Soylent Closes $50M Series B Round Led by GV - <AUTHOR> http://blog.soylent.com/post/160300733977/soylent-closes-50-million-series-b-round-led-by <comment><USER3> Soylent gets a lot of hate (I'm looking forward to skipping out on this thread before the inevitable negative comments from people who assume that Soylent consumers will eat nothing but Soylent for the rest of their lives), but to me, it's solved a large problem in my life: what to eat when I'm hungry but I don't have enough time to prepare a full meal. It can happen every now and then when I'm rushing around, and soylent blows away whatever I'd eat before (nothing, some Mexican I bought in the Mission, clif bars, etc).

I've actually switched over to a product called Ample which is similar to Soylent but a bit more health conscious with ingredient choice. Still, I've got nothing against Soylent.

<comment><USER4> What advantage does Soylent have over say, other meal replacements e.g. Slimfast, weight watcher shakes, juices etc that have existed for years before it and will continue to do so for years after? All I see is SV hype and marketing. In fact you just showed that Soylent is easily outplayed because you switched to a different drink already.

<comment><USER5> You can't go hiking with Slimfast, Weight Watcher shakes, or juices.

What I don't understand: the REI market is the one place where Soylent is inarguably better than any other product in its niche, and nobody seems to give a shit about that.

I carry a bag of dry Soylent in my SAR pack. When I get sent out on an assignment, I have no idea how long I might be out for. For less weight than any other option, I have dinner and breakfast and lunch if necessary.

If I know in advance I'm going to be out hiking for more than about three hours, a pre-mixed solution of it in a Nalgene, with a quick chug here and there, really beats back the fatigue.

The REI market is not small, and it's got a huge focus on ultralight, ultralight, ultralight now. Soylent really seems to be missing an opportunity here.

<comment><USER6> What are the acronyms REI and SAR?

<comment><USER7> REI = Recreational Equipment, Inc. (essentially a a camping and hiking store though they do have some general sports stuff like bikes)

SAR = search and rescue

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Although I was initially brought onto the hype train by great marketing and the promises of health and complete nutrition, I realize that my initial reliance on Soylent was actually part of a deeper problem, brought on by problems such as depression and inappropriate time management. When in reality I should have had enough time to eat out or possibly even cook a meal, I found myself relying on Soylent. I didn't leave my room, and had trouble doing anything. I soon began to lose my appetite and had to force myself to gulp it down, attempting to make sure I wouldn't starve myself. Drinking Soylent was ruining my health.

I think many people approach Soylent as a way to solve some of their problems, but people should realize it won't be and can't be. Another person I knew had bought a few boxes of Soylent attempting to lose weight. In reality, she did not change her weight appreciably, as all she did was consume the same number of calories she would have otherwise.

Lastly I would like to add that there is some debate over the actual nutritional efficacy of the composition of Soylent. If you look at the bioavailability of their calcium supplement, calcium carbonate, it is significantly less than the one found in milk, calcium phosphate. However, Soylent will still claim that it is possible to have 100% D.V. of calcium with 5 bottles.

Overall, Soylent is probably not a healthy solution to your problems.

<comment><USER9> I tried Soylent v1.2-1.4 for about 6 months thinking I could better regulate my calorie intake and lose some weight. In the end it wasn't for me.

I found that it did nothing to satiate my appetite and that I'd be hungry, bloated and gassy all day long. The bloating and gas were incredibly uncomfortable and never really subsided. Eschewing the normal 3 meals a day routine and doing 5 meals didn't seem to help. Despite the fact that I was only consuming 2000 calories, 500 less than recommended for my size/weight/age/sex, I managed to gain weight.

The powder was messy and would coat whatever surface I prepared it on with a fine dusting. The liquid smelled unpleasant after a while and eventually I started to smell like it when I sweat. The liquid was basically an oil and solid particulate suspension so if you spilled it on anything it was difficult to clean up because the particles would work their way into fabric. Not such a problem for clothes but more so for furniture or car seats.

