Tesla's response to getting maps updates over LTE or service center WiFi - <AUTHOR> https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/tesla%E2%80%99s-crazy-response-getting-maps-updates-over-lte-or-service-center-wifi#new <comment><USER2> According to this forum post [0], the Tesla Navigation data is 5-8 GB in size. This is a large file to download over a cellular network, and I can understand why Tesla/Carriers would prefer people download this file over wifi or wired internet.

Apple has had a related download policy: they won't let you download major iOS updates over cellular data, and require wifi or USB data cable to install them. I believe Apple does this as a result of carrier pressure, however I don't think Apple has publicly stated this (Apple rarely does so).

A lot of people seem to forget that cellular bandwidth is finite, and that wireless congestion is a real problem today.

[0] [https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/firmware- update-2018...](https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/firmware- update-2018-12.111854/page-12#post-2651767)

<comment><USER3> Yeah sure. What they really need to do is proper delta-updates, not download the full navigationData file.

<comment><USER4> While you're not wrong, it's not necessarily under Tesla's control if they can do so (do they build and manage their own map data files?) and even if it was, managing an update that supports delta patches is its own headache that comes with extra engineering and testing costs, so maybe in the end the extra cost would be comparable?

We're only talking about 200k clients here, unlike Google in which each byte of bandwidth reduction is multiplied by hundreds of millions of phones.

<comment><USER5> You don't need to build your own files to do a delta. You just take the old file and the new one, and you calculate a binary diff using cperciva's bsdiff or Google's courgette.

Then on the car you take the old file and the diff to generate the new file.

<comment><USER6> But you have to carefully check which version is currently there before you apply the delta, to make sure it's applicable. Also make sure previous delta was fully applied and not stopped halfway through etc etc. It really is not as trivial as you make it sound, hence the extra engineering burden mentioned in comment above.

<comment><USER7> OK, but if they're a good member of the tech community, they should put in that effort and/or charge their own customers appropriately. Not just punt on it and exploit somebody else's free service.

<comment><USER6> But then they also need to download other large files regularly. So I think their policy is to tell people to do it over wifi, and most people can do that, because their car sits in a garage or near a house all night. Seems sensible, no? Why take the risk of messing about with deltas when most customers manage fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems like there's a really obvious solution to this problem: why not just allow people to download this update, put it on a USB stick, then plug the USB into the car? For people that don't have/don't want to buy USB sticks, they could have some pre-loaded ones available at service centers.

No need to park at a Starbucks, have your customers tether their cars to their phones, or overload the wifi at the service centers.

<comment><USER9> >Why not just allow people to download this update, put it on a USB stick, then plug the USB into the car? I guess a few things: 1- If you give USB to end users to plug it to their cars you eventually going to need to provide some support service for it. If someone has a Tesla that does not make that person who understands about using computers. Tesla cars are still cars. 2- Teslas are cars, again. You can travel to another country with your car. You can put that car in a ship and use it on another continent. (insert Falcon Heavy joke here) As Tesla, the company you still need to provide updates to those intercontinental Teslas.

<comment><USER10> As I said in and bother comment. Downloads (signed and encrypted to prevent misuse of the contents, I guess they are someone else's maps unless Tesla is creating their own maps).

A small piece of software could be created to "handhold" the user though the process of downloading the update file, format a usb stick and copy the update file to it. Look at the Windows 10 media creation tools as an example of preping a usb stick easily.

Once the stick is prepped and inserted into the car, the car should take over and do the rest. Just inform the user that the update is taking place and prompt them once completed that they can remove the stick (when save to do so if they are already on the move)

Have the car look for update.img in the root of the usb on insertion, validate the signature of the file, validate the file isn't a downgrade, decrypt, install and delete the file once completed automatically.

Friends and family can also be a source of help to download the file onto a usb stick.

<comment><USER11> > A small piece of software could be created to "handhold" the user though the > forces of downloading the update file, format a usb stick and copy the > update file to it.

Or just make and sell a cheap device (basically a low-spec tablet dedicated to a single app) that can connect to WiFi, say in the users home, and then be taken to the car and act as a hotspot with no upstream connection and deliver the update. (You can probably make it even smaller and cheaper with no screen if you want to offload the UI to a smartphone app; at which point you can probably have it hang off a keychain.)

<comment><USER10> In the "mobile first" world we are moving to (thinking about how I see more people reaching for their tablet first over their laptop even if they even own a computer these days) I could see a "bridging cache device" like you say becoming more likely.

Hell with the size of WiFi enabled microprocessors these days (something like an esp8266 paired with enough flash to hold the updates) you could prob squeeze it right into the cars keyfob itself. Though I would want the wifi processor to be separate from the keyfobs key processor.

Edit: Wireless charging of the fob so the car keeps the fob charged. When the car detects an update is available via its lte connection it wakes up the more power hungry WiFi chip in the fob via induction or something (trying to keep the "cars keys" processor separated from the WiFi processor) and a notice on the cars dash or an push notification to the cars companion phone app notifies the user of an update. If the fob knows of a WiFi station it can listen for that beacon and then download the update. If not found after a while goes into a pairing mode for connection to a phone/tablet like you say by offloading the UI.

Would need some polish to make it user friendly but yeah... I'm liking the idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's a brand new _crazy_ idea: have a local caching server at the Tesla dealership and pump out OTA updates just there?

I mean FFS, downloads through a local server over WiFi is gonna be way faster than downloading through the internet over WiFi anyways!

And the servers are cheap, not to mention they probably already have spare computing power at a dealership to get this working!

<comment><USER13> Here's a better idea: install this "server" (you'll probably not need much more than a Raspberry Pi sized machine) into every Supercharger. Car will have to park there anyway for some significant time, there's electricity already and it's Tesla property anyway so they don't come across as being cheap. Elon, are you listening? :D

<comment><USER13> And thinking twice about it, you won't even need Internet at the Supercharger, either. With some clever cryptography and signing, you can use the existing Tesla fleet with the newest updates loaded as a P2P network on wheels... "Want to get the newest maps? Sure, just take a long-distance trip any time soon..."

<comment><USER14> Surely you would want internet at a charging location just so you can monitor it remotely.

<comment><USER15> Superchargers are connected, but probably don't have the hardware to act as a WiFi hotspot. Teslas, on the other hand, do have WiFi, so if they acted as Tesla-only hotspots when idly charging, I guess they could redistribute their stored firmware updates to other charging peers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "We don't want to pay for it, please make Starbucks pay instead. kthanxbye" ???

Can this possibly be the official corporate position?

There should be entire 2 semester course in biz school about how to scale without ending up with corporate policies creeping in that are so mind- bendingly stupid that everyone starts wondering if the company leadership is a bunch of 12-year-olds laughing behind a gym somewhere.

<comment><USER2> Apple doesn't let users download major iOS updates over cellular data, and that's been their official policy for the past decade.

Why is it a problem if Tesla does the same thing?

<comment><USER17> More specifically, they prevent you from downloading any applications that exceed 100 MB in size via your cellular connection.

<comment><USER18> Minor correction, it's now 150 mb, since fall 2017.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If Tesla supported carplay/android auto it wouldn't be a problem, but no, gotta re-invent car navigation.

I've read some people saying it would be impossible because the infotainment system controls everything. Well every car I've been in with carplay also has the native car ui to control stuff so I don't get the problem. Of course it's about control over the whole experience. Can't be giving consumers a choice.

Edit: I say this as someone that plans on eventually buying a model s. I'm just waiting for the technology to mature.

<comment><USER20> What? A super expensive high tech luxury car in 2018 still doesn't support carplay/android auto?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The suggestion to park at Starbucks is skeezy, but otherwise the response sounds entirely reasonable. Having many cars pull multi-gigabyte updates over LTE would be prohibitively expensive.

What Tesla _should_ do is allow people to receive updates at a service center (or at superchargers), either manually from a technician or just automatically in the background with a known Tesla WiFi network that the car knows how to connect to when at a service center. Hell, the service center could even keep cached copies of the downloads locally to speed things up.

</comment><comment><USER22> Unbelievable that they advise, in writing, that you park next to a Starbucks.

And they're the ones who have a Roadster roaming in space.

<comment><USER10> > Roadster roaming in space.

It was the only way to get a decent wifi signal :-p

But it's kind of a shock they don't offer updates via USB. Throw a digital signature on the download to help against unsigned code, encrypt the contents and restrict access to the download to verified owners if they are worried about offering a download of maps they brought from someone else and have the key delivered to the car via LTE via their already inplace vpn the cars use to phone home to the mothership.

Car manufacturers have been offering updates to built in gps devices for years via CD/DVD/USB to none connected cars, kind of a shock that Tesla don't offer this upgrade method.

<comment><USER23> Well, when I look at the automation issues on the Model 3 line, it appears that Tesla has a habit of ignoring the experience of other car manufacturers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The second comment seems pretty reasonable: Set your phone as a wifi hotspot for the car to use.

I don't think it's unreasonable for them to balk at spending $2mil to push a huge data blob out over a free connection that was probably originally scoped purely for small (<100mb) firmware updates.

<comment><USER25> Obviously they wouldn't have to spend that much. Right now the majority of their customers get these updates via WiFi - so it would just be a matter of finding out which vehicles were sufficiently out of date and only sending them the data.

<comment><USER24> Fair point, either it's affecting a lot of people or it's not going to cost much to push over LTE for the few remaining ones, they need to pick one.

It sounds like the other half of the issue is that there's no way to force the car to check for updates. That should be quick to add... in the next update (heh).

