standard?

How about injecting some reality into this debate and admitting that nobody is going to actually eat nothing but soylent every day. OK, maybe possibly the original inventor will stick to it for a while, but I can't imagine anyone else possibly doing this. Most Americans can barely make it between meals without grabbing a snack. Do you really think someone is going to eat nothing but green snot for a year? All these arguments are irrelevant, really.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#534

Post by DanBC » Wed, May 22, 2013, 8:06 AM UTC

jcampbell1 wrote: post #492

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that those hippies don't raise $100k+ on the web. "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" The techniques and the wording seem snake oilish. Also, if anything those dumb hacker kids build breaks (email, web app, game) etc, they won't hurt you physically. The body…

While this product clearly doesn't meet the risk-reward profile for you (or me), do you not enjoy the idea that a few thousand people are about start an interesting experiment? One though I had was, if Ben and Jerry are adored for making a product that is delightful but contributes to the obesity epidemic, why can we not also praise people trying to do the opposite?

I like the idea that people can use the Internet to noodle about with weird ideas. That's great.

What's not great is moving from "This is me, noodling about with my own personal weird idea, and here's the information so you can join in" to "Hey! I'm going to solve world hunger, and obesity, and you can live off this with no problems no matter who you are!!! (only $200 per month)"

Rest assured, if Ben and Jerry had a crowdfunding website and claimed their food was balanced for optimal nutrition I'd be very critical of them too.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#535

Post by rspeer » Wed, May 22, 2013, 8:12 AM UTC

alex_c wrote: post #224

I read this initially assuming it to be a clever spoof on the whole startup / crowdsourcing scene, because of the name: pick something that is obviously a joke product ("Soylent Green is people!") and run with it - start piling on impressive claims, include startup-y backgrounds for the founders, and be really vague about what the product actually is. Given my initial interpretation, I thought the "Is soylent vegan a…

I have scrolled through hundreds of apparently dead serious comments to get here. Thank you.

I'm just dumbfounded. I can't comprehend what is going on in this comment section. It seems quite clear to me that the HN community is being parodied, and yet either everyone here is so gullible they have never been on the Internet before, or they are dutifully playing their part in the parody.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#536

Post by nitrogen » Wed, May 22, 2013, 8:42 AM UTC

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #425

vecinu wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My concern is that they are billing this as healthy with zero evidence that it actually is. The last few years of nutrition research has begun to show us that we know nothing about it. Pretending you can come up with an optimal solution when nobbody knows what healthy is, is just that, pretending. I fear for the people who see this as a great "life hack" who wind up doing long-lasting damage to themselves. There are…

How can eating Soylent do more long-lasting damage to oneself than eating any other food?

Re: Soylent Campaign

#537

Post by alan_cx » Wed, May 22, 2013, 8:56 AM UTC

jimmar wrote: post #403

btbuildem wrote: post #37

Yes, because a handful of smiley tech nerd kids know nutrition better than professional researchers with decades of experience, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

I'd put more stock in nutrition researchers if their advice was remotely consistent from decade to decade.

Do you understand "research" at all?

They study, they tell us what they find, they study more, and tell us new information, and keep going, getting better and more refined as they progress. More researchers test the claims, and prove it one way or another. If this isn't good enough for you, then at what point would information ever be good enough for you? Do you expect a time when knowledge is complete and set?

You prefer the ideas of non researchers, people with no foundation in the subject or scientific methods? You prefer their advice? You might as well take your scientific facts from a bloke in a bar.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#538

Post by alan_cx » Wed, May 22, 2013, 9:01 AM UTC

blhack wrote: post #369

Wow there is a lot of hate in this thread... A lot of the arguments here seem to boil down to "Much smarter people are working on this and they haven't solved it, who the hell does this KID think he is?!?" That's pretty depressing for a website that, at least originally, was to help startups talk to one another. Shame on you, hacker news. You're smarter than this. By this logic, never ever trust your data to anybody…

Isn't calling critics "haters" merely another form of hate?

"Finally: this is being presented within the context of "an experiment". If you start eating soylent, and you get sick, STOP EATING IT!"

Really? So if a mega corp drugs company just handed out experimental products to who ever wanted it with out and controls what so ever, you'd not be worried by that? It would be a national, perhaps international scandal. But that doesn't bother you because it is "neat"?

Yeah, sure entourage people to experiment, I agree. Make your own goo, and eat it yourself, fine. But encouraging people to participate in unregulated medical experiments is reckless and negligent.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#539

Post by moondowner » Wed, May 22, 2013, 9:08 AM UTC

goostavos wrote: post #513

joegaudet wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue I would see with the placebo sludge, would be that it would immediately present as no the real deal... As I assume one cannot live off of sugar water for very long. I'm not exactly sure what the control would be, I guess what ever it is they stick in feeding tubes?

I'm not a totally sure what would be a control. I typed that last section with quite a bit of haste, but I assume that it could be tested against a traditional food based meal that has similar nutritional value. The meal replacement idea is not entirely new, though, they've always been more in the area of supplement, rather than outright replacement. Things like ensure, slim fast, and a host of other meal in a can th…

Benchmarking against existing meal replacements is actually something I wish someone will do, and document it properly.

Re: Soylent Campaign

#540

Post by DanBC » Wed, May 22, 2013, 9:10 AM UTC

alan_cx wrote: post #538

blhack wrote: post #369

Wow there is a lot of hate in this thread... A lot of the arguments here seem to boil down to "Much smarter people are working on this and they haven't solved it, who the hell does this KID think he is?!?" That's pretty depressing for a website that, at least originally, was to help startups talk to one another. Shame on you, hacker news. You're smarter than this. By this logic, never ever trust your data to anybody…

Isn't calling critics "haters" merely another form of hate? "Finally: this is being presented within the context of "an experiment". If you start eating soylent, and you get sick, STOP EATING IT!" Really? So if a mega corp drugs company just handed out experimental products to who ever wanted it with out and controls what so ever, you'd not be worried by that? It would be a national, perhaps international scandal. Bu…

> Yeah, sure entourage people to experiment, I agree. Make your own goo, and eat it yourself, fine. But encouraging people to participate in unregulated medical experiments is reckless and negligent.

I'm a harsh critic of soylent, but even I'd be fine with it if they said "try this at your own risk! here's the research we're using. Here's what our critics say."