From a social perspective it really sucked because meals are a time to socialize it was awkward to go out with people and not order anything. I gradually moved to half days which actually curbed the weight gain I was seeing and eventually motivated me to give it up.

<comment><USER10> > Despite the fact that I was only consuming 2000 calories, 500 less than > recommended for my size/weight/age/sex, I managed to gain weight.

2500kcal is only suitable for people living a very active lifestyle or exercising a lot. Note that going to the gym for 45minutes 3 times a week is not being active.

When I spent an hour lifting heavy weights 5 times a week, my weight was stable at around 2500kcal.

The reality is that unless you work as a construction worker or other type of job that keep you active most of the day and/or exercise a _lot_ (my 5x a week were heavy compound powerlifting lifts), chances are you need to adjust those recommendations down substantially.

Ultimatly the only thing you can do is to gradually lower your intake until you're losing weight. That you were adding weight at 2000kcal is not that surprising.

I've not tried Soylent, but I've trued Huel, and compared to what you described it seems a lot more pleasant, and more importantly, if anything I've found it hard to eat enough on it because it fills me up so much. The biggest problem for me in using it as much as I'd _like_ is that filling me up doesn't stop me craving food - it's a reward thing for me.

<comment><USER9> Every source I've found indicates that my maintenance caloric intake should be 2400+ calories. Where do you get your information from?

<comment><USER10> A steady stream of accounts like yours of "it says my intake should be X, but when I ate X I added weight".

In your own case you've yourself proven that the sources you've found are wrong or at least have a ridiculous error margin, given that you've measured that your maintenance intake is much lower than your sources claim it should be.

Meanwhile it's exceedingly rare to see the opposite.

One of the big issues appears to be that people take advice based on a belief they are more active than they are. E.g. as I mentioned elsewhere, pretty much anyone in an office job is sedentary by default, even if they spend most of their spare time being active.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Long-time lurker, first time commenter. I've seen several people mention that there have not been meal replacement products like Soylent ever. The nutritional profile reminds me of EAS Myoplex + additional vitamins. Myoplex has been around since the mid 90s and was always marketed as a meal replacement. Learned about it from a bodybuilder website when trying to gain weight and easily "eat" extra meals. They have never marketed in the way Soylent has but it serves the same purpose. I took it to replace at least one meal a day for about two years. Blood work during that time period was normal and it worked well imo. Nothing against Soylent but the product is not a new concept.

<comment><USER12> Soylent does look similar to EAS Mypolex (comparing the nutrition from here: [https://www.amazon.com/EAS-Myoplex-Original-Protein- Chocolat...](https://www.amazon.com/EAS-Myoplex-Original-Protein- Chocolate/dp/B00148RKFU)). One issue is that to get 2,000 calories of EAS Myoplex you'd have to drink about 7 bottles. If you drink 7 bottles you'd be getting way too much of some vitamins and not enough of others.

<comment><USER11> The purpose is not completely replace all of your meals with it. I realize some use Soylent as such but in general having one item be your sole food source is probably not the best idea. If I'm not mistaken even the packaging of Soylent state that it's not intended to replace every meal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The new cacao Soylent is so much tastier than I expected it would be. Despite all the mocking Soylent gets, the product is excellent. Maybe it's groundbreaking and maybe it's not, but it's definitely helpful to my life.

<comment><USER14> The cacao is pretty good, but the other new flavor, nectar, is terrible IMO. Tastes like liquid pez. I still prefer the original flavor for meals. Cacao tastes more like a treat than a meal.

<comment><USER15> It's my favorite. Tastes like the milk leftover from a bowl of Fruit Loops.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The crowds here saying that Soylent is "just" rebranded Ensure/Slimfast/etc sound like the same voices that said Dropbox was rebranded rsync/scp/ftp. The arguments are cookie-cutter and wrong for the same reasons they were with Dropbox.

<comment><USER17> Ok, so what are those reasons exactly?

