Burger King is introducing a vegetarian patty from the start-up Impossible Foods - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/technology/burger-king-impossible-whopper.html <comment><USER3> The Impossible Burger is the best veggie burger I've ever had.

I was a vegetarian for 10 years, and have now been a pescatarian for 8 years. It has been 18 years since I have had a proper cheeseburger, and since then I have had _many thousands_ of veggie burgers. Cheeseburgers are probably my favorite food, and I haven't had one in 18 years. If someone told me that the world would end tomorrow, I would go out and eat a proper cheeseburger.

I have some experience in this area, is what I'm trying to say. The flavor and texture is the closest to actual meat I've ever had. And that, then, is the key for a lot of people: they don't _want_ a veggie burger that simulates meat. Which is fine! I do, and I imagine the market for close-to-meat veggie burgers is bigger than obviously-not-meat veggie burgers.

Others in the thread have mentioned the Beyond Burger, which is also good. But the Impossible Burger, for me, is way better. I have had my Impossible Burgers at Bareburger. At home, I went with Morningstar Farm's Grillers Prime for a long time, but about a year ago they changed the recipe, and I did their black bean for a while. I have since discovered if I season the Griller's Prime while I'm frying it, it comes out much better.

<comment><USER4> Why don't you think that fish is meat?

<comment><USER5> " _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize. Assume good faith._"

" _Eschew flamebait. Don 't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER4> How could I better ask the question? I'm genuinely confused since they poster talks about not eating "meat" but eats fish, which culturally for me (Buddhist and Hindu) are non-veg

<comment><USER6> I don't think the poster ever actually said that fish isn't meat, and I guess a lot of people are interpreting your question as a hostile challenge of the idea of pescatarianism (along the lines of "Why don't you think that cheeseburgers are murder?").

If you are struggling to understand pescatarianism as an idea, my perspective is that flexitarianism, pescatarianism, vegetarianism, and flexiveganism are all compromise diets that get some but not all environmental and ethical benefits of veganism. Different people have different levels of commitment and make different tradeoffs in their life choices. Whether that's "the only meat I eat is fish" or "I eat fish but not meat" is just a matter of definitions.

In terms of the English word "meat", there is certainly some ambiguity. At least as I know the term, it feels like a stretch (but maybe technically correct) to count fish as meat. I've had people suggest sushi when I say that I'm vegetarian, unaware that vegetarians don't eat fish. If you google for the Food Pyramid, most diagrams call out meat and fish as different things. "Vegetarian" almost always doesn't allow fish, but "meat" just isn't a very precise word.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The most interesting thing about this particular announcement is that it may normalize plant-derived meat-substitutes among the typical fast-food-burger eating population, and not just the mostly-vegetarian folks (like myself) who will spend $10 on an Impossible Burger at a fancy sports bar.

Within a decade this might just be normalized, and nobody will make much of it.

<comment><USER8> No, the implications are even bigger than that, because the normalization and adoption will drive costs down. And when meat-substitute burgers are _cheaper_ than meat burgers, and taste as good, they will become the default, and that is going to make a huge dent in the animal industry, which is all sorts of awesome, because the animal industry is all sorts of terrible.

Right now, I'm seeing Beyond and Impossible substitutes at burger restaurants, and it always comes with a couple of dollars surcharge, because it is more expensive. Imagine the day when the _meat_ patty comes with a surcharge, because the substitute is cheaper!

I am always soapboxing about this, but the only way we can meaningfully address environmental or ethical concerns, is by doing it through the economy. The "best" choice has to also be the cheapest choice, because then people will as if by magic choose that most of the time, unlike when you only have people's conscience to motivate them, then the wallet still rules most of the time.

<comment><USER9> You forget that in America, we'll just bail the farmers out and start shoveling subsidized overproduced meat everywhere we can.

<comment><USER10> Farmers in Europe and Canada are also heavily subsidized.

<comment><USER11> Food security. Anywhere paying attention to history knows that you can get starved into submission, so if you don't have food security any money you spent on walls, navies, missile silos etcetera was pointless. So it makes good public policy sense to subsidize local food production and/or have high tariffs on imported food.

In WWII Britain came closest to having to surrender due to food shortages. It didn't have then (and doesn't have now) enough food production to feed everybody, it relies on imports, and during a war that gets tricky. It got down to, I think, one week's rations on hand. If the U-boats had been just a little bit luckier for just another couple of weeks the British government anticipated uncontrollably levels of public disorder and then one way or another surrender.

<comment><USER12> Not to dispute your main point, but in Japan more than 1 million people died of starvation after the US blockades in WWII. It's the reason it is illegal to import staple foods into Japan to this day. The question of whether or not Japan would have surrendered without nuclear attacks is still very much an open one. It's really hard to say what the Japanese government was thinking at the time, but I _can_ say that my mother in law told me that the only reason she survived is because her uncle had a garden and had a few sweet potatoes. Most people that were alive during the war suffers still from ill health as a result of malnutrition at the time. It has given me considerable cause to re- evaluate things I thought I knew.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure, but in re-reading what I posted it occurs to me that it's possible to read it as suggesting nowhere else starved (or not as badly as Britain) whereas what I was intending was that Britain's big threat turned out not to be aerial bombardment, rocket attack, or straight-up beach invasion but simply starvation. Invading Britain proved completely impractical, bombing it into submission was too costly to be continued, but starving it was close to working.

Culture varies, and it seems unlikely that the British "stiff upper lip" would have carried on through starvation rations as the Japanese did. Certainly the government of the day is recorded as having expected to be overthrown once the reality of starvation was felt by the common people, unless the next shipments of food arrived (which they did).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'll 100% be giving it a try (I'm already a long time vegetarian though). I like that it's BK doing this because BK has served a veggie burger (Morningstar Farms Patty) for around ~14 years, so they should be familiar with the demand for meatless products.

I remember when they first introduced a veggie burger, I wasn't sure the demand would be there, but it seems to have worked out.

So it remains to be seen if they'll keep the Morningstar version too.

I've never had a real Whopper, so I can't be comparing the two.

<comment><USER14> Carl's also has the beyond burger, which I personally think is superior. My wife disagrees, and prefers your standard veggie burgers (we are vegans of 15 years).

<comment><USER15> I haven't been able to compare the Impossible Burger. I had a Beyond Burger, and it was very good. If somebody were to hand it to a meat eater at a cookout, without calling attention to it, they'd eat it without noticing the switch. Pile on a few toppings (which people usually do because of the flavorless nature of most fast-food and grocery-store beef), and most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference in a blind tasting.

It's pretty clear that it's not beef if you're looking for it, but not nearly as distinct as your standard veggie burgers. Most vegans, though, aren't especially craving meat simulacra. I think of them more as transitional for meat eaters rather than as targeting vegans.

<comment><USER16> I too prefer the Beyond Meat burger to the Impossible Burger, but I don't know about a meat eater not noticing. I love meat - especially beef, but lately I've also been trying meat alternatives.

Just recently, I ordered an Impossible Burger, and it just left me wanting beef. It's not that it was bad - the burger looked similar to beef, and was juicy and delicious. But it didnt taste like beef. Maybe it's different for others, but for me, the beef is the spotlight of a burger. Beyond and Impossible haven't gotten that beefy taste - at least to my buds.

When I cook a Beyond Meat burger at home, I usually add a little butter - <USER2> dont think there is enough fat, and I also add some Takii umami powder (which I believe is just salt, and ground up mushrooms). I think those additions help the illusion of beef. You could probably also cook the burger in rendered beef fat, and that would probably really help the beef flavor...probably defeating the point of meat alternatives though.

I wish I could cook an Impossible at home, just to experiment.

<comment><USER13> Your wish should come true, they announced back in January they plan on selling the Impossible Burger 2.0 in grocery stores.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> FYI for a lot of folks in here who may not know, Taco Bell is vegan certified. If you order something vegan they will prep it separately and make sure no animal products touched your food. I suspect they might add Impossible Meat (or a competitor) some time soon.

<comment><USER18> Taco Bell and Burger King are two of the only chains when traveling who will (reliably) vegan/halal certify. Makes sense why we're seeing this adoption from BK early.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> People should be aware that Burger King has had (MorningStar) veggie burgers for a very long time that they just don't broadcast. This announcement is not about introducing a vegetarian patty but rather about introducing a _specific_ vegetarian patty.

<comment><USER20> FYI there looks to be less saturated fat, and sodium in a MorningStar burger compared with the Impossible.

*[http://smartlabel.kelloggs.com/Product/Index/00028989100689](http://smartlabel.kelloggs.com/Product/Index/00028989100689)

<comment><USER21> My first complaint about the nutrition of the Morningstar burger is the ratio of carbs to protien. Restaurants are already throwing tons of carbs at me. I really want protein in my burger patty.

<comment><USER22> Wait, are you really complaining about nutrition at a fast food restaurant ?

<comment><USER23> Sometimes, you need something fast, cheap, and easy, so it's nice to have some fast food items in mind that have reasonable calories and macros. A great example is when I'm driving long distance, I'll swing by CFA if possible.

<comment><USER19> > _I 'll swing by CFA if possible._

Uh... [http://cfa.org](http://cfa.org) ?

<comment><USER24> Chick-fil-A

[https://www.chick-fil-a.com/](https://www.chick-fil-a.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The A&W chain in Canada has had the "Beyond Meat" burger for over 1 year and its been a massive success for them.

[https://web.aw.ca/en/our-menu/burgers/beyond-meat- burger](https://web.aw.ca/en/our-menu/burgers/beyond-meat-burger)

<comment><USER26> I love these burgers! They have actually helped me transition to completely beef-free since they address that occasional fast food burger craving.