Edit: The original poster on the Tesla forum did say they usually got their updates a couple of weeks after they were released. Maybe, to get around this very problem, the car waits for a while in hope of a friendly WiFi connection before resorting to LTE?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Tesla is still more consumer-friendly in this respect than any other car manufacturer I know of. You have to pay for map updates in most other cars... it's not cheap either.

<comment><USER11> > Tesla is still more consumer-friendly in this respect than any other car > manufacturer I know of.

Tesla's the only car manufacturer selling vehicles that supposedly have full autonomy hardware with full autonomy itself a near-future firmware update away.

That becomes meaningless hype on a whole new level if the many owners the Tesla rep acknowledges have stated a need for this can get firmware updates but not map updates.

<comment><USER26> They can get map updates for free, all they need is WiFi access... am I missing something here? There is free public WiFi all over.

I'm shocked that the complaint comes from the SF area of all places, there is probably a higher density of WiFi there than anywhere else on the planet.

<comment><USER11> > They can get map updates for free, all they need is WiFi access... am I > missing something here? There is free public WiFi all over.

The updates can't be triggered by the user, so you have to leave your car somewhere (or your phone in your car) for a extended period of time to hope to get an update.

There's also not free public _parking_ everywhere (much less free public parking with WiFi coverage), especially in the urban areas where "my parking is remote from my living space and doesn't share wifi with it" is most likely to be an issue.

Also, outside of certain urban areas (and this can still be a problem outside of urban areas) there isn't free public WiFi everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If the guy really can't find a Wifi hotspot for his car to connect to, he can get a hotspot and pay for the cell data himself.

<comment><USER28> Hard to sympathize with an owner of two Tesla's complaining his/her pericular edge case is being overlooked. The vast amount of people will be covered with WiFi. The rest of the Teslii owners can buy a cheap WiFi hotspot for a month.

<comment><USER11> > Hard to sympathize with an owner of two Tesla's complaining his/her > pericular edge case is being overlooked.

It's not a peculiar edge case; the Tesla rep explicitly notes in the reaponse it's an issue that Tesla has heard about from _many_ owners.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What most posters here are missing is that you cannot trigger the update in your Tesla so most suggested workarounds will not work. Including the suggested parking outside a Starbucks.

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't know in the US, but here in Italy a small 3G/4G modem (capable of creating a Wi-Fi hotspot) costed me[1] less than 50 Euro, complete with the SIM in it, and then the data plan is if I recall correctly something like 8 Euro month for 3 or 4 GB of traffic, and 12-15 for 8-10 GB, but it is not a "subscription" you just "recharge" with a given amount of money and it gets the monthly fee from that (if used).

The underground garage may be a problem, but if the car is parked outside, it should work fine.

[1] at least lat year, I had the telephone/DSL cable cut and to provide remporarily the connectivity of the office quickly put together a Wi-Fi based on that, that we call in jargon "soapbar", the one I got was a Huawei E5330: [https://www.eprice.it/router-wifi- HUAWEI/d-5730696](https://www.eprice.it/router-wifi-HUAWEI/d-5730696)

<comment><USER31> But why would you have to buy a 4G router just so that your car can download an update? Sounds needlessly complicated to me. I honestly don't understand why they can't factor in download prices into the price of the car. Having contracts with networks to allow large downloads during certain time windows would probably be close to free (no additional capacity needed in the middle of the night) and would provide a much better experience for the user.

<comment><USER30> >But why would you have to buy a 4G router just so that your car can download an update? Sounds needlessly complicated to me.

I perfectly agree with you on the fact that it represents an example of poor (actually extremely poor) management of the customer assistance and that Tesla should have provided quickly (and hopefully politely, avoiding the small economics lesson that sounded - at least to me - a little bit patronizing) a solution to the issue.

But I was approaching the issue at a slightly different angle, the OP on the forum has two cars, of a value of nearly or around 200,000 US$.

Their income must be proportional to that, the 3G/4G router, might be worth 60-70 US$ if DIY, and possibly 100-150 US$ if having someone configuring it, i.e. a minimal fraction of their income, if I had those two cars and felt the _need_ to have the road maps updated in a timely fashion, I would have first solved the issue.

The fact that for a tag price of 80,000-100,000 US$ per each car I would expect not one but two (one under the driver and one under the passenger seat, in case the first one doesn't work) such little modems as a complimentary courtesy by Tesla would be secundary to solving the problem at hand and have those maps updated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Idea - allow any tesla vehicle to download updates from any other nearby tesla vehicle

<comment><USER33> Cory Doctorow - Eastern Standard Tribe is a must read

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Just saved cached copies of the updates at the recharge centers. Ask if they wanna run an update then and there. Voila.

<comment><USER5> Superchargers are not widespread enough, at least in some countries. The closest to Madrid (capital of Spain) is 173km away (107 miles).

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> > _Map files are multiple gigabytes in size.

Similar to your expensive data plan, Tesla also has to pay for the LTE connection in your vehicle, thus we cannot offer this option._

Oh come on, even my AU$40 prepaid sim includes gigabytes per month.

And which carrier wouldn't jump at the chance to advertise "We partner with Telsa to provide you unmetered firmware and maps updates, simple set your phone as a wifi hotspot and connect your Tesla to take advantage of this offer".

Telsa might still pay a fee, but it would be a fraction of what you or I would pay for the same amount of quota.

</comment><comment><USER36> This has to be the very definition of a "first world problem".

<comment><USER37> Read my mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Lastly, there are currently 200,000 vehicles that could hypothetically > receive LTE map updates. Imagining it would cost Tesla $10 minimum per map > update via LTE, which would cost approximately $2,000,000; you can quickly > see why this would be problematic for our future as a business.

It would be moot if you just charged a premium for LTE maps updates for the subset of customers who need it. Heck, price it right, and it'll probably be _profitable_ , and also make owners happier.

</comment><comment><USER38> Why aren't they downloading the updates while charging? Shouldn't be too much effort to either install WiFi at the superchargers or run data over the charge cabling. Then maybe just update the "local" map data around the supercharger (the next charger along the route will update the next area; no need to update unused maps).

Also I'm wondering why updates are generally fat blobs instead of deltas.

</comment><comment><USER39> Two things really struck me here.

First, the comments about USB - I can fully understand them. USB has been repeatedly shown to be an insecure medium (pretty much by design, it relies on the device being honest about its intentions) and Tesla is probably justified in not exposing a USB port to the customer. At the same time, it's been proven that Tesla's infotainment (eugh, I hate that word!) system runs Ubuntu, so they should really be publishing the source code for it anyway.

Second, if this very large download is really a problem that even service centres can't offer it without affecting their own operational bandwidth, why not install a caching proxy in each service centre? Hardly expensive hardware, an RPi with a USB disk would be enough, then the connected cars can download from the cache instead of straight from Tesla each time? Multiple cars in parallel would not be a problem.

As a side note, yes, pushing large downloads over cellular connections are expensive. It suits the carriers to have this model; in the UK, when smartphones first came out, unlimited-data plans were common, but very quickly vanished from the market when the carriers realised how many people would take the offer literally. Even now, the carrier I'm on offers unlimited data on the phone, but has a cap on tethering (it's Android, so I have no idea how it's detectable, but...). Compared to the likes of Apple, who have uncountable millions of devices and could easily lean on carriers to make OTA OS updates free, Tesla are comparatively small fries with less than a million cars on the road. They're mostly propped up by investor funding at the moment and are not even turning a profit (last I heard) yet. Not a good position to be arguing with carriers from.

And if Tesla are complaining about their own bandwidth distributing these large updates, they obviously need to talk to someone like Akamai and get their updates onto a CDN.

</comment><comment><USER40> It seems like there are so many ways to tackle this problem.

Don't like USB? Allow the Tesla app to grab the map updates and then dump them to the car next time it connects.

If they're trying to grab the file in one massive 8GB chunk, stop it and grab smaller bits as they can.

Hell, bittorrent it from other Teslas while you're sitting in traffic.

</comment><comment><USER41> Just turn on the fucking wifi hotspot in your cellphone and call it a day! Too much time on this guy's hands.

<comment><USER42> Notice that in the comments they explain that they did exactly this:

> _I have put my phone in hotspot mode for literally 5 days, left it in one > car, and connected both cars (at home, just one car at work because my wife > works somewhere else) to my iPhone hotspot, leaving me completely phone-less > except for once-a-day charging sessions at home. Despite this, because there > is NO way to trigger a "guaranteed" maps /nav update (sounds like Elon will > only allow triggering firmware updates), I might need to be without my phone > for weeks on end. That's obviously not a reasonable solution._

<comment><USER41> Ah! I neglected to read the comments. That does sound like a stupidly designed system. A button to check for updates should be simple to add.

PS: Isn't this a major problem for anybody who lives in an apartment, though?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> My Harley-Davidson doesn't have Wi-Fi or LTE (SiriusXM is as good as it gets), but it does have a USB port that I can use to install updates (downloaded onto a flash drive).

I'm honestly quite surprised that Teslas have both Wi-Fi and LTE but can't be updated via a similar method.

</comment><comment><USER44> Come on Tesla... You should do the following: As suggested by jasonlingx, have cars update each other. If after a few days this doesn't happen, you need another option. You'll have to go negotiate some deals. First, Comcast has an enormous network of wifi hotspots that their customers create. The per-GB price on this should be very low, particularly if you're willing to be throttled. Second, one of the four major carriers should be willing to work out a deal for extremely cheap data if it's at super off-peak hours, say 2-4am, when there is loads of spare capacity.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is just not a real problem, seems like entitled complaining. You have two Tesla's but can't find a friend, office, or public WiFi to download the map update? Boo hoo!!