I actually don't believe your analogy holds. My mom uses Dropbox but she would never use rsync. But my mom can drive to Target or open her Amazon app and buy Ensure just as easily as she can order Soylent.

I _do_ think Soylent is just rebranded Ensure/Slimfast and there's nothing wrong with that. For the most part, Ensure targets baby boomers, Slimfast targets gen-xers or people who want to lose weight, and Soylent targets millenials/professionals. Again, nothing wrong with it (so long as you don't act like Soylent is some revolutionary/brave-new-world product).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> On the topic of raising/burning $:

I remember seeing that they had a position open for a software engineering role. If I remember the job description correctly, they've built out their own online store?

I recently saw that you can buy their products through Amazon - I wonder if it was money well spent to roll out their own web store versus using Amazon/Shopify. As a past customer I don't remember seeing any particularly unique feature that made hiring in-house staff for this aspect necessary.

<comment><USER19> If you order through the website, they have a subscription product with a decent set of features, like different pricing and pausing subscriptions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It amazes me that VCs find this type of business interesting because it's not defensible in many of the ways a software company is. I am also not sure why the company wants to raise this much money -- they need to continue growing like crazy (outside of tech regions where engineers who are unwilling to cook live) or go bust.

Nonetheless, the drink is ok. I tried it for a few months. Instead of avoiding cooking, I have embraced it, and now cook incredible meals for $3-$4 using my Joule sous vide. Eating real food has changed my mood significantly.

If anyone in SF wants to buy a whole box of Soylent Original (white bottles), I will sell an extra I have for 40% off. Must pick up, located at Chavez/Bryant.

<comment><USER21> > it's not defensible in many of the ways a software company is

As a customer, I don't think about that at all. They may open source their recipes and products, but buying bottles from them is still relatively cheap and by far the most convenient option. Also, whenever mistakes do happen, their support is excellent. This is why they'll continue to get my business.

<comment><USER20> you will begin to consider alternatives when they are available, and at a lower cost

<comment><USER21> I'm not so sure — alternatives at a comparable price are already on the market. I could make it myself and save more but it's not worth the tradeoff of time and inconvenience to save $1–2.

Personally my price sensitivity for it is pretty low. At $2–3 per meal, it's cheaper than any other meals besides breakfast throughout the week.

<comment><USER22> There's a lot of DIY recipes and some are supposedly just as complete and a whole lot cheaper: [https://www.completefoods.co/diy/recipes/brets-soylent- oat-r...](https://www.completefoods.co/diy/recipes/brets-soylent-oat-rice- complete-low-price)

<comment><USER21> Do they solve the shelf life problem though?

This is the biggest pain point I experienced with the powder version of Soylent — it's inconvenient that the taste goes off and it starts going bad after just 2–3 days whereas the bottles are good for months or more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> To hopefully short-circuit a lot of pointless debate, the product you're about to mention is not equivalent to Soylent unless all of the following conditions are true:

1\. It contains enough calories for an average healthy adult to live on (2000/cal/day, give or take)

2\. The sugars used are high glycemic index

3\. You will incur no major nutritional deficiencies/toxicities by long term use

4\. It costs no more than $14/day (or $8/day for the powder) while satisfying all above conditions

Most diet drinks fail on condition 1, most meal replacements you're aware of like Ensure fail on conditions 2 and 3, and the leftovers usually fail on condition 4.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm trying to understand what Soylent's business moat is. My inclination is economies of scale to drive cost of goods down, like many food companies.

To that end, I don't see their product as all that unique or difficult to replicate, and I also foresee headwinds for them if/when they try to market to a broader base of consumers who already have powders, shakes, bars, and hundreds of other meal substitutes to choose from.

<comment><USER25> They don't really have one. If you go to [https://www.completefoods.co/](https://www.completefoods.co/) , you can find a bunch of meal replacement recipes many of which are soylent inspired because they couldn't get soylent shipped to them. Some people also ship their custom blends.

/r/soylent is a popular place where people talk about meal replacements.

I think they are kind of like Kleenex, they will become the common name for the genre.