It's interesting to note that A&W Canada is entirely separate from A&W in the US. A&W Canada is much higher quality.

<comment><USER27> It was honestly a shock how terrible the US A&W was when I tried it. Canada's A&W is indeed MUCH better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've had an impossible burger, and cooked very well it almost made me pull my waiter aside and verify I wasn't eating meat.

Also ate meat for decades, so I also am very familiar with it.

<comment><USER29> Weird, I tried it and wanted to like it simply because it was higher in fat and lower carb than your traditional veggie burger - but it was very obvious I was eating fake meat. It was ok, I'd eat it again. But I would not replace real beef with it any time soon.

But I am keto. So I am not eating it with a bun and tons of sugary sauces to cover up the meat flavor. You can really tell the quality of a burger (meat or not) when you eat it wrapped in lettuce.

<comment><USER30> Similar experience: I wanted to like it, but found that, at best, it tasted like meat I wouldn't eat again.

Nevertheless, for the sake of the environment and industrially farmed animals, it's good to see meat substitutes progressing into the mainstream.

<comment><USER29> I'd prefer just more humane animal farming vs. fake meat. It may be more expensive - but if we incentivized humane farming of animals as much as we subsidized corn and/or wheat it might not be that bad (or just got rid of subsidies altogether).

I also think the environmental cost of plant farming is vastly underrated.

<comment><USER31> But you do realize that the environmental cost of animal farming is guaranteed to be >10x the cost of plant farming, correct? Each step up the food chain wastes roughly 90% of the energy, meaning that you need to grow more than 10 kcal of plants to raise 1 kcal of animal. So feeding animals is 10x as expensive as growing plants, _in addition_ to the costs incurred by actually raising the livestock.

<comment><USER29> That's not exactly true. I do a lot of work for agricultural companies. One such company is a huge supplier of animal feed. Their products are the by- products of sugar production. Raffinate, Betaine, Molasses, Beet Pulp Pellets, etc... These products are very shelf stable and cheap. But they are not the main crop. Sugar Beets are not grown for these by-products.

In addition, grazing animals require no such feed. Grass fed beef is a thing, and it's price is on par or even quite a bit cheaper than fake meat.

<comment><USER32> However, even if the animals require no food to be purchased by the farmer, there is still an environmental cost in the land being used, plus the opportunity cost of other uses of that land.

Not all land used for grazing can be used to grow plants, true, but in the cases it can be, you're using that land at a 10% kcal efficiency, so to speak.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> White Castle has had Impossible Burgers available for about a year now. Just interesting to see the trend emerging from what I would consider the "bottom- most" market segment. I suppose they had the most to gain from drawing in a meat-averse audience.

Whatever your feelings on this particular product, it seems that the perhaps- inevitable decline of the traditional meat industry is going to take place on many fronts (clean meats, plant hemes, alternative proteins, locavore provider networks, increased availability of traditional vegetarian cuisines).

<comment><USER34> The patty in the normal $1 White Castle slider is so thin, that the $2 Impossible Slider feels like an improvement already just because the patty is thicker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm an angel investor in both plant based meat and clean meat and I'm actually more optimistic for plant based meat becoming better than animal meat in the short term. The rate of innovation has been really impressive and momentum is picking up steam.. once prices get under animal meat huge amounts of people will switch

<comment><USER36> Hopefully carbon taxes and such would kick in at some point and would include the real environmental cost of beef, so the switching to plant based beef would be even more swift.

<comment><USER29> Beef only is responsible for 3% of greenhouse gasses in America. I'm not sure an "emission" tax would really affect the price all that much. In addition, you have to account for and tax the emissions produced in plant production (fertilizer, agricultural soil, transportation, etc...). Agriculture is a total of 9%, whereas livestock only accounts for 3% of that.

I work for agriculture companies, and a lot of animal feed comes from by- products of other agricultural products. For example, beet pulp pellets, raffinate, betaine, molasses are all by products of sugar production and are used for animal feed extensively. They are cheap and very shelf stable.

[https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas- emis...](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions)

<comment><USER36> I believe this is a very US-centric viewpoint.

I'm using the article 'Beef Cattle and Greenhouse Gas Production' from Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. [http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/beef/news/info...](http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/beef/news/info_vbn1013a4.htm)

According Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the UN 2006 report livestock were responsible for 18% of all human-related greenhouse gas production. 14.5% according to 2013 report.

Of that 43% is Enteric.

There may only be 9% GHG emissions in the US, but beef also comes from other countries where these emissions are very different. See Regional and Production System differences.

From the article -- There was an approximately 4-fold difference in emission intensity between the top 10% of producers and the bottom 10% of producers within a system.

<comment><USER29> You are right, but I was discussing in reference to a U.S. based emissions "tax". Maybe I misunderstood and they were suggesting a worldwide tax? Not sure how that would work.

If the U.S. were to tax agriculture production of beef, I'm assuming that would be for U.S. farmers so the relevant statistic is emissions in the U.S.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I tried the impossible burger and personally didn't notice a difference. The boyfriend tried a bite, and liked it, but could taste something off. I'm kinda excited to see where both the impossible burger goes, and where other restaurants take this.

Also for the price to come down, it was like $3 more than the boyfriend's burger

<comment><USER38> There's a version 2.0 with different ingredients that supposedly tastes even closer to real meat.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18855695](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18855695)

I tried version 1 and it tasted indistinguishable from meat.

<comment><USER39> I'm curious about this. I had the first generation many times and found it to be pretty good.

After the second generation came out, I went to my favorite place to get the IB (Gotts in Palo Alto) and asked if they had the new recipe. They seemed uncertain at first but then said they did. I ordered it and it was fine, but not as good as I'd seen in online reviews.

Honestly, if I was told it was the first generation, I would have believed it. I wonder if some restaurants are still working through their stock of the first generation patties?

<comment><USER40> I was at The Counter on California Ave. over the weekend, and they confirmed they had the v2 recipe. Maybe give that a try!

<comment><USER39> Will do! How did you find V2, compared to V1?

<comment><USER41> My impression of Impossible Burger v1.0 was that the pinkish/uncharred bits had an odd sweetness and moisture/texture that made it most distinguishable from a beef burger. With 2.0, the texture is a bit more firm and beef-like, and it seems they've put less emphasis on the 'bleeding' which I think has reduced the sweetness as well.

I had a notion that I intended to test with v1.0 that it would be more convincing if you charred the hell out of it and made it more like an overcooked burger, however I never did test it, and I also read that it didn't perform well (fell apart, etc) if too overcooked. However, I did really like the flavor and texture of the most charred bits of the burgers I did have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm curious as to how Impossible burger compares on the health impact. I understand that it's plant based, but it seems to be highly processed and perhaps (not sure) loaded with bunch of chemicals and potentially unhealthy ingredients that make it taste like meat.

Hopefully that is not the case and it's not just a meat substitute but is also healthy. Can anyone with more details please opine?

<comment><USER43> What makes you think "processed" and "chemicals" are bad for you?

<comment><USER44> Some of the biggest and best studies on nutrition told us that processed food is not very good for us :

Study links heavily processed foods to risk of earlier death [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/11/study- links-...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/11/study-links- heavily-processed-foods-to-risk-of-earlier-death)

<comment><USER45> There is an _association_ between processed foods and poor health outcomes. There are some processes that have a clear causal link with poor health, most obviously the use of nitrates in meat preservation. It is not clear that all (or even most) processing is harmful.

<comment><USER41> Another aspect of this is that processed foods require less calories for your body to metabolize, since they are already partly broken down. While that doesn't specifically increase the rate of exposure to pathogens/toxicity, it does increase the net calories consumed in an already high-calorie category, and contributes to obesity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> April fools day is a tough day to make this announcement.

But I'm genuinely thrilled to see this. Hopefully some non zero percentage of customers give this a try and reduce the amount of meat in their diet.

That said, I don't expect that non zero percentage to be very high without a lot of marketing.

<comment><USER41> I think it's a great opportunity for exposure for these new meat alternatives, and also a potentially great income boost that will help them expand operations and secure their future business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I presume this is only for the US Burger King? Although there are perfectly fine plant-based alternatives available in the Netherlands, after all the hype about the Impossible and Beyond burgers on HN I'm curious to give either a try.

Edit: Found a different article [1] that says:

> Burger King is giving the Impossible Burger a trial run in 59 restaurants in > the St. Louis area, and if that goes well, the fast-food chain will make the > product available in all its 7,200 branches across the US

[1] [https://www.vox.com/future- perfect/2019/4/1/18290762/burger-...](https://www.vox.com/future- perfect/2019/4/1/18290762/burger-king-impossible-whopper-plant-based-meat)

<comment><USER48> There are places with Beyond Burger in Berlin and it's one of the best patties I tried, to the point were some non-vegetarians friends choose it when available.

<comment><USER47> Oh sweet, will have to check that out next time I'm in Berlin - thanks for the tip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Are they cooked separately from the meat burgers? Some people don't care, but some definitely do.

Carl's Jr. doesn't keep their Beyond Burgers separate, apparently.

<comment><USER49> Just out of interest, what's the reasoning behind a strict separation of the two? I understand it in the case of gluten free products because that can really have health implications, but when you are vegan for ethical reasons it shouldn't make a difference, right?

But I'd say this is great news either way. I like meat, but when there's a way to get the same taste and texture without the bad consequences for animals and environment I'm all for it, and I'm sure many others are the same.

<comment><USER13> Religious reasons, for one.

