3 ms·
> 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 s
by 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.