As for taste, I tried Soylent and it tasted like wet cardboard to me. I ended up switching to Schmilk (you mix the powder with milk) and the now discontinued 100% Food.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Soylent as a company has been run terribly. They've had numerous recalls and the recent price increase for Canadian customers is highway robbery.

That said, Soylent has improved my diet significantly. My entire life I have struggled to consume enough calories. Adding one serving of Soylent per day has allowed me to do two things:

1\. Increase the number of calories I consume so I am in a daily surplus (I've gained a healthy 13 pounds since 2015 thanks to Soylent).

2\. More importantly Soylent has accustomed me to eating larger meals. I can actually go to a restaurant and eat a full meal. I'm sure you can understand how much that has improved my social life.

Prior to Soylent I was consuming Ensure daily for more than five years but it's not enough calories to make a difference plus it's way more expensive.

<comment><USER27> > the recent price increase for Canadian customers is highway robbery

Could you explain? I just checked the prices for 12-packs of original soylent is CAD$3.56/bottle in Canada and USD$2.69/bottle in the US. That's an effective exchange rate of 1.36 CAD/USD, and the current exchange (as I type this) is 1.37 CAD/USD.

Or are you just complaining about an overall recent price increase? I have been paying CAD$29 per 12-pack since April 2016.

<comment><USER28> The $3.56/bottle you see on their website when switched to Canada as your location is not CAD, It's USD.

I just ordered a 12 pack at $3.75 a bottle ($45/case - the price shown when you're not subscribing) and was charged $45USD which turned out to be $61.64 on my credit card, or $5.14CAD a bottle.

<comment><USER27> Wow, jeez, the ratio was so close I just assumed. You select a Canadian flag on the website, pay with a Canadian credit card, deliver to a Canadian address, and they charge you in US dollars without mentioning it anywhere (and all prices unmarked USD vs CAD). Unreal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> A question to Soylent customers:

Do you use it as the occasional convenient meal replacement or how far do you go into replacing all real food?

I suspect there is both, but what I am getting at is how much Soylent's long- term success depends on people seeing eating as a nuisance that should be optimized away versus something that should be savoured and enjoyed.

To me this is in the context of the larger question of personal utility maximisation. In the grand scheme of things, we have just started being able to really monitor and improve all aspects of our lives (in terms of time spent, convenience), and there is the question of how far we (most people/potential customers) ultimately want to go. It has become clear that there is the potential to optimise away friction/time spent in almost all human habits, but it is not yet clear if we really want to keep going down that route.

Will we keep optimizing things like meals just because we can until there are (conceivably) nutrient implants that make eating unnecessary, or will we sort of revert and see that maximising utility of every interaction does not lead to overall greater satisfaction?

In one world, Soylent could eventually dominate, in the other, it will remain a niche product because eating and food is too important too most, also culturally speaking.

<comment><USER30> >Do you use it as the occasional convenient meal replacement or how far do you go into replacing all real food?

I replace the majority of my meals with Soylent, but the point isn't to replace all meals...

>I suspect there is both, but what I am getting at is how much Soylent's long- term success depends on people seeing eating as a nuisance that should be optimized away versus something that should be savoured and enjoyed.

In my opinion, eating real food is an indulgence, not a nuisance. People who are very busy frequently cannot find the time to prepare nutritious, healthy meals from the bare ingredients, and purchasing ready-made food that is nutritious and healthy can be prohibitively expensive for some people.

Soylent is meant to replace a fast food burrito or a McDonalds breakfast sandwich, not a home-cooked steak dinner or a meal at a restaurant with friends and family. In my view, Soylent is not about minimizing the amount of time spent on preparing and eating food, it's about providing a convenient, nutritious, and (relatively, compared to fast food) cheap source of nutrition for those times that I don't have social obligations and I don't want to/don't have time to cook something for myself.