Some vegetarians are just very grossed out by it (I'm one of them).

I generally look the other way at very minor cross contamination, its probably going to happen once in a while, especially if I don't know about it, but if I taste meat juices in my food I completely lose my appetite. I once bit into sausage that found its way into my pizza (I suspect it fell into the cheese) and I couldn't eat pizza for a while after that. (of course, for a burger that's supposed to taste exactly like beef, you wouldn't know...)

If you think that makes me crazy or whatever, then so be it.

<comment><USER3> > (of course, for a burger that's supposed to taste exactly like beef, you > wouldn't know...)

Funny thing, that: [http://archives.quarrygirl.com/2009/06/28/undercover- investi...](http://archives.quarrygirl.com/2009/06/28/undercover- investigation-of-la-area-vegan-restaurants/)

<comment><USER50> Fascinating study, it looks like they really did their best to control all the variables.

Makes sense that dairy and eggs were the most commonly found non-vegan ingredients-- they are both such a huge part of cooking. As someone who has tried to go vegan in the past, I can tell you that cheese was probably the hardest thing to fully cut out for me, and eggs were right behind it. I'm glad the liars are being called out, though, that is some despicable behavior.

<comment><USER51> Have you tried follow your heart vegan cheese?

<comment><USER50> Not yet, but I will attempt to do so soon, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Damn, this day is ruining me. Took me way too long to realize that the title has beef-less written, not bee-less.

Anyway, Fast Food-Franchises are IMHO the perfect breeding-ground to raise lab-grown meat to success. Most of their meat is processed to a degree, that you can't taste the original texture or figure out their real source of it. And they are one of the biggest sellers for meat. Removing this chain will be a big service for environment.

<comment><USER53> I agree, but Impossible isn't lab grown meat, it's just made from plants.

[https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en- us/articles/3600189374...](https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en- us/articles/360018937494-What-are-the-ingredients-)

<comment><USER52> Oh, thx! TIL.

Seems I had a bad misconception here. This brand is not available in my country and I only ever heard of indirectly. But reading up on it, I see where it's coming from.

<comment><USER54> The original article states that, maybe read the article before commenting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Vegan Here. I know a bunch about the health implications about meat. I follow very closely the impossible burger and beyond burger and their move into the mainstream restaurants. If you have any questions ask away.

I personally went straight from being a heavy meat eater and steak lover to a full blown vegan.

below is a video in which they make the impossible burger by hand and show every ingredient as well as showing the ins and outs of the impossibel burger from a science perspective.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63FHZy_7-qs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63FHZy_7-qs)

<comment><USER56> where does the Haem come from and are the binders they use safe to eat ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Impossible burgers are awesome and I've had quite a few. It also really depends on how it's made and how it's dressed up - as with any burger. My only lingering issue is that it is a highly processed food, and psychologically it helps to know what you're eating.

<comment><USER58> They are also typically really high calorie (not that it's much different from a regular beef patty).

<comment><USER59> Yeah, it's basically an ethical burger, which, if that's what you're looking for, that's great. While I can tell it tastes different, when dressed up in a burger it hits the spot just like a hamburger does. The problem is when people try and convince themselves that just because it's vegetarian it's healthy, which isn't the case at all. After all, Oreo's are vegan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> The life cycle analysis for the patty is impressive. Not sure how it stacks up when combined as a whole package.

[https://impossiblefoods.app.box.com/s/edwcfyvojzsvzn5d633dxt...](https://impossiblefoods.app.box.com/s/edwcfyvojzsvzn5d633dxt4c4ehyzqq3)

</comment><comment><USER61> I'd like to add that I see a lot of people saying, "If you're vegetarian/vegan why are you going Burger King?" \- Well, I don't go often, but on the off chance that I'm with some friends and they go to a fast-food restaurant, it's much easier and less awkward if there's something I can eat too.

<comment><USER62> "Because I want to have a drive through vegetarian hamburger and I want it to have it anywhere in the country...

<comment><USER63> Burger King and McDonald's "burgers" barely resemble the real thing anymore, so an "Impossible Burger" might be a step up.

Seriously, go eat a McDonald's burger in Italy. The difference between that one and one in the US will shock you.

<comment><USER64> Why would anybody eat a chicken nugget when they can get a slice of that grade A free-range whole wheat grass fed organic chicken breast which provides only objectively superior flavor for every human palette? Better not put bbq sauce on it though, because that is meant for only the classiest of ribs. Every aspect of food: price, quality, appeal, ethics, and flavors, lie together on a single linear scale. So sayeth the religion of the sacred snob diet.

<comment><USER65> I know you're trolling, but there once was a time when fast food wasn't objectively terrible. Something happened in the name of cost-cutting. Taco Bell is one of the biggest ones I remember, as they would have an employee prepare the lettuce manually, grate the cheese, etc. Even the olives were sliced by a kitchen tool.

McDonald's is another one, my cousin once earned a "fry guy" pin where he cut and fried the most potatoes in a day. Yes, _cut_. None of that frozen garbage.

<comment><USER64> I am not 'trolling', because I am not looking for an emotional reaction. I am using sarcasm or parody in an attempt to bring attention to the absurdity of taking something as subjective as personal taste and pretending it is objective fact.

You can say McDonalds food is different from what it was. That's a fact. You can say McDonalds food is terrible. That's your opinion. But if I want a thin salty burger with cheese dissolved onto it on a suspiciously smooth bun... who are you to say McDonalds isn't the correct choice? You wouldn't prefer it? Ok. Don't eat it. But don't try to say it is _objectively_ terrible.

Sometimes I like a steak that dissolves in my mouth in a burst of flavor. Sometimes I want one that can be chewed on and doesn't turn to mush. They're different experiences. Neither is _objectively_ better than the other, no matter how many chefs are trying to sell me $70 steaks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> As a vegetarian my entire life. I don't think I am the right audience for this. McDonald's in India gets the right mix of potatoes and veggies to make a delicious veggie burger. Trader Joe's has some Spicy Masala Patties that are very good too. Needless to say these are mostly carbs and no protein but the taste is awesome :)

<comment><USER67> Sounds like you're not. If you don't want the taste of meat, there is 0 point in you caring about this at all.

But as you said, those options have no protein and aren't trying to be a meat replacement.

<comment><USER66> Correct !!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I've had both the original and, just this weekend, the new, version 2 Impossible burger. The new one is substantially better than the original and I think the original is quite good. Whereas the original is a bit dry, no matter where I have had it (HopDoddy in LA, Fat Burger and Earl's in Bellevue, WA), the new version has a better texture and flavor. I think it'd be hard to tell it apart from a decent beef burger although I am sure it won't stand up to a high-end, custom-grind type, beef burger.

My Jewish fried rejoices in that she can now have cheeseburgers,

<comment><USER69> Do Jews not eat beef? I thought it was mainly pork?

<comment><USER70> The prohibition is against meat and dairy simultaneously.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_and_meat_in_Jewish_law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_and_meat_in_Jewish_law)

<comment><USER71> And finding kosher beef. If you want a kosher burger, you usually need to buy the beef yourself and make your own burger.

<comment><USER72> Is it really that hard to find kosher beef in US restaurants? What about halal beef?

<comment><USER73> _All_ the beef has to be kosher.

Not only that, but the kosher requirements (no dairy and meat together), depending on how kosher you are, also to apply to the plates the meal is served on, the equipment the meal is cooked on, and food storage areas; you need strictly segregated facilities, and washing between uses does not make it kosher. The requirements are strict to the point where rabbis have to regularly certify kosher restaurants as kosher.

<comment><USER72> I see. Thanks for the insight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> The impossible 1 is super salty where I've had it in hop doddy and ruby's diner in SoCal. It reminded me more of mince meat type quality, passable but gross. I'm hoping 2 is perfect because I really would prefer to not have to eat cows and have that reduced carbon footprint along with better health. Win win win.

<comment><USER75> Burgers are made from mince meat though, so I am not sure what you mean?

<comment><USER74> Canned meat that tastes like cat pate although I assume because I've just smelled it so far (cat food). Not sure exactly sure how to describe the weirdness of the impossible 1.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> I really hope McDonalds adds a veggie burger to their menu soon, too. I try to avoid meat, but often end up eating it in fast food for the convenience and due to a lack of alternatives.

<comment><USER77> Where are you? There's a full vegetarian menu in Sweden: [https://www.mcdonalds.com/se/sv-se/hela- menyn/vegetariskt.ht...](https://www.mcdonalds.com/se/sv-se/hela- menyn/vegetariskt.html)

<comment><USER78> I saw these menus in France, Germany and UK too.

Looks like it isn't available in the US though, [https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/our- food-y...](https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/our-food-your- questions/vegetarian-and-vegan.html)

<comment><USER79> And I thought India was the only place McDonalds, Burger King and KFC have a vegetarian menu.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> The real impact of this kind of technology will be when it becomes cheaper and starts to interest the general public.

<comment><USER81> It's already most likely cheaper when you take into account false pricing signals due to the fact that the US meat industry is _heavily_ subsidized through taxation. Add to that lower healthcare costs due to less heart disease and realistically it should be pretty cheap comparatively.

I've had this burger and I prefer the Beyond Burger, but the meat eaters that had it said it tasted just like a run of the mill fast food burger, so I'm hoping that it takes off with the health and environmentally conscious. If anyone can really make this work I'm thinking Burger King or McDonalds could, they are both excellent logistically and process wise.

This is exciting news in the food world and opens up a lot of choices for people looking for less heavy food choices.