<comment><USER46> Problem is you cannot trigger the download. There's no update button. You have to get WiFi connected and just wait and hope.

The person complaining did try. Made his iPhone a hot spot, put it in the car and left it there for days. But the update wasn't triggered.

<comment><USER47> That should have been the target of his rant not that they won't turn on LTE updates. He comes off sounding like first world problems in the bulk of this article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I have a portable WiFi hotspot that gives me unlimited downloads over LTE for less than €20/mth. I'm sure a Tesla owner can afford that. Problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER49> Maybe support an old school USB stick that let's the user download it on a pc and stick it to their car?

</comment><comment><USER50> Or just allow your phone to download the 5GB file using WiFi and the "Tesla update app" and transfer to the car using the same app but connected to the Tesla AP or Bluetooth to enable that AP and connect to it.

Seems like a very user friendly solution to me.

</comment><comment><USER51> That's a bit strange... It would cost them probably less than $10 per customer to just send everyone an USB stick with this update. Or they could give/lend them to customers at the service centers for free.

</comment><comment><USER52> The talk of "exponential costs"... but would the increase in cost per user per month not be linear (wrt the numer of users)?

</comment><comment><USER53> Are Tesla not equipped with a USB port ?

</comment><comment><USER47> If it's that big a deal just tether it to the phone.</comment>


The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry? - <AUTHOR> https://www.outsideonline.com/2399736/impossible-foods-beyond-meat-alt-meat <comment><USER4> I'm excited for meat alternatives, but have 3 thoughts on them that I haven't seen mentioned yet (I'm 42):

* Nearly all of the rangeland and high desert in the western US was destroyed by cattle and sheep grazing over the past 150 years. This is a billion dollar industry with the emotional buy-in of millions of people so I'm skeptical that it will be reformed in our lifetimes.

* My digestive system got wrecked trying to be on a mostly vegetarian diet over several years after the housing bubble popped. The gist of it is that the lectins (and other defense mechanisms in the husks) of legumes and nightshades disrupt the mucus lining of the intestines, which leads to leaky gut and stool getting into the body cavity and blood (leaky gut), which may lead to autoimmune diseases like colitis and arthritis. Something about animal protein heals this lining, probably because humans evolved as scavengers eating leftover kills and carrion from top predators.

* I have not yet seen studies comparing the healing and regenerative properties of meat compared to plant protein, especially concerning bodybuilding. In my own experience, there is simply no comparison between the two. Beef, eggs, salmon, tuna, turkey and chicken simply dwarf any gains obtained from bean burritos (I wish this wasn't the case). I don't know a solution to this, although I'm guessing that a portion of the gains are hormonal. Maybe someone can isolate the animal compounds and make supplements similar to creatine, BCAAs, glutamine, taurine, etc.

Not to knock current meat alternatives, but I view them sort of like compact fluorescent light bulbs, as a 10 or 20 year stopgap until we have true test tube meat (LED bulbs).

In order for meat alternatives to compete with meat, someone will need to reform the federal food subsidies that keep meat an order of magnitude cheaper than it should be. An impossible burger should cost LESS than beef, not more.

<comment><USER5> > My digestive system got wrecked trying to be on a mostly vegetarian diet > over several years after the housing bubble popped. The gist of it is that > the lectins (and other defense mechanisms in the husks) of legumes and > nightshades disrupt the mucus lining of the intestines, which leads to leaky > gut and stool getting into the body cavity and blood (leaky gut), which may > lead to autoimmune diseases like colitis and arthritis. Something about > animal protein heals this lining, probably because humans evolved as > scavengers eating leftover kills and carrion from top predators.

Do you have a citation for this? I've never heard anything like it before.

<comment><USER4> Ya sorry, it's a relatively new concept:

[https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319593.php](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319593.php)

My feeling is that it's similar to how allergies/cancer/etc often have 2 or more triggers that must coincide to set off the condition.

So for example, maybe people who wouldn't typically have gluten sensitivity (a lectin), ended up with it because they distrupted their gut flora by eating, say, the glyphosate in oats (especially processed oats like Cheerios). It could also happen if they eat compounds not typically encountered in nature, like those present in GMO foods.

Western medicine has a blind spot when it comes to these holistic effects because it tends to mainly study single root causes and cures. We also don't yet have enough long term studies, because GMOs only went mainstream around the late 90s and we're only just today able to start tackling big data with machine learning. But many people were wary of herbacides, pesticides and GMOs because there were no long term studies yet. Unfortunately a lot of unscientific practices got rammed to market during the George W Bush years, and during the dot com boom years before that under Clinton where money trumped public health concerns. Ok and really all through the 80s as well...

For anyone who reads this, and especially vegetarians dealing with IBS, what really helped me was the glutamine powder you buy at any workout supplement shop. Then I laid off legumes and nightshades (especially peanuts and peppers) for 6 months to let my gut rebuild. Use a pressure cooker to break down the lectins in beans, and also try de-husked grains like white rice instead of brown rice, or say sourdough bread over whole wheat bread. Then be aware that the gut is always breaking down and rebuilding, so treat it maybe like red meat or alcohol and try limiting yourself to a day or two of beans/salsa in a row instead of eating them every day. Also the Gundry ProPlant protein powder (hemp, flax, spirulina) helped me. If you're under 40 and don't yet have IBS, you might be seeing other symptoms like puffyiness, weight gain and lethargy that feels kind of like chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia. For me, that coincided with discovering I had sleep apnea. I had been chronically tired for as long as a decade.

<comment><USER6> While I don't doubt your story and haven't read your link, what is interesting to me is that I have been a vegetarian for 13 years haven't had any of these symptoms. What explains the variation here?

<comment><USER7> Gut flora - you likely have a healthier microbiome, or at least one that was able to adapt to a vegetarian diet.

Microbiome variance is a relatively new area of research but studies have already highlighted links to IBS/IBD, autoimmune conditions, and psychological conditions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The naysayers in the comment thread are missing the understanding that the fundamental technologies driving this are all moving exponentially. Beyond Meat's innovation came from a Stanford professor who is an expert in RNA molecules (he helped them figure out their protein structure/selection), impossible foods is a synthetic biology company. Exponential techs always underwhelm in the beginning but soon deliver more powerful products than people imagined. That's going to happen with this industry and faster than people expect.

<comment><USER9> Maybe with Impossible Foods, but I don't see anything about RNA here:

> The vegan meat substitutes are made from mixtures of pea protein isolates, > rice protein, mung bean protein, canola oil, coconut oil, and other > ingredients like potato starch, apple extract, sunflower lecithin, and > pomegranate powder with a range of vitamins and minerals. Beef products that > "bleed" are achieved by using beet juice

Just sounds like a veggie burger that tastes better, and has a VC-funded marketing budget.

<comment><USER10> I've had a beyond meat burger, I'm curious to hear the opinion of others that have had one too because I thought it tasted _terrible_. The texture was nothing like real ground beef and neither was the flavour. It wasn't _good_ different either - I'd much rather have a regular bean burger.

I feel like it's all marketing and they're just riding the hype wave caused by other better products or peoples desire for one. (I _assume_ the Impossible Burger is better - they seem to have gone into more effort to replicate beef, but I haven't tried one)

<comment><USER11> I've had the impossible burger on multiple occasions. Every time I've had it, it felt like whoever cooked it either didn't care or was trying to present the burger as basically as possible to try to demo it as a discrete product. The trouble is, that's not how anyone over the age of 10 actually eats any kind of burger, so it's not really a fair presentation. If you actually season it (it absolutely needs salt and pepper) and put on equivalent toppings and condiments, it's really not bad at all in my opinion. I tend to view it like soylent. It's definitely not as good as a good beef burger, but it's good enough to consider eating regularly for convenience and health reasons.

<comment><USER10> I'm a burger purist - lightly toasted then steamed bun, patty with the right fat content (and no additions, just salt and pepper) - not too lean - <USER2> smashed thin or a bit thicker and medium/medium rare, processed cheese (it really is the best on burgers, although swiss is nice too I guess), some kind of "special sauce" (even if it's just ketchup and mayo), diced raw white onion, dill pickle slices and lettuce.

Most places can't perfect the basics, but have some kind of truffle oil, bacon, foie gras (I'm exaggerating for effect a bit here) monstrosity on the menu to compensate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I just learned this bit on the radio the other day and was quite surprised: out of 1.9 billion acres in the US, the #1 and #3 ranked uses are cattle and crops (respectively) [1]. Out of the crops, much of it is used for livestock.

[1] [https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/745731823/the-u-s-has- nearly-...](https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/745731823/the-u-s-has- nearly-1-9-billion-acres-of-land-heres-how-it-is-used)

<comment><USER13> And _why_ is that land used for livestock? Much of this is land in the west, and there's not much else you can do with it. You can't grow crops on it - <USER3> enough water. You can't even grow trees on it - not much land got cleared of trees to make room for grazing. All you can do is run some cows or sheep on it. And, behold, it becomes part of this huge acreage used for cattle.

<comment><USER14> Considerably more water is used to raise cattle than plants. And then the plants that they feed on also need water.

<comment><USER15> Efficiency isn't really an argument that is going to get people to change their preferences. Case in point, Electron apps. Even if beef becomes the Electron of the food world, you know a ton of people are still going to consume it.

<comment><USER14> You don't think water shortages will change people's preferences?

<comment><USER16> No. I live in Mexico City, where it is not unheard of for the government to outright cut off the city water supply for days to account for shortages.