<comment><USER31> > People who are very busy frequently cannot find the time to prepare > nutritious, healthy meals from the bare ingredients, and purchasing ready- > made food that is nutritious and healthy can be prohibitively expensive for > some people

I'm sorry, but I'm getting really tired of reading people use this as a justification for soylent; I'm not saying there is a convenience to it, but phrasing it this way is kind of sad. It does not take a lot of ingredients, or time, to make a set of meals for the week.

<comment><USER30> It does require forethought, planning, a knowledge of how to cook food, and the ability to source and store ingredients, however. All of which sounds like too much of a hassle for me, to be perfectly honest. Rob Rhinehart, the creator of Soylent, doesn't even own a refrigerator (not that I'm suggesting people should be more like Rob...). While you may find it sad that others don't have the time or patience to cook, for a lot of people it's just one of those things they'd rather not have to deal with -- and for those people, Soylent isn't an alternative to cooking real healthy food, but rather to buying a burger at McDonalds.

<comment><USER31> > and for those people, Soylent isn't an alternative to cooking real healthy > food, but rather to buying a burger at McDonalds.

I'm aware of food deserts and the issue of meal costs for low-income families, but then advocate for soylent in that manner and how it can improve downstream.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> It's a food company, and its product is fully baked. Why aren't they bootstrapping? Are they not profitable? If so, how do they have a business? If I sold ketchup at a loss, would I be able to close a $50M financing round?

<comment><USER33> If you call it Ktchp.io, you pretend you're using a better recipe generated through machine learning, you create an AR solution to serve it better and more effectively, [insert easy quip about startup culture here], then maybe yes.

<comment><USER34> No, it should have a 400$ wifi-enabled ketchup squeezer with the force of a hundred 747s.

<comment><USER33> Or the company doesn't really sell ketchup but it offers a platform that lets you share ketchup with your neighbors for a small fee (initially subsidized by investors).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I find it odd how popular Soylent has become. I always considered it to be the product that it was in the movie: the absolute minimum of nourishment given a lack resources. A dystopian nightmare.

A popular argument seems to be "I don't have time eat something proper". To me, that just replaces the lack of one resource (the ones in the movie) with another (time).

</comment><comment><USER36> I just completed the Everest Base Camp trek with my wife - I used Soylent (version 1.4) for the hike. So I basically subsisted on Soylent for 2 weeks of hiking/climbing up to 5,500 metres above sea level.

I did 1 packet per day (2000 calories), supplemented with some snack food on the trail (dried nuts and fruit, Stinger-brand honey waffles, muesli bars etc.).

Motivation was firstly as an experiment (to see how I would cope), secondly because I wanted to accurately control/measure my caloric intake, and thirdly, because I was somewhat paranoid about getting food poisoning on the trek. (I used a MSR Guardian to provide clean filtered water for mixing up Soylent).

I didn't really notice any odd effects - and it went better than expected well. Didn't get food poisoning (wife got diarrhoea, but she ate local food) - was a bit hungry on some days (in hindsight, 2,000 calories was a bit low - <USER2> upped it to 2,500 calories on the day I climbed Kala Pattar).

All I can say was, Soylent was great for this use-case, and I'm a firm believer now. At home, I only use Soylent for when I have no time to cook, and need a reasonably healthy/complete meal - if your alternative is going out for a late-night kebab, or 24-hour fast-food, it's not a hard choice for me =).

<comment><USER37> That was a great review of the product, demonstrating real-world use case and benefits. It was fascinating to read, even though I have no personal interest in Soylent at all as a meal replacement (happily married to a wonderful cook), I will remember your story next time we go hiking and I'm complaining of the weight of all the food I'm carrying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I've never tried Soylent, but I do have to drink Ensure many times a day.

Ensure has a massive market, $billions in annual sales, and medically proven results.

The medical market is not where Soylent is going right now, But it is massive and proven.

If they could market to younger, hipper folks who've been prescribed Ensure, but would spend their own money for something nicer... That'd be me.