<comment><USER82> Be careful, ounce for ounce, the meat substitute burgers may not be all that healthy.

The impossible burger has more fat, more saturated fat and more sodium than the standard beef patties. Less cholesterol though. Again, by mass (their patties are smaller, so direct comparisons are a little harder).

Comparison chart about halfway down: [https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/nutrition-environment- gene...](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/nutrition-environment-general- science/impossible-burger-vegetarian-breakthrough-brought-you-science)

I know that the beef industry has a lot of subsidies (many billions per year), but how much impact does that have on price? Without subsidies, what happens to the $3.99 Big Mac? Would it go to $4.19 or $7?

<comment><USER83> Nutrition per mass is irrelevant -- that depends on water content (meaningless) and starch content (minor). your choice of toppings and bun dominate the "per unit measure" analysis.

What matters is the ratios protein vs sat fat vs fat vs carbs, and what your view of health science tells you is optimal.

Per g of protein, impossible burgers are low fat, and Beyond Meat is reguar fat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> This is so important. I do eat meat (actually quit a lot right now due to health experiments) and I don't think the vegetarian movement will significantly reduce our meat consumption.

While I can't argue that animals should have the same rights as humans, I believe our psychology is wired for empathy even of animals and that may be the only "collectively objective' moral compass we have as humans.

The better we treat animals, the more resources we consume to produce meat. Lab-grown meat startups IMO have incredible potential to not only solve this problem but also make high quality meat incredible cheap. Great space to follow.

Note: of coarse the impossible burger isn't lab-grown, but they're working on that.

</comment><comment><USER85> Frankly, I'm a little tired of the meat-substitute products, as they don't taste as good nor are they likely to be as healthy as a proper, whole-food plant veggie burger.

Impossible Burger 1.0 was vital wheat gluten based, and Impossible Burger 2.0 will be soy based. I'd probably rather have the 2nd over the first, but a lot of these announcements aren't specific about which formulation is being sold.

I have tried the Impossible Burger in a number of places, and to my taste, it's inedible. My girlfriend likes to try them, and the best we've had so far is at a fish & steak place in Phoenix (Dillon's, out on the west side, near Sun City).

<comment><USER86> I would say Burger King isn't about healthy or good tasting, but rather fast, cheap and convenient.

<comment><USER85> My comment was more about Impossible / Beyond, and their ilk, the ones taking in lots of investment money, and inking deals with fast food, and gourmet chains alike.

Impossible started in "nicer" restaurants and is moving downmarket.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> I had the impossible burger at Momofuku and... it's just nothing like a burger, the two big differences being in flavor and in texture. (It _looks_ the same as a regular burger.)

In flavor, it just doesn't have it. It has the same char flavor that a burger has... but without any meat flavor behind it, which is of course most of the flavor of a hamburger. Which makes sense, of course, because there's no meat. It's like picking up what you think is a Coke only when you taste it it's just sparkling water.

And then in texture it's quite different too. As if meat, instead of being ground (with all the satisfying texture that still has), were somehow blended into something more like a smooth paste before cooking. It isn't physically substantial or satisfying to chew, just mushy.

Since I'm not vegetarian, it's definitely not something I would ever order again because it doesn't have flavor and doesn't have texture. I'm not even talking about as a substitute, I'm just talking about as food period. Just give me some roasted veggies instead which have both flavor and texture. I mean, I _love_ vegetables.

Or if you want a vegetarian "burger", a meaty Portobello mushroom is waaaay tastier.

But the Impossible Burger just feels like the worst of all worlds -- not satisfying like meat (just nowhere close), but also not satisfying as vegetables or any kind of "real food" at all.

<comment><USER38> Maybe try version 2.0, if that wasn't version 2.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18855695](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18855695)

<comment><USER88> There is a significant difference between the v1 and v2. v1 is a reasonable copy of a meat burger. v2 is nearly indistinguishable. Many restaurants are just now finishing up their v1 stock, so you may still see it around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Well, that's a funny coincidence. McDonald's Australia has an April Fool's joke about a McPickle Burger ([https://www.instagram.com/p/Bvr3W-AjUWd/](https://www.instagram.com/p/Bvr3W-AjUWd/)) which you could, in a sense, call a goofy version of a veggie burger. Meanwhile, on the same day, their competitor is announcing an _actual_ veggie burger.

<comment><USER90> In the US, at least, before Burger King introduced their current veggie burger, they had something that wasn't far off from this.

It wasn't posted on th emenu, but you could order a "vegetarian Whopper" that cost something like $0.50 and was just a Whopper where they left off the patty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> [https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en- us/articles/3600189392...](https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en- us/articles/360018939274-What-are-the-nutrition-facts-)

I'm a little surprised the fiber is 3g, taht seems low seeing as it's made from plants. But then an e.g. Morningstar Farm black bean patty has 4g fiber and 1/3 the protein.

I had one at a restaurant just last week, $3 up charge made it an $18 burger. I'm not sure about that. But I doubt I'd have guessed it wasn't cow had I not ordered it myself. Perhaps eventually this or something like it becomes the default and it's a $3 up charge for animal meat. Meanwhile Native Foods makes their own burgers from plants rather than using a name brand 3rd party product, and manages to put together a pretty good $12-13 burger that includes a side. It's a bigger pile of fiber. (I'm not a vegetarian let alone vegan.)

</comment><comment><USER92> I have tried a lot of fake meat in China where you get entire restaurants serving mock meat of every variety - beef, chicken, many types of seafood. Though the rest of the characteristics of the meal were the prime reason to consume them for me - the flavor, the style, the ambience. As a life-long vegetarian, the Impossible burger worked differently for me. I have been seeing ads for the beef burgers forever and used to wonder about them, without really feeling like trying them. This gave me a chance to see what the "real" texture of meat was. Distinctly different toi the plenty of vegetarian burgers I have had, it came across as lot more dense, more toothy (for lack of a better word) and lot more filling than a regular one. I had only encountered them in more trendy restaurants and an glad to see them in the mainstream now.

</comment><comment><USER93> I'm allergic to soy protein, so I was bummed to hear that the impossible burger is switching to it. Same thing with Soylent. I guess if it's hydrolyzed I might be able to tolerate it, but I'm pretty sure they're using concentrate because it's cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER94> I have never eaten beef, except for 2 occasions.

Recently, I ordered an impossible burger. It was _so close_ to real beef (or as I remember it), that after 1 bite I stopped. I wasn't sure if I was eating real beef or not, and I didn't want to risk it.

For those who crave the taste of meat but want to be vegetarian: you must try the Impossible Burger.

Personally, I don't crave the taste of meat, I just like the form factor. So a good veggie patty is all I need.

BK was the first burger chain to carry the Gardenburger line of veggie burgers and this is why I would seek out BKs whenever I travelled. I hope they continue to carry them if they decide to include the IB too in their offerings.

</comment><comment><USER95> When I was vegetarian I really loved the Impossible burger when it was just coming out. I was amazed at how much it tasted like meat. Over time though it seems like most restaurants forgot how to cook them. I'd order one and it would be gray all the way through, cooked to hockey puck toughness. I stopped ordering them all together.

My guess is that as it was offered longer, fewer people would order it since it was no longer a novelty, so the cooks would forget that they don't need nearly enough time as a normal beef burger.

I'm no longer vegetarian but I'll definitely try v2 once it's more available.

</comment><comment><USER96> Today, you can order an Impossible Burger from the Bar Louie on 23rd St in Crystal City, Virginia, across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. - It's my favorite item on the menu, and I'm not a vegetarian. It's more tender, juicy, and tastier than a "real" burger patty.

Not sure about other Bar Louie locations.

Burger King has had vegetarian burger patties supplied by Morning Star Farms for around two decades now. These were the standard for quality for a long long time. I am glad something as amazing as Impossible Burger has stepped in to advance the legacy.

</comment><comment><USER97> How do the other components of a typical Burger King meal stack up health wise, ignoring the patty?

Bun, cheese, condiments, fries, seasoning? Is it "not that bad", or should the average Joe still feel guilty about indulging?

<comment><USER98> This is mentioned in the article. Same amount of protein, slightly less fat, 90% less cholesterol.

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> If you want a cheaper alternative to the Beyond Burger or Impossible Burger, try MorningStar's "Meat Lovers" burger. IMO it's just as good, with 27g of protein and without as much saturated fat.

<comment><USER100> Their patties had eggs in them last I checked, but that was a couple of years ago. So not a direct replacement for the BB or the IB.

<comment><USER99> Some of their products do, but not this one. This patty is called "Meat Lovers Vegan Burgers" [https://www.morningstarfarms.com/products/msf-veggie- burgers...](https://www.morningstarfarms.com/products/msf-veggie-burgers-meat- lovers-vegan-burger.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> I quite like the impossible burger and would order it four out of five times I'm in an establishment that serves it. But the other day I tried some impossible meat spicy "sausages". I don't know if they are a product from those guys or something the caterer concocted. They were addictive! I can definitely see a near future where meat "substitutes" (for lack of a better word) are the default

</comment><comment><USER102> Looks like the formula was originally based on seitan but is now based on soy. I've been experimenting with seitan recently in my own cooking. Its texture is almost perfect as a chicken substitute, but it's low in some important amino acids (lysine). It's very interesting that they've switched to a soy-based formula, since soy is a whole protein source. I may try to copy this at home...

</comment><comment><USER36> This is a good thing. More vegetarian fast-food options are coming down the pipe.

I've recently seen a few ads from Harvey's, went there and had a burger. It's not the same as beef but it's a burger.

