4 ms·

I am not a Soylent fan but I do like this food-versioning idea. What if all consumer food products were required to have versions numbers and a change log to de

I am not a Soylent fan but I do like this food-versioning idea. What if all consumer food products were required to have versions numbers and a change log to detail out modifications? Oreos version 2.3: Reduced count from 36 to 34. Increased price by 15 cents. Pepsi version 3.0: Swapped sugar for high-fructose corn syrup.

pothibo 12y ago
It would only work for manufactured good, often linked to fast-food. I think in that regards, it would be a great idea. For everything else, it would be impossible due to the nature of cooking itself.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
aleem 12y ago
GitHub could be leveraged to do this so easily and it would make for an awesome repo. Each product could get it's own file allowing easy tracking of revisions, PR and issue tracking. A standardised file naming convention and formatting are all that's needed to get started. EDIT: There is also DIY Soylent [1] with some popular recipes, detailed nutritional information and versioning of each formula. People Chow v3.0.1 [2] seems to be one of the favourite recipes. [1] http://diy.soylent.me/recipes http://diy.soylent.me/recipes [2] http://diy.soylent.me/recipes/people-chow-301-tortilla-perfection http://diy.soylent.me/recipes/people-chow-301-tortilla-perfe...
- lamby 12y ago
  > GitHub could be leveraged to do this so easily and it would make for an awesome repo I don't think you are wrong per-se but whenever I see, let's take a more illustrative example, statutes and laws added to GitHub I can't help but think they are introducing a rather misleading narrative to the information. In this example, developers--especially on HN--have a cultural quirk anyway where they believe that the legal system can somehow be reduced or modelled as some sort computer program (when the reality is quite different) and having levers such as pull requests, review systems and diffs encourages this kind of thinking to some degree.
zmk_ 12y ago
That could be standardized into things like: * price/unit * caloric_value/unit * other_nutrition_label/unit ...and with that we could control which food companies are resorting to tricks.
batbomb 12y ago
Sounds like a great idea! Let's license foods too! 11. BECAUSE THE FOOD IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE FOOD, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE FARMERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE FOOD "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR CONSUMPTION. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FOOD IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE FOOD PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
codezero 12y ago
I really like how Soylent is versioning, I'm bummed I didn't get to try 1.1 because of the digestive enzymes, but will definitely try 1.2 in my next order. The iterative changes are really useful to keep track of, since they are pretty substantive changes in what you're eating. Lots of things do have versions, but they just call them products, rather than Soylent DE and Soylent Algae, they're just increasing version numbers. I imagine this probably fits well with their target audience too. Unlike every_other_food_stuff versioning, people eating Soylent are usually not eating a bunch of other products so the versioning is meaningful.
tzs 12y ago
> I am not a Soylent fan but I do like this food-versioning idea. What if all consumer food products were required to have versions numbers and a change log to detail out modifications? Requiring a change log is probably overkill, but I've long wished that versioning was required on any food that is required to have a nutrition and ingredients label. The versioning would probably be most useful if it were simply the date of the last change to the ingredients or nutrition information. Then all I'd have to do when buying some packaged food item that I've had before is take a quick look at the date, note that it is earlier than the last time I read the complete label and approved the item, and I'm good to go. Such a requirement should be cheap and easy for the producers. If they have changed the nutritional or ingredient information, they have to make news labels anyway.
Evgeny 12y ago
Yep, and instead of the "if it has more than X ingredients, don't eat it" we could use "if it has a version, don't eat it" rule.

pothibo 12y ago

It would only work for manufactured good, often linked to fast-food. I think in that regards, it would be a great idea. For everything else, it would be impossible due to the nature of cooking itself.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

aleem 12y ago

GitHub could be leveraged to do this so easily and it would make for an awesome repo. Each product could get it's own file allowing easy tracking of revisions, PR and issue tracking. A standardised file naming convention and formatting are all that's needed to get started. EDIT: There is also DIY Soylent [1] with some popular recipes, detailed nutritional information and versioning of each formula. People Chow v3.0.1 [2] seems to be one of the favourite recipes. [1] http://diy.soylent.me/recipes http://diy.soylent.me/recipes [2] http://diy.soylent.me/recipes/people-chow-301-tortilla-perfection http://diy.soylent.me/recipes/people-chow-301-tortilla-perfe...

lamby 12y ago
> GitHub could be leveraged to do this so easily and it would make for an awesome repo I don't think you are wrong per-se but whenever I see, let's take a more illustrative example, statutes and laws added to GitHub I can't help but think they are introducing a rather misleading narrative to the information. In this example, developers--especially on HN--have a cultural quirk anyway where they believe that the legal system can somehow be reduced or modelled as some sort computer program (when the reality is quite different) and having levers such as pull requests, review systems and diffs encourages this kind of thinking to some degree.

zmk_ 12y ago

That could be standardized into things like: * price/unit * caloric_value/unit * other_nutrition_label/unit ...and with that we could control which food companies are resorting to tricks.

batbomb 12y ago

Sounds like a great idea! Let's license foods too! 11. BECAUSE THE FOOD IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE FOOD, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE FARMERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE FOOD "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR CONSUMPTION. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FOOD IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE FOOD PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

codezero 12y ago

I really like how Soylent is versioning, I'm bummed I didn't get to try 1.1 because of the digestive enzymes, but will definitely try 1.2 in my next order. The iterative changes are really useful to keep track of, since they are pretty substantive changes in what you're eating. Lots of things do have versions, but they just call them products, rather than Soylent DE and Soylent Algae, they're just increasing version numbers. I imagine this probably fits well with their target audience too. Unlike every_other_food_stuff versioning, people eating Soylent are usually not eating a bunch of other products so the versioning is meaningful.

tzs 12y ago

> I am not a Soylent fan but I do like this food-versioning idea. What if all consumer food products were required to have versions numbers and a change log to detail out modifications? Requiring a change log is probably overkill, but I've long wished that versioning was required on any food that is required to have a nutrition and ingredients label. The versioning would probably be most useful if it were simply the date of the last change to the ingredients or nutrition information. Then all I'd have to do when buying some packaged food item that I've had before is take a quick look at the date, note that it is earlier than the last time I read the complete label and approved the item, and I'm good to go. Such a requirement should be cheap and easy for the producers. If they have changed the nutritional or ingredient information, they have to make news labels anyway.

Evgeny 12y ago

Yep, and instead of the "if it has more than X ingredients, don't eat it" we could use "if it has a version, don't eat it" rule.