13 ms·
Soylent on the latest Vice piece
- tptacek 13y agoWow. Exactly the right response. I would never have paid any attention to Soylent's agreement with a large HACCP-certified manufacturer before, but Vice's story actually made that relevant to me. They might actually pick up customers from this shitstorm. Argh! But, well played.
- sillysaurus2 13y agoArgh? Now I'm interested in hearing your personal view of Soylent. :)
- thinkalone 13y agoWhat shitstorm? The Motherboard piece was overall positive, and didn't have the tongue-in-cheek holier-than-thou tone that most articles about Soylent have had.
- nostromo 13y agoThe nascent shitstorm was the story PandoDaily wrote that cherry-picked the mold and rat incidents from the Vice piece to make the content more salacious than it otherwise was.
- timr 13y agoDude, say what you will about PandoDaily, but it is not OK to have rats running around in a food prep facility. The health department in SF will shut down restaurants for less.
- 001sky 13y agoLOL. The other [two] answers justifying RATs are hillarious.
- aianus 13y agoEver since watching the "Cities" episode of Human Planet I've assumed most restaurants have pest infestations to varying degrees. Is that not the case?
- adventureartist 13y agoI hope you realize there are more rats in more restaurants and food factories than you think, and that health departments nationally, while quick to cite, fine, and demand changes to your pest control, really understand that rodent problems happen, and don't shut you down for a rat. Rat infestation... yes.
- sneak 13y ago> When I'd received my first shipment of Soylent in New York, it arrived in the office in a white UPS box—and the yellowish crust-dust was packed into barely-sealed Ziploc bags. How is something barely sealed? It is either sealed or it isn't. They're trying hard to play up the amateur hour part, and that bit with the doctor's "I don't recommend it" where she lists the social aspects of food after she was holding an existing commercial meal replacement drink was pure sensationalism. Even for an opinion piece, they could stand to be quite a bit more fair. The video said nothing of the bag puncture (only the mold), or the fact that the hand assembled soylent was a limited promo batch and not the final product. Also, the clinical trial demand (something we require none of at the grocery store) at the end seems simply silly when he breaks his fast with FRIED CHICKEN, something for which we already have plenty of data to indicate that it's bad for your body. You don't get to say "I'll try it once it's held to standards that I hold no other food to" while eating things out of a deep fryer without looking like a total jackass. It's a smear piece. I expect better from Vice.
- selmnoo 13y ago> They're trying hard to play up the amateur hour part, and that bit with the doctor's "I don't recommend it" where she lists the social aspects of food after she was holding an existing commercial meal replacement drink was pure sensationalism. What? I like rooting for the underdog newcomer and all but will you please settle down. The social aspects of food are pretty freaking relevant and worth talking about in an extended article on Soylent. As well exposing are any shortcuts they're taking, no matter how trivial they seem. You'd expect a review on a restaurant to tell you if the reviewers saw any rats there, right? Despite the rats being there, besides questionable operating practices the Vice piece was overall positive, so just cool it there on kicking Vice around.
- girvo 13y agoText is horrible at getting emotions across, granted, but it seems like you're more upset (about GP's post) than he is about the Vice piece... To me, the Vice article was okay. It certainly wasn't a smear piece, but it did (deliberately?) structure things or not talk about important stuff that would cause controversy. For me, I think Soylent isn't for me at all, but for such an extended article on it it sure missed some very important information. This gives the impression of trying to smear Soylent.
- mcphilip 13y agoIt's hard to imagine the type of person that would be on the fence about Soylent that would be ok with it after reading this article. Hopefully the "it was beta" excuse for producing Soylent in an unhealthy environment won't fly outside of SV culture. If anything, it should bring up serious doubts about the integrity of a team that, when faced with overwhelming demand and flush with investor cash, stoop to a level of cognitive dissonance necessary to claim lofty goals of fighting hunger worldwide while sidestepping around the rats and filth in their "beta" production environment. If the Soylent team wants respect they should focus less on dreaming up scientific sounding rebranding campaigns and slow down the "deployment" of their product in order to subject it to rigorous scientific tests and trials before mailing it to strangers. --------------- Meta: wow, I really get worked up over this Soylent stuff. There's something deeply disturbing about this to me, like we're witnessing the birth of a monster. Maybe it's the first sign of the worst of the "move fast, break things" cutting corners culture smelling money to be made iterating on peoples' health...