The good part of having a vegetarian burger is that I don't enter into catatonic state for about 1/2 hour after I had fast food. I can eat fast food when meat is replaced with something else.

</comment><comment><USER103> I've tried them in a bunch of places, but the best impossible burger I've had is at Jardinière in Hayes Valley San Francisco.

They're closing down on April 27th (after 21 years) so you have 4 weeks to try it.

You don't need a reservation: the burger is available as bar food, so you can walk in any evening after 7pm and get one. Costs $16 I think.

If you haven't tried one yet this is a great place to start.

</comment><comment><USER104> I guess fast food burgers is where a lot of meat is consumed but ... oddly I find most fast food burgers to not taste like beef. Or maybe it is better said they taste "like" beef.

I'll be happy to replace meat with better alternatives when they come, but at least from my perspective it's not a huge step, although maybe it will make a big difference in the larger scope.

</comment><comment><USER105> Years ago I worked at a Burger King in the kitchen and someone ordered a vegetarian Whopper. We all looked at each other wondering how to do that when the manager came back and instructed us to make a Whopper without the meat patty. IE: A bun, with Mayo, lettuce, tomato, onion, ketchup and pickles. This sounds a lot more appetizing than what we served that day...

</comment><comment><USER106> This may sound like a stupid question, but I am genuinely trying to know/see what people at HN think. Is it less ethical to kill and eat mammals/birds than plants? I know farming and eating animals is certainly worse for the environment, but I wanted to know the ethics aspects of it. Why is the life of a potato tree any less significant than a cow's?

Edit: wording

<comment><USER107> Probably the same reason why the life of a cow is apparently less significant than that of a human.

There is a hierarchy of 'life'. Those who try to say 'All or Nothing' when it comes to harming a sentient being are either ignorant or simply trying to justify their meat-eating habits.

<comment><USER106> I am definitely justifying eating meat, but that is not a fallacy of the argument by itself. If you think of "hierarchy of life" as being closely related to us, then I could justify eating super intelligent octopus over cows. Again if you mean the hierarchy as intelligence then I would ask if it is ok to consume the less intelligent variants within a specific species. Moreover, would it be ethical if we bred/genetically engineered a cow/chicken which have near zero IQ and no emotion at all and consumed that only?

<comment><USER108> On the plants front, know that the ratio for beef is over 20 to 1. ie a cow eats 20 calories of plants, to produce 1 calorie of meat. It's far more efficient (and less plant consumption overall) to just eat the plant calories instead.

You could make the same argument with eating engineered zero sentience humans. Or humans born with extreme disabilities. I think ethically it comes down to does the being have the ability to feel pain and suffer, and the emotional responses that come with it. eg a pig is more intelligent than a 3 year old, can solve the mirror test and has deep bonds with family, builds emotional connections, has the basic emotions we have etc. It's hard to justify their suffering and ultimate consumption by us when there are so many alternatives available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> The article says a 90% reduction in cholesterol for the impossible burger, but shouldn't a vegetarian option have 0 cholesterol?

<comment><USER81> Fats and oils have cholesterol. It's generally healthier types and lower amounts than meat sources though. It's not always zero.

<comment><USER110> Calling out the cholesterol is kind of a distraction, because it is no longer what is associated with heart disease. The level of saturated fat in the impossible burger is actually very high.

 _Impossible Burger, for example, has more than double the saturated fat of an 85% lean beef burger: 3.6 grams per ounce (derived from coconut oil) versus 1.7._

[https://www.foodandwine.com/news/great-veggie-burger- debate-...](https://www.foodandwine.com/news/great-veggie-burger-debate-are- they-actually-good-you)

I know there is debate about the link between saturated fat and heart disease, and further question about the specific types of saturated fat in coconut oil. I have no idea what the truth is, but if you are on a low fat diet, impossible burger isn't a good substitute for beef.

I've tried impossible burger, and thought it was very good, so I'd eat it just for the flavor.

<comment><USER20> > The level of saturated fat in the impossible burger is actually very high.

Also high in sodium, which is part of the reason why it's so yummy (to some)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> I've tried the impossible burger on a friend's recommendation (fat burger).

He overblown it.

It's good. But it doesn't taste like meat and the texture isn't close, only the seared like texture works the inner is different. The flavor is off. I want to say the fat of meat gives it that good taste which impossible burger does not have.

<comment><USER108> Not sure which is was but the v2 is significantly better than v1 and they are constantly upgrading each year

</comment></comment><comment><USER112> I'm really looking forward to this. As far as I can tell, no restaurant or store sells Impossible burgers in my city or anywhere in reasonable driving distance, so this will be my first opportunity to try one. If they're as good as people tend to think they are, I'll have no issue moving my whopper habit over to these :D

</comment><comment><USER113> This is great. The more places people can choose not to eat meat, the better. Personally I don't foresee this demographic trying anything new, but for those who never eat meat or fast food and suddenly find ourselves in a pitstop somewhere, it's great to know that we'd have something to eat that isn't baby carrots and hummus.

</comment><comment><USER114> Where I currently work every now and then they have spaghetti and meatballs using the Impossible meat. I was so convinced that it was a legitimate substitute that I asked to see if I could just buy the meatballs straight-up to use at home. No dice.

I can't wait until the time I can just get them from the grocery store.

</comment><comment><USER115> The real change is going to happen when people can't tell a difference in taste and Walmart starts selling synthetic meat at a substantial discount to meat. At that point the consumer won't care just like the consumer doesn't care if their strawberry flavored cereal has real strawberries in it.

<comment><USER59> Strawberry flavoured cereal and synthetic meats are miles apart - if we're talking lab grown meat that's amazing - it's tender meat that has no ethical issues. If you're talking the impossible burger, that's a burger that again has no ethical issues and a minor compromise in taste. Nutritionally it's basically equivalent to a normal burger.

Strawberry flavoured cereal is nothing like a strawberry, and can't possibly hope to emulate any of its properties (not even taste).

<comment><USER14> There can be ethical issues surrounding lab grown meat, mostly around how much energy it takes to produce lab grown meat, and the nature of that energy production.

My guess is that beyond will soon be cheaper than regular meat, but that the requirements for creating lab grown are simply going to be too great to be able to compete economically or ecologically. I'm going to be very happy to be proven wrong someday, but that's my initial, knee-jerk reaction.

<comment><USER108> The lifecycle analysis I've studied showed it better than animal meat on every aspect including energy, do you have a link to show otherwise?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER116> I tried the V1 and found it lacking in terms of flavour and texture. It looked decent until you bite into it, at which point it looked less like meat and more like ground up veggies. I applaud the effort and look forward to tasting V2. That said I don't believe it is necessarily healthier for someone.

<comment><USER117> Why don't you think it would be healthier for some? The article claims 90% less cholesterol. There are many millions of people that have high cholesterol and $billions is spent to control it and many more $billions is spent on the heart disease consequences. Everything I've read says red meat is one of if not the biggest contributor to high cholesterol.

</comment></comment><comment><USER118> Sounds great. It's impressive to see just how far the industry has come, and what's in store for the future. Hopefully it'll be available near me at some point, but even in the last 5 years, the vegetarian alternatives have come a long long way (i.e. not just one menu item any more).

</comment><comment><USER119> This is a pretty great way for these simulation burgers to start out. When I get a fast food hamburger, I'm not expecting something processed. I haven't had an impossible burger but it looks a lot like a fast food hamburger. Looking forward to trying it!

</comment><comment><USER120> Does it smell like beef when cooking?

Part of BK's draw for me is the place smells like a backyard cook out.

<comment><USER81> The smells in some places are specifically manufactured. I'm sure the BK will still smell like a BK as this will be a minority of eaters.

<comment><USER121> Yeah, BK tastes like that fake smoke flavor stuff I don't like it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER122> As a vegetarian of ~20 years, I kinda find them _too_ meat like. I constantly wonder whether I accidentally got the wrong patty. I guess that's largely because I've only dim memories of the real thing.

Am I the only one in that?

</comment><comment><USER123> For those that think the Impossible is still not up to snuff:

Has anyone done any testing of mixing of real beef and impossible to get as close as possible to "real" perception while minimizing the amount of real?

<comment><USER108> There are startups doing that, eg better meat co etc. It's a smart way to reduce costs and environmental / suffering impact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER124> And those burger patties only have 5 carbs. So even Keto friendly. (minus bun).

</comment><comment><USER125> I am in a pizzeria right now and reading this. Looking at the pizza being prepared and thinking... Can we already have ham-like meat, like those slices they put on pizzas ? Or is it only beef-like meat for now?

<comment><USER126> The technology is more or less there. But it would require a significant amount of actual product development. The technology is capable of producing pretty much every meat, even new kinds of meat that smell like meat but where evolution did not conveniently evolve an animal to produce it.

For the company the issue is scale, and since the beef market is huge and profitable they are focusing on scale, more then on introducing other products.

<comment><USER125> Thanks. Can fish flesh be done as well?

<comment><USER108> Yes, the gardein fishless fillet has convinced several of my omnivore friends they are eating real fish. Same I've heard for the ocean hugger raw tuna sushi etc

<comment><USER125> That's exciting, I wish I could try it. So it means we can have sushis ?

<comment><USER108> Yep! I'm an angel investor in them from outside of the U.S. so I haven't tried it myself but friends who have say it's great: [https://oceanhuggerfoods.com/store- locator](https://oceanhuggerfoods.com/store-locator)

<comment><USER125> I am outside the US as well :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER127> Wow this is very interesting and I am very surprised by how much experience you guys have with this stuff. Does anybody know where I can order this in Germany?