People's preferences haven't changed. Beef continues to be very popular, as do public fountains. The choice not to consume meat (at least here) is mostly associated with pretentious, upperclass people who like yoga and are keenly interested in social justice (there is even a word for this type of person: fresas, which literally means strawberries but here means, well, that type of person).

Eating or not eating meat is more about adopting cultural, class, and identity signifiers than any real correlation with the local water situation.

<comment><USER17> So what you're saying is that continuing your current beef consumption is a neutral activity, while trying to cut back due to environmental impact is simply virtue signalling? Maybe the people trying to cut back are ahead of the curve. Maybe those people realize that if the worst effects of climate change and population growth come to pass, that cutting back now could mean the impact on beef supply in the future is mitigated. I guess, in that case, the "unpretentious, lower class people who hate yoga" would have those tree huggers to thank.

Peoples' preference for war hasn't changed either (most people don't want it), but we still find ourselves in conflict at every turn. That's because you can't go too long without confronting the objective physical reality of scarcity of resources.

<comment><USER16> >is simply virtue signalling

No, more like life style participation.

>I guess, in that case, the "unpretentious, lower class people who hate yoga" would have those tree huggers to thank.

We need many countries to make national-level policies about this. The Instagram people are a smug drop in the bucket.

>we still find ourselves in conflict at every turn. That's because you can't go too long without confronting the objective physical reality of scarcity of resources.

That correlation seems made up. Has there been an increase of scarcity-driven wars? Most wartorn places don't seem to be resource scarce.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Chipotle, Arby's and Burger & Lobster are not jumping on the Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods plant-based culinary movement ... We have spoken to those folks and, unfortunately, it wouldn't fit in our 'food with integrity' principals because of the processing, as I understand it, that it takes to make a plant taste like a burger. ... Are they healthier as far as sodium, calories and fat content? Definitely not ... Zarabi says processed foods, whether they're meatless or meat-containing, are never the healthiest choice."

[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-some-restaurants- are-t...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-some-restaurants-are-turning- up-their-noses-at-beyond-meat-2019-07-29)

<comment><USER19> Arby's at least would require a _complete_ rebranding in order to sell this stuff. _" We have the meats_^H^H^H^H _anufactured plant products! "_ (I'm not familiar with B&L marketing but presumably they would be in a similar position?) I can also understand Chipotle's point of view on this.

<comment><USER20> Didn't Arby's just recently release a "meat based vegetable" as part of their marketing campaign.

<comment><USER19> I felt that the "Marrot" fit in perfectly with their other marketing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think the part that rings clearly in my head is the ethical part. I really cannot believe we eat animals. I know other animals do it all the time -- and I don't hold it against tigers and lions -- but its still strange to me that we, humans, do it.

If you don't feel that strong surprise, then I think the other arguments may or may not work for you. But if you have that sense that it is strange and perhaps off, then this article is heartening.

<comment><USER22> I feel the same way about vegetables. I know other animals do it all the time, but when you add them up all the plant deaths are horrific.

<comment><USER14> It is, unfortunately the majority of plants die at the hands of livestock. To reduce the needless killing of plants, improve your health and the environment is surprise.... to eat less or no meat.

<comment><USER22> >unfortunately the majority of plants die at the hands of livestock

Exactly, so if we kill the livestock and eat it, then less plants will suffer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> On the one hand I'm very intrigued by this. It's absolutely true that meat production, and in particular beef production, has an enormous environmental impact, so if this article is correct it could be huge.

But on the other hand I have some questions that I've not seen addressed. I'm a small farmer. My wife and I raise sheep. Ruminants can be raised on land that isn't really productive. Maybe in some cases beef production is taking away land that would be otherwise farmed, but in my experience that's rare. So, if we transition to plant-based meat, where does the farmland come from? We're already losing productive farmland at an incredible clip. If we suddenly need to put millions of acres into new soybean or pea production, where does it come from?

And second, at least in theory, mixed animal/crop production systems can be closed loop. If done properly, with fallow periods and crop rotations, you don't need external agricultural fertilizer production. Granted, that's not the way most crops are produced _now_ , but a lot of us are arguing that it should be - we should have local agriculture, with less centralization and more intentional closed loop farming practices. If we really do go mostly to a vegetarian diet, that possibility dries up. Agriculture becomes more and more reliant on external chemical inputs. Small producers are even more marginalized than they are today. Are we sure that's what we want?

</comment><comment><USER15> I keep seeing articles like this, but saying something over and over again does not make it true. I feel this could be proven by demand. While I'm sure people who were already put off by meat are loving the availability of meatless options, I do not see any meat eaters (in my life) who are lured to the plant-based alternatives.

These alternative meats taste good with all the stuff you also associate with hamburgers (bun, lettuce, tomato, onion, sauce), but on their own, they do not come close to beef.

</comment><comment><USER24> I disagree with this piece; it seems like the author doesn't like beef in general (which is fine) but I don't think most people will give up beef for "alt meat". I think it will just be another option, not a replacement. And sales still seem strong to me: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/542890/beef- consumption-...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/542890/beef-consumption- us/)

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't think most people will have a problem switching to plant based burgers as long as they taste good, but I think that's still the sticking point at the moment. I've had an Impossible burger a few times and could always taste a strong difference (I even did a few blind taste tests). I don't think it's close to actual meat yet. Supposedly the second version of the burger has improved; I haven't tried it yet.

Cheap meat, like ground beef, will be replaced first, but I think it will be much more difficult to replace specialty meats: Iberian ham or Wagyu for instance. Good luck making something plant-based that tastes like that (not saying it can't be done though).

<comment><USER20> Even with Wagyu and Kobe, the whole cow isn't getting turned into premium cuts of meat. Burger and sausage are going to be a byproduct of the parts that aren't high margin proportional to the demand for the rest of it. Kind of like how eggs are so cheap because they are a natural byproduct of the chicken meat industry and the insatiable American lust for all white meat breast. I wouldn't be surprised to see an effective advertising campaign to make burger et al more "premium" as plant based substitutes take off and the price go up as a result of that. Kind of how Angus cows got to be big in the first place.

<comment><USER26> "Kind of like how eggs are so cheap because they are a natural byproduct of the chicken meat industry [...]"

That has nothing to do with why eggs are cheap. Completely separate breeds are raised for eggs vs meat. The birds used for meat are killed at only 6-7 weeks typically. They never rarely if ever lay a single egg. Eggs are cheap because layer hens have been bred to produce several times their natural number off eggs combined with other practices like forced molting that increase production. And those hens are killed after a couple of years to be used for cheap meat. You have the subsidizing relationship backwards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is nobody seriously going to talk about cellular agriculture/clean meat? Companies like Memphis Meats, JUST, Finless Foods, etc. creating actual beef/meat?

<comment><USER28> I haven't read or heard of these but they sound interesting. I'd like to hear what you have to say about them

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm starting to think more and more that people promoting plant based burgers have either never tasted beef or never tasted a plant based burger.

If the main concern is environment I get it and go for it. But if you are claiming that plant based burgers are healthier or tastier you are borderline delusional.

Last time I cooked a Beyond Meat burger I noticed it was 30% canola oil. 30% CANOLA OIL, might as well just inject cholesterol and fast forward a heart attack.

I still get nightmares when I think of how bad the flavor was, think of the most processed food you possibly can like jolly ranchers and then imagine a salty fatty version of it.

I legit don't understand how this trend keeps going even though vegetarian burgers made with vegetables are delicious and way healthier and there are alternative cuisines like Indian or Mediterranean that gives you loads of options that aren't basically CANOLA OIL.

<comment><USER30> > Last time I cooked a Beyond Meat burger I noticed it was 30% canola oil. 30% > CANOLA OIL, might as well just inject cholesterol and fast forward a heart > attack.

Yes, the Beyond Meat burger does have a substantial amount of canola oil. But what's this about cholesterol and heart attack risk? Canola oil is one of the healthier oils - it's low in saturated fats and high in monounsaturated fats which are shown to actually help fight heart disease. The amount of cholesterol in a Beyond Meat or Impossible Burger is 0.

Let's compare that to even a lean burger (85/15): whose 4oz patty contains 102mg of cholesterol and a blend of saturated fats, trans fats, monounsaturated fats, and polyunsaturated fats. It's terribly unhealthy, and the risks associated with the consumption of red meat are well known.

The Mediterranean diet you promote also includes high amounts of monounsaturated fats (Olive oil). If I've overlooked some other deep seated risk associated to canola oil, let me know.

<comment><USER31> You made a couple of invalid claims here:

1) Canola oil is one of the healthier oils. 2) Monounsaturated fats help fight heart disease. 3) Naturally occurring trans fat is the same as industrial trans fat 4) Red meat has health risks

EDIT, included sources, with comments: [1] Canola oil may have dramatic negative effect on weight gain and brain health: "Effect of canola oil consumption on memory, synapse and neuropathology in the triple transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease" [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3?error=dat...](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3?error=database_circuit_open&error_description=Database%20is%20temporarily%20unavailable)

[2] No clear benefits of MUFA-rich diets: "Monounsaturated Fatty Acids and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: Synopsis of the Evidence Available from Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546618/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546618/)

[3] High trans fat intake associated with lower sudden cardiac death: "Natural trans fat, dairy fat, partially hydrogenated oils, and cardiometabolic health: the Ludwigshafen Risk and Cardiovascular Health Study" [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4816962/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4816962/)

[4] Claims on red meat risks that are limited to epidemiological studies (surveys) that are unreliable, do not factor for confounding variables, and do not conclusively prove anything. Keto diet, for example, has shown to lower cardiovascular risk factors: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5452247/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5452247/)

<comment><USER32> Red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic to humans by the WHO.