- sneak 13y agoThat was the beta/promo batch. I fail to see how that's relevant now. They're already subjecting the production version to rigorous testing. As for trials, those cost hundreds of millions of dollars and are done for no other food. Are you suggesting that they simply not make Soylent because it hasn't gone through a phase 3? I bet you're real fun at bake sales.
- seiji 13y agoThat's the point. You don't get to "beta" foodstuffs. Try running a public beta on some cancer drugs and see how far you get.
- shawnz 13y ago> Try running a public beta on some cancer drugs and see how far you get. 1) This isn't a public beta. 2) If cancer drugs WEREN'T tested before being sold, I would be far more worried.
- 13y ago
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 13y agoThat's a stupid reason to flag a story and an abuse of the flag button.
- jonnathanson 13y agoIt's a related story; it's not the same one. This is basically Soylent's response to the previous story. It's the second chapter in an ongoing dialogue of sorts. I can't claim to speak for everyone here, but I speak as one of the 36 people (at the time of this comment) who upvoted this story. I think it's interesting. Flag a post because it's inappropriate -- not because you don't care for the topic.
- ericmsimons 13y agoWhat happened to the original HN submission of the vice article?
- tptacek 13y agoIt's right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6720193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6720193
- OoTheNigerian 13y agoIt has practically disappeared and the submitted link was substituted[1]. I think this is a first. I doubt that PG is aware of this type of orchestrated manipulation going on. It is quite dangerous for the credibility of HN. Soylent seems interesting and potentially disruptive. However, it is FOOD and deserves to be put under the microscope. Anyone conniving to make them dodge scrutiny (especially via underhand moves) is not doing them any favours. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6720515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6720515
- meritt 13y agoYC owns a portion of Soylent. It is not in the best financial interest of YC to portray them in a negative light. You can't reasonably expect impartial and unbiased information to come from this site, can you? They have a vested interest in seeing the success of their children.
- Eleutheria 13y agoThey definitely need two kinds of soylent. One, soylent red, with a different formula and more nutrients for the first few days while our bodies adapt, and then regular soylent green. I say this because everybody complains the first days are really hard on their bodies and nerves. So a smooth transition would make it easier to stick to the plan and reduce drop rates.
- aaronem 13y agoI'm pretty sure calling it anything other than Soylent Red and Green would be a really, really good idea. Call it a hunch.
- thinkalone 13y agoYeah, I was pretty disheartened in the Motherboard video that the founder liked the name Soylent.
- aaronem 13y agoNothing I've seen about the Soylent project makes me imagine that its founder lives on quite the same planet inhabited by most other humans. He has an interesting idea and he certainly seems able to execute, at least so far, but I can't help but be a little more skeptical than I would be otherwise; the first time I saw mention of it, it took me a good fifteen minutes to convince myself that it was what it appeared to be, and not a prop for some sort of "alternate reality game". Even now, I still find myself waiting for another shoe to drop.
- nationcrafting 13y agoThe name is one of the things I love about it. After all, "Soylent is people" is right on target, in the sense that it's a people product, designed to help people with a food problem. There isn't one group on the planet that wouldn't benefit from at least a little bit of Soylent at some point in their regular lives. It doesn't have to replace their family meals, and it doesn't have to replace their social eating. But it can be their occasional breakfast when they got up a little too late. Or their lunch when they need to run to the post office in their lunch break. Or their "eating at my computer" food when they're busy programming and don't want to order pizza delivery. Or their everyday staple when they're on a budget. Or their emergency food when they've just been hit by a tsunami and the rescue team won't come for days. Or their backpack food when they're on a military mission. Or their one-meal a day when they're in a submarine with tight space issues. Etc. etc. etc.
- contextual 13y agoSoylent will likely become a billion dollar global enterprise, and even "disrupt" the food industry. It will also ultimately be a failure and frowned upon in modern society. Why? Because a Soylent-saturated world would rob families and loved ones of the ritual and benefits of eating together. Eating together civilizes people. It's emotionally and socially edifying. Studies show that families that dine together stay together [1]. Their children are healthier and get better grades. It also lowers the risk of weight problems and alcohol and substance abuse.[2] Eating real food persisted throughout human history because it's more than about eating. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/24/family-dinner-adolescent-benefits/2010731/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/24/family-... [2] http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/family-dinners-are-important http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/family-dinners-a... EDIT: I'm glad to see so many people disagree with me. It means I'm on the right track.