</comment><comment><USER128> Oh no? Burger Kind currently has the best veggie burger of any fast food chain. That char flavour sets it apart. Though maybe that will be in the new one too.

</comment><comment><USER129> While not exactly tasting like beef the Impossible foods "Meat" is actually quite good in it's own right. I'll probably check this out.

</comment><comment><USER130> I am a life-long vegetarian. I have eaten the Impossible Burger and I liked it.

But there's something about engineered food that doesn't sit right. Am I alone?

<comment><USER131> I think it's appropriate to be worried. But I look at it this way: we can't make a lot of the foods we eat at home. I could not replicate white flour in my home at all. Same goes for many other staple ingredients that we mindlessly consume everyday (sugar, most grain meals like oat or cornmeal, most oils, chocolate).

</comment></comment><comment><USER132> I've always liked veggie burgers. The best ones are as good as very good hamburgers (in a different way). Some others are not so good.

</comment><comment><USER133> [https://youtu.be/B3xY6Ffy_wE?t=81](https://youtu.be/B3xY6Ffy_wE?t=81)

</comment><comment><USER134> A Burger King hamburger sounds awful already. A Burger King hamburger with _fake meat_ somehow manages to sounds even worse. It's not just shit food, it's shit food with a fake flavour.

I mean, can't we just try to push real food, that looks, smells and tastes like real food? It doesn't have to be meat. Just something that isn't made on a production line, from ingredients you can't identify and in a way you don't ever get to see?

<comment><USER135> If you hate Burger King, more power to you. But it's not just about putting real food out there, it's also about making it accessible to people who are lower on resources like money and time. Apparently it's super hard to do that. Even this rollout, which I applaud as getting healthier food in reach of more people, can be financially daunting to some families at an extra dollar per burger.

There's a food truck by my house that sells Impossible 2.0 burgers, and they charge $4 extra for it over meat burgers. If I can get something even close to that burger for half the price, I'm there, because it's that good.

<comment><USER134> Yes, that's what I mean by "why can't we push real food?". Why can't we make it cheap and fast for people who have no money or time? Why do those people need to eat shit, in order to stay satiated (but not really fed)?

And if fake meat is more expensive than the real deal _and_ is not the real deal, then how is it going to fix anything?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER136> I'm kind of sad, I read the article and got all excited and went to my local Burger King, but they didn't have it.

</comment><comment><USER137> They're really decent tasting, and it's exciting as a gateway to vegetarianism. I personally like veggie burgers that don't try to be meat better, but there's still a market for meat-likes.

One thing that gets me though: They smell terrible. I've cooked them in my house and have to air the place out afterwards. It's like an awful chemical plant fart. I'll never cook one in my house again.

<comment><USER138> The Impossible Burger patty is not available in grocery stores yet. I suspect that you are thinking of the Beyond Meat patties, which _are_ sold in grocery stores and do smell unappealing while cooking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER139> If it's anything like Del Taco's partnership with Beyond Meat it's going to taste like ass

</comment><comment><USER140> Aw, but it's only available in St. Louis MO right now. Even though it's made in Oakland CA.

</comment><comment><USER141> Carl's Jr already has the Beyond Meat. I can't wait for the lab grown meat versions.

</comment><comment><USER142> As someone allergic to legumes, increasingly so each year, It really sucks when I get whammied, more from protein sources than the oils, but all the same. I don't have a problem with things like this as long as it's clearly labelled as such. I sometimes think that fast food is the devil (Jack in the box and Taco Bell in particular).

</comment><comment><USER143> Wow, I had no idea Impossible Foods was HQ'd in Redwood City (my home).

</comment><comment><USER144> now can they slowly cut regular beef patties with veggie patties until consumers notice? Maybe like 5-10%?

Most food companies have slowly started doing this to reduce, sugar, calories and fat

<comment><USER55> Why would they do that? the impossible burgers cost more. And besides the cholesterol they have almost identical nutrition facts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER145> Oh, Haha, I thought this was an April fools prank

</comment><comment><USER146> In Canada, they already have Beyond Meat patties.

</comment><comment><USER147> Every modern society, looking back fifty years, condemns behavior once considered normal (male-only voting, interracial marriage bans, jailing gays, etc).

I'm convinced industrial animal agriculture will be one of the things today's society is condemned for, fifty years from now.

<comment><USER148> I don't think that will happen until we get both cheaper and better animal product substitutes. Vegan substitutes usually fail at both which means they are niche mid-upper class foods.

<comment><USER149> Although that seems like it would hopefully fix itself as demand for vegan substitutes increases. The Impossible Burger is a good example of a vegan substitute that tastes uncannily like the thing it imitates.

As for cost, it seems intuitive that turning soy into a milk substitute would be cheaper than feeding soy to a cow and milking it if both were done on the same scale. On top of that, some countries tax substitutes higher than the products they replace. In Germany, for example, non-dairy milk has a VAT rate of 19% while dairy milk gets the reduced 7% rate for staple foods.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER150> Pretty sure I had a Burger King veggie burger about 20 years ago in Sydney

</comment><comment><USER151> Really looking forward to an expedia-like ad featuring charleton heston

</comment><comment><USER152> "Tastes like a real Whopper" is a backhanded complement if I ever heard one. One of the worst burgers you can buy.

<comment><USER153> "Tastes like this mass-market volume selling product" is a great way to sell a product in volume to the masses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER154> Is it really better to make something "like" a meat product instead of just making a good vegan/vegetarian product?

Since going lacto-ovo vegetarian myself, I just want tasty food, doesn't matter if it's "like" a meat product.

<comment><USER155> Yes, it is better! Part of the goal is to provide a "gateway patty" to make it easier for meat-eaters to reduce their consumption. Good for their health, good for the environment, good for the animals.

(Also, I've been vegan for years and _love_ the Impossible burger.)

<comment><USER156> > _Good for their health_

It's definitely not clear that eating meat is bad for your health. In fact there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's _good_ for you.

<comment><USER157> Also the impossible burger has about the same amount of calories as an 80% lean ground beef burger, so it's no better as far as calories are concerned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER158> These are simply highly-processed patties.

      Here's the full ingredient list for the new recipe:
      Water, Soy Protein Concentrate, Coconut Oil, Sunflower
      Oil, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Potato Protein,
      Methylcellulose, Yeast Extract, Cultured Dextrose, Food
      Starch Modified, Soy Leghemoglobin, Salt, Soy Protein
      Isolate, Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E), Zinc Gluconate,
      Thiamine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), Sodium Ascorbate
      (Vitamin C), Niacin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin
      B6), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12. Contains:
      Soy [0]

The vegetarian aspect is coincidence.

Bernays-level marketing though.

[0] - [https://impossiblefoods.com/newrecipe/](https://impossiblefoods.com/newrecipe/)

</comment><comment><USER82> In terms of resources used in their production, a $6 burger expends more resources than a $3 burger.

For those worried about the ethics of eating animals, I can understand the extra $3.

For those just worried about other wastes (eg: losing 90% of the food value by feeding it to cattle), this isn't a magic bullet, for now. Those extra $3 went into something else, whether it was a complicated energy-intense process, or luxury vacations for the patent owners of the process.

A $4 beef burger where $1 went toward reforestation or some other project may have the most impact over a $3 beef burger or $6 Impossible burger.

<comment><USER159> > _In terms of resources used in their production, a $6 burger expends more > resources than a $3 burger._

The meat/dairy industry in the US is subsidized to the tune of $38 billion, there's a little more to it than "Costs more at the store so it must cost more resources to make."

<comment><USER82> Sounds like you've identified the real problem.

Though the other plant inputs in this burger are probably subsidized too.

Either we need to subsidize the impossible burger, or properly tax/desubsidize agriculture.

<comment><USER159> There's not a lot of hard data I can find on where the money goes, but the table on Wikipedia (2004) indicates that we mostly subsidize livestock feed grains, then cotton, wheat, and rice. Those four added up to 64%. Soybeans and products come in 5th at 7.6%. Fruits and vegetables, pretty much zero.

Health-wise, it makes all the wrong things cheaper.

<comment><USER82> What I want to see is what the pricing would be without the subsidies.

My guess is that the retail price impact would be tiny. Kinda like the calculations where Walmart could double associate salaries by raising prices by 6%.

Are we talking about a $5 steak becoming $5.09 or becoming $10?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER160> > Burger King's chief marketing officer, Fernando Machado, said that in the > company's testing so far, customers and even employees had not been able to > tell the difference between the old meaty Whopper and the new one.

Ugh. First: The vegetarians that I know don't like meat. So making a veggie burger that tastes like the thing they don't like is just dumb.

Second: When I tasted an Impossible Burger, it was awful. It tasted like a horrible veggie burger.

At the places that I've tried it, the staff usually apologize as I order it, and warn me that I probably won't like it. They all tell me that the ordinary veggie burger that they used to serve was better.

At that point, they hint that they were strong-armed by their distributor to server it.

I personally reduced my meat consumption for environmental and health reasons, but when I want a burger, I get a burger.

<comment><USER46> I'm a vegetarian. I love meat. I'd eat meat all the time if I knew it didn't cause horrifying suffering and environmental damage.

I've had the impossible burger (and liked it) as well, and on a highly mass produced burger like the whopper I'm willing to bet it's close to the real thing.

<comment><USER161> Abstinence from meat seems like an extreme step if all you are concerned about is environmental damage. Just eating meat at a "normal" frequency of two or three times a week would be enough to mitigate much of the impact. True organic agriculture is not possible without meat production as a side effect, and this can only be replaced by nonrenewable synthetic fertilizers.