[https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red- meat/en/](https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/)

<comment><USER31> "This recommendation was based on epidemiological studies suggesting that small increases in the risk of several cancers may be associated with high consumption of red meat or processed meat."

Epidemiological studies are surveys. They are not scientific proof of anything. This is an incredulous position to be taken by the WHO and makes me seriously question their values. They state they are small increases of risk, but do not even go into confounding variables inherent in surveys. True science isolates a variable and proves that there is a causation. It does not do so by correlation.

<comment><USER33> You just cited an epidemiological study and an evidence review based mainly on epidemiological studies. What do you actually believe?

<comment><USER31> I believe that nutrition science is pretty dubious because it mainly relies on epidemiological studies. The extraordinary claims that are touted as fact are numerous. This is why we get many conflicting studies on cholesterol, fats, carbs, etc. It's very, very difficult to isolate one variable in nutrition epidemiological studies and attribute them to correlations in population outcomes. The one major success story for epidemiological studies was smoking and lung cancer. Of course, difference there is that smoking is binary: one either smokes or they don't. They may smoke more or less...but the variables are pretty low. Whereas dietary intake is diverse and no two people eat the same exact diet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This whole submarine vegan agenda is annoying. Yes, people will choose to go with the artificial beef. No it's not going to replace beef. It's a subsitute.

A few things:

1\. Cows are not optimized to make meat: Animals aren't a food factory. Animals eat other animals. We are animals and happen to have a wide variety of what we can eat

2\. There are distinct benefits from eating meat (vitamins), in which it's incredibly inefficient from getting them from plants

3\. The feedlots and environmental problems, that's an issue of our economy. Theres a particular expectation on output.

4\. The impossible burger: The author is incredibly disingenuous about the comparison. He is trying to claim that the burger has so many bad aspects but completely ignores how ultra-processed the beyond burger is.

5\. The author is completely obsessed on cows. There are MANY more alternatives to cows that you can eat.

<comment><USER35> In the article the author talks about eating both a beef burger and cheese, so I don't think he has a "vegan agenda".

> 2\. There are distinct benefits from eating meat (vitamins), in which it's > incredibly inefficient from getting them from plants

Raising meat with today's common production methods (feed lots) is incredibly inefficient. In fact, a plant based diet can meet all nutritional requirements with just B12 vitamins. Many vitamins and minerals in meat and dairy are there because of supplementation, not because they're natural.

> 3\. The feedlots and environmental problems, that's an issue of our economy. > Theres a particular expectation on output.

Which is why plant based diets, both processed foods like these burgers and un/ lightly processed (beans, nuts, tofu and tempeh, pulses) are a solution. They can be grown much more efficiently than meat and take a huge load off of our environment and emissions.

> 5\. The author is completely obsessed on cows. There are MANY more > alternatives to cows that you can eat.

Cows are also some of the worst animal agriculture product emissions wise and a good chunk of the standard American diet. It's also definitely the star of these fast food restaurants he discusses that these plant based meats are aiming for.

<comment><USER34> > just B12 vitamins

Those require processing, and often times the supplement industry isn't exactly that clean. (I'm looking at you cheap fish oil sups)

Also you should consider the efficency of what the equillence of plans would take. (More plants requires more land+water, which requires more infrastructure, more transportation, etc). Also, don't forget about soil quality and erosion. You can't just grow infinitely on the same land. Let's not forget yield loss due to pests and diease.

Cows are huge and they feed a lot of people with very little waste. (Assuming you don't throw out the organs and bones)

\---

Overall, I would be interested in a thorough look at both sides per person. Most of the articles I've seen from vegetarians and vegans have been completely ignoring the logistics involved and overall impact.

<comment><USER14> You should really look into this more. We already grow more than enough plants to feed the world. The vast majority of them are fed to livestock. Just like the vast majority of water is used for livestock. Just like the vast majority of antibiotics are used for livestock. Just like the vast majority of land is used for livestock.

<comment><USER36> It's more complicated than that.

The fact that we grow more than enough food for the world and most people on it go hungry is a political problem, not one related to food going to livestock instead of starving children in Africa.

Places with water shortages don't grow animal fodder like corn (for beef) or soy. (for pork) The Central Valley spends much more of its limited water budget on almonds, walnuts, and pistachios than it does on cattle. There is some corn grown in the central valley, but it's almost all sweet corn for human consumption. Most animal fodder is grown in the Midwest and great planes where they have plenty of water.

Sure, it takes a lot of animal fodder to get a relatively small amount of beef, but you get significantly more animal fodder from one acre of land than you do human food. Remember cattle eat the entire corn plant, stem and all; they can digest cellulose, we can't. Humans either eat very small plants, (lettuce, celery, asparagus) or they eat a tiny portion of the plant. (Fruit or vegetables) Corn plants grow twelve feet tall and are densely packed together.

There are numerous things we can and should do to improve the ranching industry. Banning antibiotics for growth is step zero, antibiotic resident disease is terrifying, and it trumps any and all concerns about food. Stopping agricultural subsidies for corn is the next. Prices should reflect the true cost, not the cost once you've subsidized the externalities. But these are political problems, not intrinsic problems with meat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > I knew it would keep getting better and beef wouldn't.

> White Castle initially tested its Impossible Slider in just a few locations > in New York, New Jersey, and Chicago in April 2018. It was such a hit that > the company quickly expanded the program to all 380 outlets. "People are > coming back for it again and again," White Castle's vice president, Jamie > Richardson, said with a touch of astonishment.

> Resulting foot traffic was so strong that Burger King decided to serve the > Impossible Whopper in all 7,200 restaurants, marking the moment when alt > meat stopped being alt.

It reminds me of the joke, "I don't have to be faster than the _bear_ , just faster than _you_."

</comment><comment><USER38> I've got a beef with this article.

I can probably only consider the end of the beef industry getting near when:

a. There are more people I see opting for the plant based food, instead of beef;

b. When there's really a shortage of cattle that produces or slaughtered as beef.

There's a moral aspect of eating plant based foods, but I cannot see anyone transitioning easily from animal based meat products to select plant-based foods as their main source of sustenance. It will take a lot of discipline, willpower and of course, the availability (and affordability) of plant based food products for someone considering the shift.

<comment><USER39> There's also option c. which is: Someone figures out how to produce animal tissue in a lab without requiring us to raise an entire animal and slaughter it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I've tried these burgers and they are decent. But there are far better veggie burgers out there that don't try to resemble meat at all. For some reason fast food companies stick with their garbage soy-based ones, so I'm happy to see them at least get some better veggie options.

But for reference, quinoa burgers, chickpea burgers, mushroom burgers, black bean burgers, sweet potato burgers, beet burgers - all taste great and are more appealing for most vegetarians/vegans.

</comment><comment><USER39> While I am all for the end of the beef industry, I don't think it's happening until we get actual synthetic lab-produced animal tissue.

It's great that we have companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible working on this - this is the work that will eventually lead to the meat industry going away for good, or at least becoming a niche industry - but until we can synthesize _actual meat_ many people will hold out.

<comment><USER41> There is already a technology for turning plants into burgers -- Cows. It's time tested, natural, and requires only dry land and a bit of evolution. Also tastes great!

If you have a problem with the beef industry, you can deal with it like all the other problems with other industries, from financials to pharmaceutical. You regulate the industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Has Nina Teicholz's book been debunked? I see comments here that appear to assume that these meat substitutes (Beyond Meat) are more healthy than beef -- is that really true? Animal meat is scientifically reported to be extremely nutritious compared to plants, and dietary fat has been a main part of diets around the world and continues to be so in e.g. French cuisine.

</comment><comment><USER43> After five years on a ketogenic diet (low carb, higher fat) I now eat mostly fatty meat and eggs, and little else. I have never felt better or been in better health.

This is anecdote, but a growing number of people are discovering the same thing. Beef is great food. It will not go away.

<comment><USER30> The Beyond Burger only contains 3g of carbs, making it perfectly acceptable for a Ketogenic diet, as far as I understand it. The Impossible burger contains more, at 9g, but that's easy to fit into most carb allowences of Keto (not many go for <10g/day).

Even with a goal of 0g of carbs per day there's a lot of room on the plate for above-ground vegetables and natural oils.

Beef is an okay food, but there's lots of alternatives that seem to outperform it for many metrics.

<comment><USER44> There's a lot more to achieving good health than macronutrient ratios.

The plant-alternatives both 1) lack the abundant, bioavailable nutrients found in animal products and 2) include a lot of highly-processed and inflammatory ingredients like seed oils.

And I think you're underselling beef by calling it an "okay" food. The meat we get from cows and other ruminants (and particularly organ meats like liver) are among THE most nutrient-dense and bioavilable foods available to humans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I have a middle-aged uncle who _just_ got a cell phone. Beef'll be around for a while.

</comment><comment><USER46> Nope.

Last time I checked, not all beef is consumed as hamburgers.

The alt meat craze (if there is one) is due to the novelty factor. The interest will decline over time.

That said, what does a raw Impossible Burger taste like? A raw hamburger?

Imagine wolfing down a raw one in front of a group of unknowing and terrified onlookers.

<comment><USER30> > Last time I checked, not all beef is consumed as hamburgers.

The author of the article explicitly mentions using Impossible Burger for non- hamburger applications:

"It looked identical to ground beef, so that's how I treated it. And that's how it performed. I made sliders, kebabs, nachos, chili, Bolognese sauce, even a little tartare (note: the company frowns hard on this)."