- aero142 13y agoNo one eats every meal with their family, and people who switch to Soylent for every meal are doing so for the interesting story and proof that Soylent, at least in the short term, is not harmful and is complete. The fact that eating together with friends or family is great has very little to do with Soylent.
- vertr07 13y agoYou don't have to eat it all the time. There's no contract, really.
- XorNot 13y agoPeople keeping bringing this up. What is so difficult about the concept that not everyone wants to, or even can, cook meals that are nutritionally suitable, healthy or even intended to be consumed collectively - all the time?
- smspence 13y agoBecause on the internet, and especially in internet comments, the world only exists in black and white. Something is either 100% true for everyone everywhere at all times without exception, or it is 100% false. There is no middle ground, and no shades of gray. Ever.
- karcass 13y agoNo mention of rats. /snicker/
- kposehn 13y agoThe Soylent team continues to impress. I think this is probably one of the best handled rollouts of a product with so high a potential for controversy. Each issue seems to get addressed rapidly, the company is pursuing a quest for quality, and the product itself is coming together rapidly. I'm glad to have contributed.
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoMe too. I eagerly await my order to come in January.
- jebus989 13y agoThe fact a rat was spotted in a dusty old warehouse isn't really worth addressing. From what I've learned so far, the only factor letting this product down for me is the price. I'd guess $65/w is around what I'm spending on food now. Do we have any idea of their margin? Is the price expected to decrease once they get a decent production line up?
- spurgu 13y agoYeah, I spend even less than that. The price would have to be somewhere around half of that to make it attractive for me.
- zipppy 13y agoThat's incredible to me...even at $65 it's less than $10 a day. Half the price would be like $1.25 a meal. I spend almost that simply for lunch each day (sushi, sandwiches...food on-the-go), so for me spending $65 a week would pretty easily save money. Makes me curious how many people (in the U.S.) spend less than $65 a week on food.
- aianus 13y agoThe $65 is the pre-order crowdfunding price and includes a (~$10) steel shaker bottle and free shipping. I'd expect the final price to be lower. People who don't cook are looking to save a lot of money even at the $65/w price point.
- pkinsky 13y agoFood prep in a dusty old warehouse is, however.
- johnpowell 13y agoThe rat does concern me. From the video they have a huge warehouse and 95% of it is for kickball and interviews. They mix they shit in a room Dexter wouldn't even kill in. Why not mix it in someones kitchen? It would be cleaner, mine is.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- lnanek2 13y agoI don't really understand why Soylent needs a factory anyway. Just white label some generic meal replacement shake like Ensure and they are done. The only thing interesting about the company is they managed to market a product that already exists as something new to a new audience.
- cgh 13y agoPlease see this discussion, in particular the response from "rob": http://discourse.soylent.me/t/comparing-soylent-to-existing-nutritional-products/431 http://discourse.soylent.me/t/comparing-soylent-to-existing-... Summary: Soylent aims for something more ideal than a suboptimal solution. It's a day to day meal replacement for otherwise healthy, active people. Given the ingredients of Ensure, I wouldn't want to try to live on it for 30 days. It's like Google vs. Altavista, if you'll pardon the strained analogy.
- 2muchcoffeeman 13y agozzbxdo comment, fourth from the bottom is also interesting. People point out existing commercially available meal replacements, but I've been wondering about what hospitals use. There are already people that have to live for extended periods by being fed through a tube. So has anyone done a comparison of soylent vs meal replacements vs medical products?
- mdisraeli 13y agoFrom the link: "I considered Ensure but found it much too expensive, low calorie, unpalatable, and an ingredient make up that was far from complete or optimal" I have family ties into this industry, and quite frankly this comment is rather ignorant. Ensure is a brand range, with a lot of variation, some of which are, for example, extremely high in calories. It is also worth noting that one of the uses of products like Ensure is to actually mix in with regular cooking, increasing the calorific and nutritional value of normal food. Comparing existing products in the market with "Altavista", and Soylent with "Google" is also very disingenuous, as it serves to discredit all the work put into existing products, and ignores their business model. Funnily enough, Ensure isn't marketed as hipster-food, and everything about it is tailored for their target market of the medical industry. As hackers, surely we should be supporting good business, rather than blindly going with the latest fad?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mixmastamyk 13y agoLooking forward to a low-carb version, anything in the works?