(BTW: I finally ordered some huel just now... Really sick of Ensure, will give that a try)

</comment><comment><USER39> I have been using Soylent for breakfast for roughly 1.5 years and it has been great. I've lost weight and I feel healthier. I haven't got sick during this time either from a flu or serious cold. It's a great time saver when used as a breakfast food and will help save you precious time in the morning before you go to work. Time that you could spend sleeping rather than stuck in a drive- through or making something. Works for my busy lifestyle. And I like the fact that I am getting all those nutrients. While I realize it's not perfect now, it's nice to know that they are continually trying to improve it with the different versions. If it's at least half as nutritious as Soylent claims it is, that's a win in my book. And to think it might actually get to that holy grail where it's genuinely great for you then that will be something special. Realistically, this is probably a slow march, but one that I am proud to be a part of. Mixes great with fruit, peanut butter, honey and other food items too which I know is healthy for me.

<comment><USER40> I too have used soylent for breakfast, for maybe the last 4 or 5 months. And funnily enough, I've gained more weight! Which was the goal for me, as I'm a little underweight and needed to stop skipping breakfast.

I've been using their coffiest drink, and kill two birds with one stone. I do sometimes miss the experience of making my own coffee though, so I may try the powder instead.

I will say though, at the beginning I was not a fan. Bowel movements changed, felt weird and bloated, and so on. But it stabilized after a few weeks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Soylent was fine. I maintained weight, and was eating better, and the food was easy.

But I'm in a medical weight loss program now, and I'm loving it. It's doctor supervised, I started out at 400 pounds, and I'm down to 360 after five weeks. It's medically supervised because I'm in ketosis, which can be very dangerous. So best to have blood drawn regularly, etc.

But the food is great. You can also get them as your own supplements / replacements.

[http://www.robard.com/products/](http://www.robard.com/products/)

Right now I'm eating 1,000 calories a day. I'll be going down to 800 calories per day. And I'm burning about 2,000 calories of my own fat every day (that's a pound). Again, this is a dangerous diet, but it's medically supervised.

I feel great, I don't feel "hungry" all the time. It's awesome.

<comment><USER42> > Again, this is a dangerous diet, but it's medically supervised.

I'm glad it's working well for you, but I'd just caution that plenty of quackery is "medically supervised", as were fen-phen ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine/phentermine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine/phentermine)) and the Tuskegee trials.

<comment><USER41> There's a ton of research on reduced calorie diets, and my physician referred me to this program, and it's run by my hospital system. I meet with dietitians, physical trainers, social workers, and physicians monthly.

/shrug

I don't really know how to evaluate it much better than that.

<comment><USER43> There is a massive amount of info supporting ketogenic diets and fasting. I'd recommend you look into the Keto Talk and Fasting Talk podcasts and read Jimmy Moore's books: Keto Clarity and the Complete Guide to Fasting. Also, congrats on your progress and keep it up! I dropped over 60 pounds (started at 215 lbs, now at 152 and very lean) doing what you're doing.

But ceejayoz's advice is good advice... always do your own research!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> This is a play on the large soft drink beverage companies who are literally thirsty for companies to replace their soda portfolios. Bai was recentesly aquifed by Dr Pepper for almost 2 billion. So a 10x return for this round is certainly possible.

</comment><comment><USER45> I am one of those people who got horrible nausea eating a couple of batches of the Soylent bar. I really liked the taste and the nutrition profile. But I simply cannot tolerate any Soylent products after the episodes of nausea. There is only one other food (an obscure Indian snack) that ever created a similar aversion in me. I don't know when, if ever I'll get over the association of Soylent with nausea in my head. I wish it had never happened so that I could have continued using their products.