<comment><USER46> Not all beef is consumed as ground beef. Happy?

<comment><USER40> The author mentions that 60% of it is...

<comment><USER46> When did 60% become the entire beef industry?

<comment><USER40> Nobody said it would go away 100%. But it may become a niche product, like foie gras.

<comment><USER46> Did you RTFA article? It is titled "The Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry"!

<comment><USER40> lol sounds like you only read the headline. But even if the beef industry dies, that doesn't mean beef itself is gone - there will certainly be non- industrial producers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I keep on reading that as the standard of living increases around the world the amount of beef consumed increases. It's too early to call peak beef but it's bound to happen if only because the amount of available resources to produce it will decrease. But I suspect that it won't happen during any of our lifetimes.

</comment><comment><USER48> What about milk? The milk industry produces beef as a byproduct. Cows have to calve regularly to produce milk and eventually became beef themselves. In my country McDonalds and other burger producers are the biggest buyers of old milk cows. Their beef might be not good enough for steaks, but still good enough for burgers.

<comment><USER40> Nut-based milks are a great alternative. Though just like veggie burgers, there are good and bad nut milks - look for ones without tons of additives. They are also trivial to make yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I had a Beyond Meat burger recently. It was pretty good, about as good as a below-average to average burger, but more tender. Overall, if this is all they served at the cafeteria, it would be okay.

That said, it wasn't nearly good enough for me to buy instead of meat. Maybe the day will come where it will be, but definitely not yet.

</comment><comment><USER50> I don't think Beyond Meat or any of the other beggie burgers will replace a good cut of Fraldinha, Vazio, Picanha, Ribs, T-bone, etc any time soon.

In Brazil we eat that - proper beef from real cows grown on grass. Burgers are seen as what they are - fatty fast food. Actual meat is something else entirely.

</comment><comment><USER51> On one of the podcasts I listen to (The Morning Stream), one of the co-hosts (Brian) has been on Weight Watchers for I think all of this year. One thing he has noted is that, assuming all else is equal (bun, toppings, etc.), an Impossible or Beyond burger costs many more 'points' than a regular beef burger. (One of the goals being to stay below a particular points limit each day.) That surprised me, until he explained that the plant-based burger is high in carbohydrates, which contributes to its high points value.

So I disagree that this is the end of an industry. I think it's the beginning of change in an industry, but not its end.

</comment><comment><USER52> I don't know if the statement on price is valid in this article. For me, while shopping in wholefoods, I found the price of beyond meat patties is almost doubled than other, actual meat, brands. I am not sure why it is so expensive, but I sincerely hope it is not the cost of production

<comment><USER8> Have a look at their IPO prospectus. Until they built their plant in 2018 they were selling at below COGS. But this is mostly a scale problem, which is why the stock is still performing well, as they are growing so fast the market is confident they will fix the cost problem over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I am going to stick with bison, thank you!

<comment><USER41> How is bison? I had a bison burger once and didn't care for it, but maybe a steak cut is better?

<comment><USER53> Bison is a much healthier meat. It has less fat, and is loaded with protein. Also, ALL bison is organic due to regulations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Too many carbs.

</comment><comment><USER55> I eat beef all day every day. It's good for you.

</comment><comment><USER55> I eat beef all day every day. It's great for you.

<comment><USER56> As do I! Long live beef!!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> um... "The California-based company said net loss widened to $6.6 million in the three months ended March 30, from $5.7 million a year earlier. First- quarter net revenue came in at $40.2 million, an increase of 215%, the company said. Analysts had expected revenue of $38.9 million." \- reuters.

I may be cynic, but that is not sound good. If your net losses outpace your net revenue, no matter how good that meat is, you are not going to make it.

And, why did the share prices (BYND) fall since July 26? Someone exiting?

There is no such thing as "alt meat". Is a bicycle alt SUV? Or alt vacation for extra work hours? alt paycheck is a sub sandwich?

What is the point of trying to match what you are trying to eradicate?

So, where is the beef?

<comment><USER19> Eventually one of the two companies will survive by raising prices drastically. Until then it's a VC-powered burn-rate battle...

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Pea protein isolates, rice protein, mung bean protein, canola oil etc are Not food. I would not feed this to my dog. In fact, lined up against a bag of cheap dog food, you might pick the dog food... In a world awash in heavily- processed food, we now add this to the mix and get excited about it.

Statements about how "inefficient" cows are in making meat re calories ingested, usually fail to mention that for most of the cow's life they are eating grass on a range, which is not used for anything else. We didn't need to make that grass, it's sitting there. Statements on the use on land assume we would have condos and coffee shops sitting there, but for the cows on it.

<comment><USER59> Less than 3% of cattle wander around eating wild grass. Most cattle are fed grains, grass, and alfalfa that was farmed on purpose as cattle feed. If cattle didn't need the grass, the farmer would be growing human food on that land.

<comment><USER60> I'd be interested in seeing a source for that less than 3% number.

However most cattle are certainly finished on grain without a doubt. Grain that could possibly put to better uses (or not grown and save the fuel and water).

<comment><USER59> TFA said it: "America gets 97 percent of its beef from feedlots."

Here's another one:

[https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/cows- eat-a677816334f1...](https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/cows- eat-a677816334f16804)

<comment><USER60> So they go through the feedlots but most cattle are not in the feedlot at once (feedlots are a smaller part of the time a cow is alive, some months only).

The largest number of cattle, currently, if you counted them all up, are still on pasture.

Not that this detracts from your point, mostly a minor semantic quibble.

<comment><USER44> I think it's a pretty huge point that's overlooked, not just a quibble.

If a group of kids were fed healthy, home-made meals all week and then get a piece of chocolate cake on Sunday night, it's clearly misleading to say "100% of these children were raised on chocolate cake!".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Has HN changed the rules for being able to reply to existing comments? - <AUTHOR>

I've been a registered HN user for 504 days and accrued a modest 269 karma points over that time, but I do think my behaviour has been fairly courteous over that time.
Until earlier today I was allowed to reply to existing comments but the "reply" link has since disappeared. I'm permitted to add a new comment, but just not able to reply to existing comments - and these are on fresh HN posts where I can see new "reply" comments being added all the time.
I've checked my profile and my existing activity using with a new test account over a VPN, in a different browser, and nothing seems untoward - I don't appear to be "[dead]". Also that new account is also missing the "reply" link which leads me to believe a minimum threshold has been set before one is permitted to reply to existing comments.
Has something changed? <comment><USER2> It depends on the depth of the comment and other things. If you really want to reply to something, click the permalink and make your reply there. It's an attempt to restrict huge deep trees.

<comment><USER3> Right, there's a time limit before the "reply" button shows up. The time increases as the comment depth goes up, to prevent flamewars from taking over the thread.</comment></comment>


Smarter Related Posts Widget for Google Blogger - v2.0  - <AUTHOR> http://www.moretechtips.net/2010/09/smarter-related-posts-widget-for-google.html

<comment><AUTHOR> A new edition of "Related Posts widget for Google Blogger" that is loaded with pretty new features like posts thumbnails and transition effects..</comment>


Cutter 1.8.3 – open source GUI for reverse engineering - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/radareorg/cutter/releases/tag/v1.8.3 <comment><USER2> Based on the famous radare2[1]. Check out also our book[2]. And there is a list[3] of easy issues, if one wants to contribute.

[1] [https://github.com/radare/radare2](https://github.com/radare/radare2)

[2] [https://radare.gitbooks.io/radare2book/content/](https://radare.gitbooks.io/radare2book/content/)

[3] [https://github.com/radare/radare2/labels/good%20first%20issu...](https://github.com/radare/radare2/labels/good%20first%20issue)

<comment><USER3> Thank you! I'm incredibly new to RE, but I'm decent at exploit dev, so my RE is growing.

I'll see how I can contribute, but if you have any specifics that you'd like, please let me know. I'm looking over the issues on github to see where I'd be most useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Recently: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19448491](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19448491)

2018: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17252585](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17252585)</comment>


It's Not a Feature Problem–Avoiding Startup Tarpits - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/its-not-a-feature-problem-avoiding-startup-tarpits-7d5ec4b8c81b?hnews-today <comment><USER2> It seems I am one of those in the tarpit. I think the problem for us engineering types is that there is so much bullshit around marketing, that it's offputting to us. That's the case for me at least. If I spend time/money on a feature, I know how long it will take, how much it will cost and when it will be ready. Compared to this, marketing seems like burning money with voodoo rituals. It doesn't help that marketing efforts are only meaningfully measurable on a larger scale. If you're bootstrapping something yourself, you don't have 12k to spend on marketing this month. You have $300. It's easy to burn that $300 on adwords or facebook ads and get zero signups, with no meaningful data whatsoever. The usual advice goes: hire a marketing expert. But how do I hire a marketing expert that a) isn't full of it, b) will even listen to me if my current budgets are in the hundreds of dollars? I think the article is right on point, but I wish it pointed me to a way to deal with the marketing problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> If talking to your clients mostly gets you new feature requests, it either means your product isn't adequate yet or you're not asking the right questions. In a nutshell you want to get of feel of:

\- What was going on in your clients' heads before they found you. What precise problem were they trying to solve. This'll give you insights on whether or not your product is adequate, and on how to phrase your landing page.

\- How they went about to look for you. What google search they did, whether they checked out reviews and how, etc. this is to better focus your SEO and adwords campaigns.

\- What their decision process looked like. Was it a single person making the call, or were several people involved? What objections got raised? What were their key decision criteria? Raise them in your sales copy or in drip emails.