<comment><USER162> I'm not the person you're responding to, but for me it's much easier to abstain from meat than to moderate it to a certain amount of times per week. It's not difficult for me to eat meat, but it would be if I were to half- abstain.

<comment><USER46> Our family buys a whole animal from a local farmer periodically. We evaluate how the animal was raised, the sustainability of the farm, etc. to the best of our ability. It's the one exception to my vegetarianism. It results in me eating meat every now and again, but meat I know was treated humanely.

It does make it much easier to 'half-abstain' because it's not an exception I can make easily on a whim at the grocery store. Buying a whole animal takes some planning.

It's been an ideal combination for us -- higher quality meat, considerably less meat consumed, and education to my kiddo about where meat comes from (and what responsible looks like on a farm).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Someone is jamming BBC broadcasts in the Middle East - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/transmission-interference.html

<comment><USER2> This isn't that hard to do. You just need a dish, a suitable power source and point it at the satellite. Because of the, in general, wide area that a satellite is looking down on the transmitter can be anywhere in quite a wide area (even when you are talking about the relatively narrow uplink antenna).

Given that these satellites are geostationary they can be seen from a very wide area on the ground. Back in 2003 Telstar-12 was jammed from a station in Cuba apparently run by Iran (<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH22Ak03.html>) to block transmissions to the Americas and Europe.

<comment><USER3> You seem to describe satellite uplink jamming: perturbing the link going from the content provider to the satellite. I would expect this uplink would be redundant and encrypted in some way. Maybe even using optical communication for it, which would enable having a very narrow uplink receiver.

Thinking about it, jamming the downlink in a large area to get the same effect seems to be much harder than jamming the uplink.

<comment><USER4> To jam the downlink, you'd need to be between the satellite and the ground receiving dish, or have line-of-sight to the receiving dish and a ton of power. This only disrupts the one receiving dish, so the attack is isolated.

Jamming the uplink is much easier. All you have to do is over-power the signal from the transmission station(s) up to the satellite. Encryption doesn't do you any good. Having redundant uplinks also doesn't do much good since the resources of the satellite are limited, and the amount of power you can get here on the ground is more or less unlimited by comparison. There are multiple uplink transponders (chunks of spectrum used as carrier frequencies), and you can allocate them in a redundant fashion, but it's expensive due to the limited resources on the sat.

The interesting, and undisclosed, question is whether or not the attack is only affecting the BBC? If so, then it's a more sophisticated attack targeting just the carrier frequencies (uplink transponders) being used by the BBC. A high power wide-band attack is crude but easier to perform, and would jam all of the channels broadcast from the satellite since it would over-load all of the uplink transponders.

Sadly, there are still a lot of old and poorly designed satellites still in use; it's kinda like finding unfixable Win95 systems on your network infected with malware. Since they're in orbit and cost a whole lot of money, fixing or replacing them aren't a viable options.

The only good news for older satellites is both the uplink (to satellite) and the downlink (to ground receivers) often have somewhat adjustable footprints. If you can identify the ground location of the jamming signal, you _might_ be able to exclude its region from the uplink footprint. The trouble is, if the satellite is also being used for things like sat-phones, then you just cut off all customers in the excluded area of the uplink footprint.

By the fact that this was made public, there's probably nothing that can be technically done about the jamming.

<comment><USER5> > _...if the satellite is also being used for things like sat-phones..._

And, reading between the lines, that right there is possibly your biggest clue. Beyond the juvenile intrigue of someone breaking something just to see if they can, or even some chintzy politically motivated anti-propaganda operation, another motive might lie in assisting/disrupting (depending on whose side your on) clandestine operations in a specific geographic area.

It's tempting to wonder if maybe it's just some Greek crypto-anarchists horsing around, but more likely it'd be someone with heavy-weight resources and know-how like CIA/GRU agents operating in Syria.

From the article: "...together with a number of other broadcasters, is experiencing deliberate, intermittent interference to its transmissions to audiences in Europe and the Middle East."

<comment><USER6> I think you hit the nail on the head. This is very interesting in light of Turkey intercepting "radar" equipment from Russia to Syria.

If the jamming is coming from Syria, I'd say it's the government trying to jam the encrypted satellite radios of the rebels. (Some of the aid to the rebels from the US and Europe was for secure comms.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In unrelated news, the EU forced persian TV channels off these transponders a few days ago, citing the "targeted" sanctions intended to prevent Iran from drifting further afield.

<comment><USER8> The word 'persian' there is a little misleading. The European satellite providers stopped carrying the Iranian government's channels, not Persian- language channels in general.

<comment><USER9> Apparently the BBC opposes the removal of the iranian/persian channels as well. From the article "we strongly condemn any practice designed to disrupt audiences' free access to news and information."

<comment><USER10> It maybe true that the BBC opposes this, but at the same time the BBC is beholden to UK and EU law; i.e. follow the law or be fined and/or loose all your licenses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Since I'm not a native English speaker, I had to google what "Jamming" was about and found this article in Wikipedia where actually explains the difference between Jamming and Interference.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming>

</comment><comment><USER12> Looks like it's coming from Syria:

[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hXpzxDWlS...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hXpzxDWlSkzvnoluujHCSgaus50w?docId=CNG.b7490d699f872ba1c830ddc9ac429b95.d21)

<comment><USER13> That link is dead for me, but here's an article from The Telegraph with the same allegation citing "sources within broadcasting companies".

Apparently Syria sought Iranian assistance to disrupt the signals.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9618937/Syria- accused-of-blocking-BBC-broadcasts.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone have any information on how this could be done? Does this require high tech broadcasting equipment to intercept the transmissions (government sponsored?) or is it something that _anyone_ could do?

<comment><USER7> anyone can do it, for some values of "anyone" that includes having a good power source, some rf equipment and a few books. mostly the problem involves defending the equipment when people unhappy about said behavior arrive.

<comment><USER15> How would you track or locate such a jamming device? is it possible?

<comment><USER16> If you'd like a good demonstration of how a jamming device could be found, simply buy a high-power 10 meter radio transciever and set it up to constantly transmit music at 28.400 MHz. You'll effectively monopolize the frequency over a large distance, and within a very short period of time the FCC will arrive to demonstrate their RF tracking techniques.

And to levy a huge fine. Do not do this.

<comment><USER17> The FCC won't care, but a bunch of angry HAMs will be riding their rascal scooters around your neighborhood with directional antennas.

Calling channels are defined by the ARRL, not the FCC.

<comment><USER16> The FCC will care if you are transmitting without a license, broadcasting (rather than performing 2-way communications), and sending music--all three of these are violations of FCC regulations. Once they determine that it's an ongoing disruption, they will come out with a direction-finding rig, as they have in the past for "pirate" operators causing disruption.

Oh, and HAM is not an acronym, it's just ham.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Isn't the title a bit misleading? I think Europe should be included as well.

<comment><USER19> That's really curious I don't know why anyone would write just Middle East rather than Europe and the Middle East. Finnw care to comment?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is not as bad as when NATO bombed Libya's TV station during its attack on Gaddafi.

</comment><comment><USER21> "We strongly condemn any practice designed to disrupt audiences' free access to news and information."

The identity of the culprit should be obvious!

<http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/>

</comment><comment><USER22> Shortwave radio to the rescue.

</comment><comment><USER23> Or something...!

</comment><comment><USER24> I have to wonder why the BBC would release this. What is the motivation?

Obviously whoever is "jamming" them is not going to read this, say, "My bad" and just stop.

I am really wondering who their real audience, in this case, is. Is this an attempt to influence government actions in the U.K. or the EU itself? Is this part of a public opinion swaying operation to sway the British people so that more of them will support the idea of military action in Syria?

It's all speculation at this point, but I do wonder.

<comment><USER25> If you were a global international media company and someone were jamming your signal over a region of the planet wouldn't you put out a short, factual press release too?

If nothing else, it will help some of the affected viewers know to quit smacking their televisions on the side.</comment></comment>


Mobile development frameworks - <AUTHOR>

Hello guys,

       I have an idea for a smartphone web application that can be used every one of us(end user: every one of us).i have never developed a mobile app.are there any frameworks,docs that can help to do that,i need somthing that can run in Windows,Android,iOs
 <comment><USER2> Checkout <http://phonegap.com> and <http://jquerymobile.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you jbail.jquery mobile is the mobile jquery library,nice.</comment></comment>


The Day TDD Died - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLe41aCvoc

<comment><USER2> Don't play this back around your kids (language).</comment>


Reddit Clone — Now accepting registrations - <AUTHOR> http://www.bestinclass.dk/index.php/2010/02/reddit-clone-with-user-registration/

<comment><USER2> Worth a look if only for the link to the reddit clone in QBASIC.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> One new thing to me about Clojure.

Check out this one line of Clojure code:

(if-let [user (@users email)] //do stuff

And the equivalent in most other languages:

for (e in users) { if (e.email == email_passed_in) { user = e } } if (user) { //do stuff}

<comment><USER3> foreach (user, users) { if (user.email == email) continue; // do stuff }

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a matter of aesthetics, but you're still in a for loop. In the Clojure code you have assigned user to a variable and are out of the "loop".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Frankly, using the word "clone" is rather insulting to the Reddit developers because it suggests that their years of work (<http://code.reddit.com/>) amount to nothing more than a trivial programming example.