- TillE 13y agoFor the same price (easily under $10/day), frozen vegetables and chopped meat. Just add spices and a bit of oil. Dump it all in a rice cooker if you're really pressed for time. Not as trivially portable as a bottle of soylent, but otherwise superior in every respect.
- mixmastamyk 13y agoYep, I already do that.
- hawkharris 13y agoMany startups put the word "utilize" in their press releases to sound fancier and more official: "This...prompted us to utilize more robust packaging." You can always say "use" instead of "utilize" to avoid buzzwords and sound more conversational. In fact, there are only a few specific cases (mostly in science writing) where "utilize" is necessary: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/use-versus-utilize http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/use-versu...
- OvidNaso 13y agoIt may be different where you live, but at least in Southern California English, 'utilize' is quite commonly used and would sound conversational in tone to many an ear.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- austinhutch 13y agoThank you! I am on a life long mission to eradicate the use of the word "utilize". The only exception I make is in operations where "utilization rate" is a term that I have no issue accepting.
- Scramblejams 13y agoNow if only I could get everyone to stop using the word "performant." Good heavens, let's not rely on rusty old words like efficient or fast!
- munificent 13y agoI dislike jargon, but in this case, neither "efficient" nor "fast" captures the same concept as "performant". First, both are open-ended and relative. "Fast" and "efficient" compared to what? A cheetah is "fast", but it's not fast if I'm trying to use them to propel fighter jets. If I say, "my code is fast", am I saying it's fast enough for the problem at hand? Faster than it was before? Fast compared to most other code that solves the same problem? "Efficient" has all of the same problems and it's also ambiguous. If my library is efficient, does that mean it runs fast? Starts up fast? Uses memory efficiently? Bandwidth? "Performant" is etymologically strange, but in the place I've seen it used, it has an effective, precise meaning: "well-performing in speed relative to the needs of the problem". It means "fast enough" without the negative connotations of "enough", sort of like "plenty fast". Likewise, it's negation is usefully precise, "not performant" means "however fast it is, that isn't enough for our needs".
- bane 13y agoWhen I was younger and had my wisdom teeth out, they had to break my lower jaw to get the deeply impacted lower ones out. I spent six weeks eating nothing but Ensure. To this day I can't stand the taste of it. Going back to solid food took a few days of introducing progressively more and more solid food back into my system and was not terribly fun. I think the appeal of this, in terms of time savings during busy work periods, is intriguing. But there's already tons of these kinds of things in a very crowded market, and I don't even have to mix it myself. But as an extended, multi-week replacement? No thanks.
- codex 13y agoThere is some evidence that working with one's hands relieves depression and promotes happiness. I would like to see a clinical trial which attempts to measure the opposite effect from Soylent: that removing the food preparation ritual can contribute to depression, or at least ennui. Sometimes removing a piece of the natural environment is not good for an organism. Few suggest replacing all human walking with motorized transport, for example; I wonder if the same will hold for meals. On the other hand, some people use food as a drug, and removing it may be helpful in a Buddhist desire-suppression kind of way.
- DigitalSea 13y agoA well-written response. Soylent have handled this extremely well and the fact they've partnered up with a HACCP certified manufacturer with over 20 years experience will prevent any mishaps with future production of Soylent. Really looking forward to giving this a shot, none of the issues highlighted in the beta have deterred me from trying as they won't be present in the main manufacturing process.
- mdisraeli 13y agoI am actually excited by their move to an established manufacturer. A good manufacturing partner will be well placed to help them deal with FDA approval, which will be required. However, they big challenge they will eventually face is the existing nutritional product manufacturers. At the moment, Soylent is not viewed as a serious competitor, but it is worth remembering that if they prove that a market exists, Abbott, Nestlé and the like both have the marketing clout and some rather clever tricks to muscle in on the market. But the saddest thing of all? Despite companies like Soylent, Abbott, Nutriset, Nestlé, etc, clinical malnutrition is still a serious issue. Proper nutrition is essential to successful treatment to many issues (cancer being one), yet it is still commonly neglected by clinical staff and administrators :( And most people don't even know about the risks and that different options exist for different needs! (Disclaimer: family work in the industry)
- mojoe 13y agoI would be very, very interested to see the long-term consequences of an exclusively Soylent diet. I suspect the lack of phytochemicals would lead to increased incidences of cancer. That said, I would also guess that millions (billions?) of people have far worse diets.
- tobeportable 13y agoMakes much sense for disaster relief.