\- Are they talking about your product? Would they? This is to help you spot segments with viral potential. Don't forget to politely ask for referrals if applicable.

\- And, of course, feedback on the product itself. But don't spend too much time on this, and don't promise anything or build expectations.

<comment><USER2> The product is adequate, because people are paying for it. It could be better, hence the feature requests. The most important thing I always want to know is how they found me — unfortunately, for all of them it was via a search for a specific phrase. That doesn't help me at all: I am prominently featured for that search phrase. No viral potential, this is a niche B2B product.</comment></comment></comment>


Sequences and Generators in Swift - <AUTHOR> http://austinzheng.com/2015/01/24/swift-seq/

<comment><USER2> I wrote something to a similar effect in an earlier version of Swift. It might be of interest to readers

[http://jspha.com/posts/immutable_enumeration_in_swift/](http://jspha.com/posts/immutable_enumeration_in_swift/)

[http://jspha.com/posts/calkin-wilf-in-swift/](http://jspha.com/posts/calkin- wilf-in-swift/)</comment>


Nvidia Appears To Have A GPU Inventory Problem - <AUTHOR> https://seekingalpha.com/article/4182662-nvidia-appears-gpu-inventory-problem <comment><USER2> I bought a 1080 TI a while back for around $750.

Bitcoin surged and the same card was $1300 for a few months.

Now it's back to $750ish

My FPS stayed pretty stable though

<comment><USER3> What point are you trying to make?

<comment><USER4> That its really hard to work a hardware company when a digital hypecoins affect the value of your product.

It's really not nvidia's fault. They're in a really difficult position here to try and absorb all this new business space without stretching too thin or using too much velocity.

But in terms of processing graphics, the hardware is great. Using gpus for mining digital money hurts people using gpus for graphics, which was sorta the point in the first place. Maybe not now, but it used to be.

I don't mean to make the argument that graphics are more important than digital money, but it's like the Bitcoin community has made zero effort to be introspective about the impact it has on people who just want to play games or whatever. Or even power usage in general.

Bitcoin is such a weird phase of tech history in that its completely counterintuitive to altruism. I always imagine the Internet wanting to try and always move towards a better, more utilitarian future and benefit the users in a collective sense, but Bitcoin doesn't seem to be about that anymore.

Not parent commenter, just my two cents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The author is shorting Nvidia stock (as he / she discloses at the end of the article). So, while this article attempts to be objective, I just don't believe it can be.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. The author's bias makes this unethical, in my opinion. I wish HN didn't promote posts like this.

<comment><USER7> If that's how you feel, then you need to block about half of everything on Seeking Alpha

<comment><USER8> Most of what I see on Seeking Alpha is people cherry picking charts and statistics to support a pre-existing hypothesis. Many times authors continually double down on clearly wrong opinions and just say "oh well, the market is crazy".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Seriously? I find this hard to believe - prices of GPUs have been ridiculously high (much higher than at launch) for so long precisely because the supply was so short.

Pretty much every supplier I've seen would either sell out any high-end Nvidia GPUs almost as soon as they got them or would ramp up the price more and more.

This is either an incorrect rumour or some very weird shitty strategy by Nvidia that backfired hard (I lean towards the former).

Even now OEMs should have very little problems selling cards at (above) MSRP so there must be something more going on.

<comment><USER10> Miner demand was about 50% of sales. Admittedly this is because a lot of gamers were turned off by high prices.

That demand has evaporated since the price of Bitcoin alternatives (eg. Ethereum) has plummeted, and the difficulty of mining is still very high since now ASICs can mine many coins more efficiently than consumers GPUs.

Plus it seems like Nvidia are stuck with a lot of low-end chips. Many miners were buying things like the 1060.

However, Nvidia have no direct competition in the GPU space anymore. They can hold off their next product launch for months and wait for their inventory to clear.

<comment><USER11> >Nvidia have no direct competition in the GPU space anymore

At what level? AMD does the same thing in GPU they do in CPU: They might not hold the overall performance crown, but their value is often better at several tiers than their competition. I really want an RX 580.

<comment><USER12> The 580s, AFAICT, are only really competitive with nVidia's mid range and have been priced higher for some time due to mining.

The Vegas have not been price competitive with nVidia's higher end offerings, have been very power hungry and very hot.

AMD needs to pull something out of the bag, it's being left behind.

<comment><USER13> The Vega cards (56 and 64) were definitely priced competitively as NVidia felt the need to release the 1070 Ti out of nowhere. It sits in a weird price / performance area smack dab between the 1070 and 1080 cards. In addition, the Vega architecture is pretty efficient and your statement about being power hungry and very hot is false.

<comment><USER12> Perhaps they were when on their discounted launch price, but they quickly jumped up in price (around £100 in a week, even more a few weeks later) and just weren't available for quite some time AFAICT.

> In addition, the Vega architecture is pretty efficient and your statement > about being power hungry and very hot is false.

Excuse me, but I speak from personal experience here. It's really not very efficient, I bought a 64 on launch day. It was hot, noisy and power hungry compared to nVidia cards at similar performance levels, which is the main reason I didn't keep it for long.

<comment><USER14> Stock Vegas are overvolted (ridiculously so) and clocked past their efficiency range.

The architecture is quite efficient up to ~1400MHz.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In my local market, the slowing down of the crypto fad is showing. Used GTX 1080 GPUs are no longer hawked at $800 and there are various ASICS generally available. Even new retail cards are coming down in price, but are still way too high for technology that's been available for a couple years now. Unfortunately, I believe that Nvidia is going to keep the prices high so that they can position the upcoming 11 series at the $700 mark just because they can.

<comment><USER16> The article states that oversupply is in low-end GPUs. Did Nvidia incorrectly assume there would be a demand for low-end GPUs somewhere?

My understanding is that the demand for high-end GPUs was driven primarily by the shortage of middle-tier GPUs. High-end GPUs obviously are faster at mining but their cost and power consumption meant that they were lower profit and higher risk. Thus miners were buying up all of the middle-tier GPUs. Lower-end GPUs were largely overlooked due to RAM limitations the presented that limited their useful life as miners.

The shortage of middle-tier GPUs meant that gamers could either go for higher or lower tier GPUs or just hold out. Thus high-end GPU prices rose as some people chose to upgrade. When crypto currency prices peaked last fall this created futher demand for the high-end GPUs limiting their supply and further driving up prices. Now that crypto currencies prices are falling and demand for GPUs has waned, the artificial demand for high-end GPUs has disappeared.

But was there ever a demand for the low-end GPUs? If you absolutely needed a GPU sure, but the last 3 generations of GPUs have been all about 4k or VR gaming at 60+FPS. This isn't a market that low-end GPUs can satisfy. Most people looking to upgrade, want an upgrade. If you have a 3 year old middle- tier GPU it can hold it's own or beat most current low-end GPUs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> That's not an inventory problem, it's a pricing problem.

<comment><USER18> I was thinking the same thing.

It looks like sellers/board-makers were just charging what they thought they could get away with because the consumers weren't price sensitive, not because of a shortage.

e.g. If you normally sell 100 Video Cards, at $500, but now you can sell 100 at $750 you'd be foolish not to increase the price and capture the margins that go along with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I recently upgraded to a 1060 6GB card (at inflated prices, because it didn't look like there'd ever be a break in the storm). I got to thinking, I doubt I'll ever feel much need to upgrade the screen I game on from 1080p to 4k, mostly because I sit across the room and my eyes naturally antialias things at distance...

Given that combination of factors, I have to wonder what it'll take to make me want to upgrade from my modest 1060. I can't imagine what sort of incremental improvement video hacks will make this card too slow at 1080p.

I have to wonder if 4k gaming and VR are the stopgaps that'll keep some demand for improved gaming performance until some paradigm shift happens, such as the mainstreaming of realtime raytracing. It's crazy to think that since my first Voodoo video card until now, it's just been a steady evolution and layering of graphical hacks. We've known since before then that eventually raytracing would be an optimal case. I wonder how far away from a total revamping of 3D graphics we are... two generations of GPUs? Three?

<comment><USER20> Raytracing is faking it as well, but the illusion is a bit better ;-)

<comment><USER19> I suppose if the universe is in fact a hologram as some scientists have hypothesized, and we're just living in a 3d projection then we could say reality is faking it :-)

But the current gen video hacks and future raytracing are pretty hard to compare. Raytracing can be an accurate simulation of the physics properties of light. I suppose the biggest caveat is whether you're doing forward or backward raytracing. Backward raytracing simulates only the photons relevant to the observer. Forward raytracing simulates photons from various light sources, a small fraction of which are observed by the camera.

Both are still based on the physical path of virtual photons, which as far as models go, is a pretty solid illusion!

<comment><USER21> We still fake the surface properties. Skin, for example, involves a lot of subsurface scattering, and we're very far from that. So texture maps it will be for a long time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hmmm, if ASUS started selling 1080Ti for $500 instead of $1000, I am sure that would have resolved itself pretty quickly ;-)

<comment><USER22> May be there is a term for it, but it is a classic example how demand suddenly disappear when the price has dropped because everyone thinks / knew it is going to drop further. For Example, they know the 1080Ti were going for $400, but due to crypto it shoot up to $1000, now even at $500, they may as well wait a little more, and new graphics Turing or Ampere are coming soon anyway.

<comment><USER20> So the optimal strategy for NVidia is to shred those redundant silicon dies? At some point new Vega will put a pressure on them to release consumer Volta/Turing/Ampere/whatever-they-name-it and at $1000 there is not much hope for getting rid of Pascals via standard sales channels.