</comment><comment><USER5> Reddit clone in 4 lines of perl: <http://gist.github.com/299579></comment>


Timelion: The time series composer for Kibana – Elastic - <AUTHOR> https://www.elastic.co/blog/timelion-timeline?ultron=luke-warm-email17&blade=touch-email&hulk=email&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT0Rjd1lqZzBNMkpsWVdFeCIsInQiOiJSYWw1RmJmNkpWTHJTWDdHeDM2c1I5TVFuVDYyZFN5MUVQTmRCVEVUR2grNVZcL1FJTklpZHZoK1diQmc3UWlzWXRvZG5jWWc5SnhXUk5jRW00N05EdTVUM29COE1iQXJ6eEh4SjR5Q0pmeW00Vkt2MFJJdkZkcG1sTUNsZEdYNVUifQ%3D%3D <comment><USER2> > Timelion, pronounced "Timeline"

Does that comes naturally to native English speakers, especially with the lion icon at the left of the name in the product dashboard?</comment>


IPhone as a company worth more than all but 10 companies in the world - <AUTHOR> http://www.tuaw.com/2010/11/19/iphone-as-a-company-worth-more-than-all-but-10-companies-in-the/

<comment><USER2> Norton anti-virus is saying this is a phishing website</comment>


Samsung committing to three generations of Android OS upgrades - <AUTHOR> https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-raises-the-bar-for-mobile-experience-innovation-committing-to-three-generations-of-android-os-upgrades <comment><USER2> This isn't wildly impressive. Looking at the wikipedia page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history) you can see a new Android is released every year around August.

So what Samsung seem to be saying is that we will support your Android device for 3-4 years. That is a definite improvement but not a lot of support for a $1000+ device.

> For example, the Galaxy S20 lineup, announced in February 2020 powered by > Android 10, will get support for three OS upgrades starting with Android 11 > to give users a refreshing phone experience. The Galaxy S20 line-up will > also be the first Galaxy devices to receive the Android 11 upgrade later > this year5, with other devices to follow shortly thereafter.

I had an original Samsung Galaxy Note which I loved as being one of the first big phones. The OS support was abysmal though which was one of the reasons I switched to the Nexus/Pixel line. Now Google hard cuts the support off at 3 years for the Pixels which I resent immensely on a very expensive device.

<comment><USER3> Depends on which upgrades you are concerned about. I agree that having new os versions supported for longer than 3-4 years would be good, but at least it looks like they will be supporting security updates for longer now, 6 years of security upgrades if I'm not mistaken.

<comment><USER4> How will they support security updates for 6 years when Google isn't supporting that? Google usually deprecates support after 2-3 years. Also some security fixes require new kernels so there's that.

For Samsung to do that they'll essentially will have to fork Android.

<comment><USER3> So they are supporting three generations of android version, so if a phone comes out on 8, that means it will receive major upgrades to 10, so that's 3 years there and then Google seem to support 3 more years of security of 10 after it comes out.

I'm aware android 8 is old now, just using it as an example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is one of the biggest reasons I'm a loyal iPhone user. I experienced this first-hand when my iPhone 5 still received updates for a year after Google's Nexus 7 tablet despite the Nexus 7 having come out two years later. And the Nexus tablet stopped being able to charge...

Phones that cost $1000+ are fine when you can keep them for 5+ years.

<comment><USER6> I have to agree, Apple when it comes to updates and how long they support devices do put Android offering to shame.

<comment><USER7> Well, for that money you can buy multiple Android phones and never ever run a two year old phone anymore.

<comment><USER8> Flagship? No. If you want an iphone level phone it basically costs you iphone level dollars whether you want Android or an iphone.

Of course you can buy a cheap phone, but for a 1K phone I expect support for more than 3 years or I wont buy it. That is one thing keeping me from switching back to Android. I likely never will with the preloaded crapware and lack of support.

<comment><USER9> If you want iPhone level performance - even that of a $399 SE, you can't find it an Android at any cost....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I do think we should make note of the fine print:

>"By supporting _up to_ three generations of Android OS upgrade, we are extending the lifecycle of our Galaxy products and making a promise that we will provide a simple and secure mobile experience that takes advantage of the latest innovations as soon as they are available."

"Up to" being the key here. Not guaranteed.

<comment><USER11> I saw that, what's the point of even having a press release for such a vague promise.

<comment><USER12> Well, by using "up to", they at least guarantee that they won't support if for more than three generations...

Contrast for instance with Pine64 that guarantees they will manufacture their devices for at least five years. I sometimes feel like smartphones should be regulated: standardize everything when it comes to interfaces and footprints: battery, cameras, etc. That was done in the european union for chargers, and I'm willing to bet that very few people will argue it was a bad thing.

Or maybe artificially limit the number of devices a smartphone manufacturer can sell during a given time?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A step in the right direction but still a ridiculous situation for tablets now that they are pushing them into laptop replacement category, who would buy a laptop knowing that your >1000$ device is going to be impossible to update in 3-4 years...

<comment><USER14> To be fair, very few people buy Android tablets nowadays.

<comment><USER15> what do you mean by very few?

In the UK, Apple market share for tablets seems to be ~65%

<comment><USER16> Of the remainder, how many are the Amazon tablets? They are Android but are specifically designed for content consumption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looks like my just-purchased S10e makes the cut, although the Galaxy Tab S5e purchased three months ago does not. Alas.

The more reassuring commitment, IMO, would be to four years of security updates. I don't necessarily need the latest-greatest version of Android to feel safe, but I _do_ need to know that the latest batch of high-profile CVE's will be plugged.

<comment><USER17> I think they were already doing 4 years of security updates (3 years monthly, 1 year quarterly). My 2017 Note 8 just dropped to the quarterly updates train

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Read this and thought, might be worth a try to upgrade my aged SM-T719 as it's gotten dog slow... but WTF? All Samsung does _starts_ at 10 inch (for comparison: the T719 is 8 inch), that's way too big for me - and it's a 2017 model which means everything is aged!

Is there _anything_ of decent quality (including availability of spare parts like batteries and screens, as well as somewhat reliable updates and a somewhat new-ish CPU) on the market at the moment? Hell I'd even drop my previous hard requirement of a decent camera and NFC... but it looks like the market between the 6-ish inch Note series and 10-inch stuff is totally dead :(

</comment><comment><USER19> Ah yes, the Samsung that sells 5 different phones under the same model designation. Will be interesting to see if _all_ the submodels and variations get updated or if carrier branded models will languish.

Nokia (HMD Global) has probably been the most reliable Android vendor in the Android One program for actually running long support cycles. Oneplus has been 'ok'. I have a Moto X4 that got 3 generations of official OS support and continues to get monthly security updates as well as a fully working LineageOS port to Android 10.

Nothing compares to first-gen iPhone SE though that is getting yet another year of updates. 6 major OS releases will have been supported...

<comment><USER20> The android community is still the most reliable with updates. (My oneplus 3 is still getting updates with LineageOS and so is the oneplus one)

<comment><USER19> Ultimately can't rely on this. The LOS devs are good but there's still going to be a point where blobs can't be adapted well or at all to new android major versions.

Also specifically more on point with Samsung: They are a vendor that's notoriously bad to community support. I would not make purchasing decisions based on the hopes that the community is going to pick things up after Samsung decides to drop the ball.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why define it by generations instead of time? And also the fine print notes they do monthly and quarterly security updates. What happens if a more serious issue comes up in between those regular updates?

</comment><comment><USER22> I guess that's great... Now we need other manufacturers to do the same, and IMHO extend this time to be at least of 5 years.

</comment><comment><USER23> So, 3 to 4 years. Still less than Fairphone's 5 years. But hey, an improvement is still an improvement.

<comment><USER24> It says "up to" and restricts to "select" models. I don't see the improvement, the press release isn't claiming anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Thank you for submitting this as it reminded me to check the support status of my phone and it turns out that support ended in March this year. I suppose now I have to get a new phone. I don't think I will be getting another Android or iOS phone.

<comment><USER26> If length of support is your concern, why not iOS? Apparently, iOS 14 will support the iPhone 6s, which means that this 2015 phone will be supported until at least 2021.

<comment><USER25> Length of support is not my only concern, but even if it were, I would prefer to have a phone that works until its hardware is literally incompatible with the network, even if I have to keep it up to date myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'll believe this when I see it.

There have been multiple "we'll support releases for X years" in Android land, all of which have seemingly disappeared without providing the claimed support.

</comment><comment><USER6> Most people would be more interested in just getting security updates and bug fixes for 5 years+ or more.

<comment><USER28> Yes exactly. As a user, running the latest Android version on old hardware isn't terribly useful. And even if every manufacturer did the same, it wouldn't make developers' life much easier given the hardware fragmentation.

Google should really figure out a way to push security updates without the OEM's involvement. They can already update everything that's bundled in Play services, and core apps like the browser and the webview. It's good, but not enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Finally?</comment>


Two Coasts. One Virus. New York Suffered Nearly 10 Times Worse Than California - <AUTHOR> https://www.propublica.org/article/two-coasts-one-virus-how-new-york-suffered-nearly-10-times-the-number-of-deaths-as-california <comment><USER2> Some of the statements about population density in this article contradict the information presented in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density) unless you use a very specific definition of "city".

The article calls SF the country's second densest city. It's not even the second densest city with population over 75k. It's the second densest city not in a larger city's metro area, and the gaps to NYC in both size and density are huge. NYC has 900% more population at 60% greater density.

There are certainly many things that NY did wrong, but I think that the impact of extreme clustering on in-cluster viral spread is too readily ignored, and the opening of this article doesn't help that. There's a lot of very interesting coverage in the rest of the article though, and you should still read it anyway. Just maybe salt the first few pages and then read the rest of it while saying "I salted the first few pages" like Murray would.</comment>