<comment><USER23> _> So the optimal strategy for NVidia is to shred those redundant silicon dies?_

Potentially, yes. Dumping their current inventory at the market-clearing price might badly affect demand for their next generation of products and damage their relationship with board partners. Lower GPU prices from Nvidia will barely trickle down to customers due to the rising cost of GDDR memory and the fixed cost of all other aspects of AIB manufacturing. Constraining supply to keep prices close to list might be frustrating for consumers, but it's probably in the long-term interests of Nvidia and their board partners, especially considering the weak competition from AMD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Let's see if this translates into a price drop. I have been wanting to build a gaming pc but the prices for high end graphics cards are absurd.

<comment><USER25> i have been waiting for a long time :(

<comment><USER26> Prices have been dropping ~$10/week, give it some time [https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/video- card/](https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/video-card/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> We are at the tail end of the 10-series GPU live cycle. Everyone is waiting for the 11-series release. Why would any one buy an overpriced card now that is sure to be made obsolete in just a few months time?

<comment><USER28> 1080TI is going to stay for years to come.

<comment><USER29> Hah, that's what they said about maxwell architecture.

<comment><USER20> 750Ti lasted surprisingly long...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I Am So Mad. I have had a new workstation purchase waiting for the cards to calm down and now I read this? We get no new technology and prices where a 1080ti equals the retail price of a Titan and now they have 300k to much inventory?

NVIDIA needs to be greeted with a Linus salute again. They have been horrible for Linux and horrible on me having a new workstation at work.

<comment><USER31> Card prices have been back to normal for a while now

<comment><USER32> The GeForce 10 series is 2+ years old and are still selling around MSRP. Is that normal?

<comment><USER33> For top tier video cards? yes.

<comment><USER34> For two year old top tier video cards which are only top-tier because the manufacturer is not releasing later models to try and get rid of the old stock? Probably not.

(I have no evidence that they are not releasing newer cards just to continue to sell the older stock at MSRP).

<comment><USER33> Prices are determined by what people are willing to pay for things. A video card isn't a requirement to sustain life, it's a luxury. If people think $1000 for one is too much, they simply won't buy one. Obviously a business wants to maximize profit, but it's up to the consume to decide if it's worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Are they doing what de beers do with diamonds, hoarding them to create fake scarcity?

<comment><USER10> Diamonds are forever, but Nvidia GPUs are for 24 months.

<comment><USER36> Curiously I have a feeling that diamond jewellery falls further when you just look at the short term. What I mean is that (according to a few things I've read, and neatly summarised at [http://diamondssuck.com](http://diamondssuck.com)) immediately after purchase the resale value of your diamond ring hits the floor - whereas you can at least punt a GPU for a short while afterwards.

This is mostly beside the point though - you're right that GPUs are effectively obsolete after a very short period and have very little value in the long term :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> [joke] Plot twist: A cousin of both Jensen Huang and Lisa Su was arrested in Taiwan for propelling price of BTC in the past year using bots running advanced Deep Learning. [/joke]

[not joke] Jensen and Lisa are family. [/not joke]

</comment><comment><USER37> Doesn't this only happen when huge preorder(s) get cancelled? Any big players in bitcoin mining bankrupted lately?

<comment><USER38> Dunno, but the BTC price has dropped so the demand for GPUs has dropped along with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I wonder if this has anything to do with ETH not being able to be mined on 3GB cards any more. I may be mistaken, but I recall several months back people with 3GB 1060s no longer being able to mine ETH because of the size of the DAG.

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:C6d8VK...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:C6d8VKMhAuEJ:https://investoon.com/tools/dag_size+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=za&client=firefox-b)

</comment><comment><USER40> Good, now I can have a cluster of GPUs to use Deep Learning to predict cryptocoin prices.

</comment><comment><USER41> Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a graphics card I ordered two and a half months ago.

</comment><comment><USER42> What is Nvidia's strategy for "streaming" games, games that execute on a cloud server and streaming to thin-client machines? I assume such a future would see the gamer market for cards disappear.

Take that future, add the possible future collapse of crypto currencies, and I see a significant existential risk for anyone whose business relies on GPU sales. Not a 100% future, not ever 25%, but something to think about.

<comment><USER43> I don't think there is any majority thinking that streaming games is a thing now that VR's around. Game streaming was struggling against the speed of light to get a modest/responsive game experience. Even then on the low end there's plenty of games that'll work on intel embedded just fine so it just becomes a who does it actually serve kind of question to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > The report also cites Nvidia aggressively buying GDDR5 as evidence that they > now have an excess stock of lower-end GPUs that need to be made into boards > as well as other insiders/sources citing an inventory buildup.

Weren't lower end Nvidia GPUs not suitable for use in Mining?

Perhaps Nvidia assumed people who typically buy a new GPU annually would just pickup a low end unit instead of waiting so they over produced?

</comment><comment><USER44> 300,000 GPU dies is maybe 30M worth of inventory to NVIDIA especially considering that if these were "mining" cards those were likely GP104 or even 106's which are worth less than $100 per die.

NVIDIA made a $3.2bln in revenue in the last quarter with gaming accounting for more than half of that so do the math just how many GPUs they actually sell.

Short sellers are becoming really desperate.

</comment><comment><USER45> Recently tried to purchase a batch of P102-100's for mining and hit a dead end, so I'm pretty sure this article is BS.

</comment><comment><USER46> 1080 TI Asus still >900 EUR Amazon DE.

</comment><comment><USER47> So bitcoin miners aren't the reason for the insane GPU prices then?

<comment><USER48> Using GPUs to mine Bitcoin is a bad idea. That's why most serious Bitcoin miners would buy ASICs.

But Ethereum is much more amenable to GPU-mining so I presume NVIDIA and AMD got a lot of love (and $$$$) from this mining community.

<comment><USER49> What constitute a good or bad idea has to be related with how much money you end up making. As it stands the variety of crypto currency and the fact that an ASIC's algorithm is set in stone makes it so it's possible to mine some crypto currencies on GPUs for a better profit with respect to the cost of electricity.

<comment><USER49> Not to mention, the ASIC I've seen was mounted with two delta-like fans and was about 3 times noisier than 6 TI cards. Also, power availability is always a limiting problem the true metric eventually becoming how much hardware can you run on the power you have access to and how much money will that net you per day/month.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Beginning Photography - <AUTHOR>

Do any of you have any suggestions on books, web sites, or other resources for starting out in photography?<p>I need a hobby that doesn't involve staring at PHP code and stimulates the left side of my brain, and I think photography is something I'll enjoy.  Being a tech nerd, I'd like to delve into as much as I can about the art and science of photography, from camera settings to post-processing.  This hobby seems to be frequently found among tech geeks, so I'm hoping to find some great resources that aim to help the technical/hacker mindset. <comment><USER2> If you're just interested in finding a hobby (and not 100% set on photography), check out this post I submitted a while ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=862139>.

</comment><comment><USER3> Barbara London and John Updike's "Photography" is literally the textbook most beginning photographers get in school. i'd suggest looking at used book sites to see if you can get a copy second-hand, since it is priced like a college textbook, too.

</comment><comment><USER4> Buy the most expensive digital slr camera you can afford - probably canon or nikon (canon). Then buy or try out Adobe Lightroom. Shoot interesting things on the auto mode, get used to organizing and post in lightroom. Then start playing with settings.

If you need motivation, try creating condensed weekend projects, like photographing a baseball in interesting ways, or moving vehicles.

</comment><comment><USER5> photo.net

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this link - I'm usually leery of simple domains that have a link to retail, so I probably would have ignored it in a google search. It seems like a great starting point.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: When will Intel start selling chips that are not vulnerable to Meltdown - <AUTHOR> They were informed on June 1, 2017, and appear to have been selling vulnerable chips since then. I have not seen anything indicating that the chips being produced today are not vulnerable. When is this going to end? <comment><USER2> And an interesting follow-on question would be: of the OS patches now being implemented which sometimes cause a performance hit, will that code later be able to detect when it's running on a "fixed" processor? So that it can turn off the unneeded extra protections when running on a newer chip?

<comment><USER3> Last I checked: the linux kernel initially had a comment saying something to the effect of "assume all x86 processors are vulnerable." Later, they added a check for amd, which they don't do mitigations on. It seems likely they'll add another check, when future processors come out. As for windows and macosx, it's up for speculation. No other OSes yet have mitigations in place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good question, I did some Googling and couldn't find anything either.

Interestingly, not a single result is returned when searching "Meltdown" in Intel's website. Hopefully Intel will fill us in soon.

</comment><comment><USER5> The more pertinent question is whether or not Intel (or AMD or ARM CPU makers) will release a new chip that is out of the box still vulnerable to meltdown or spectre when running unpatched OSes.

</comment><comment><USER6> If the issue is completely fixed by the latest firmware update, they could be selling chips that are not vulnerable tomorrow.

The question is what's on that firmware update and does it fix the issue completely.

Last I checked, the kernel fixes only check if it's running on an Intel processor (and exclude AMD). They aren't checking if they are running on a certain revision of the chip. That could probably change very quickly if the firmware is indeed the full fix.

Otherwise expect new silicon to arrive in 6-18 months.

</comment><comment><USER7> Perhaps they already have. Are there older chips that do not have the issue?

<comment><USER8> None in the x64 architecture. x86 chips before the Pentium Pro don't have it. Itanium apparently doesn't either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Maybe the same time we see 10nm chips from Intel and Optane DIMMs.</comment>