</comment><comment><USER46> What people gloss over about soylent on their way to the oft-repeated "it's just like slimfast wtf" point is that it's not the specific product that's interesting/innovative/valuable (it is kinda like slimfast...), it's taking that product to an entirely new and arguably larger market - I have no idea many 20 to 30 somethings working in tech were out there buying slimfast 10 years ago, but I'm guessing (and I could be wrong!) it's fewer than the number of folks who buy soylent today. assuming it can maintain appeal to "hard- working tech folks", then it's arguable that they can also successfully appeal to other professionals in other markets who, again, I would guess were not buying slimfast or other meal/diet drinks. it's all about marketing and "telling a new story", and i don't mean that in a bad way at all - sure, any company can quickly copy the ingredients, but they will also have to sell the same story, which is totally possible but arguably harder to do as well. that all being said, marketing IMO is only so good of a moat and there's only a few co's who really dominate relying mostly on it (coke, hermes, nike to name a few), so i'm not sure the new market and their story is worth this large of an investment, but who knows it very well could be!

</comment><comment><USER47> I've been trying out alternate-day fasting (alternating between 500-600 calorie "fasting" days and normal eating days). Primarily to help me lose a few pounds, but also in response to all of the recent publicized studies about how fasting and calorie restriction may have other overall health benefits.

Usually on my 500 calorie days I'll just drink a couple Boosts. I'd like to consider Soylent as an option for the fasting days as well, but from a cost perspective it can't really compete with the other alternatives out there (Boost, Ensure, and various no-name store brands available from places like Sam's Club and Costco). Liquid Soylent runs between $2.69-$3.09/400kcal, whereas high protein Boost (which is not even the cheapest option if you're willing to go with no-name brands) runs at $1.93/400kcal. Going with Soylent Powder can bring your costs down more in line at $1.54/400kcal, but the added hassle of having to mix it yourself doesn't make this a very attractive option in comparison.

I guess what I'm ultimately getting at is, assuming you are just using Soylent to supplement an otherwise normal diet, I don't understand its appeal over other less expensive nutritional meal supplements like Boost and Ensure.

</comment><comment><USER48> I've been drinking Soylent every day for breakfast for the past year (the bottles). I find it really convenient, and unlike SlimFast and other shakes, it doesn't seem overly sweet to me. It gets rid of my hunger with no fuss, no mess, and no fanfare. Ideally, I could eat a healthy breakfast, but in reality I know that I'd just be pounding down some cereal bars or something, which would arguably be worse nutrition-wise than Soylent.

</comment><comment><USER49> Because of all the negativity in Soylent threads I always feel obliged to add my opinion. Soylent has been an extremely positive addition to my life.

</comment><comment><USER50> The idea that nutrition can be boiled down in this way feels that it will inevitably be missing something severely important that the modeling doesn't account for. The modelers afterwards will excuse the oversight by saying look this thing was so small, who would've thought to measure in such and such a way? Nature.

<comment><USER51> They just bundle the known "essentials" for actual _survival_ (plus carbs), based on the _current_ status quo medical majority opinion. However, _thrival_ (the next strival after survival ;) is more subjective and much less well- studied in terms of: micro-nutrients, co-enzymes, certain protein-chain configurations, _preformed_ vs substitute-for-own-conversion fat-soluble vitamins (DAKE) or ascorbate, etc. Another "complete food that you can drink" would be raw eggs, but in this age and place, that idea freaks folks out a lot more whereas such soy concoctions don't in the least. So, go for it ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Does this mean they're going to make their own product? Currently, Soylent, the company, is just a marketing operation. Everything else is outsourced.

That's not an unusual strategy for hype-based products. Skyy Vodka and WD-40 were completely outsourced. Skyy Vodka was originally made by Frank-Lin Distillers Products in San Jose, the company that makes most of the low-end booze on the West Coast. Frank-Lin buys bulk ethanol by the tank car load (they have their own railroad sidings), does a little post-processing on the ethanol, takes in tap water and runs it through a deionzing plant, mixes them, adds flavoring, and bottles. They have a really fancy automated bottling line which can handle about a thousand different bottles and can change bottle types automatically. This is called product differentiation.

<comment><USER53> They don't outsource their formula development or testing, which is the difficult part. You could say they outsource the manufacturing, but that's common in every industry these days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Did anyone else have this problem: you enjoyed the product at first but after X number of bottles (like case 2 for me) your body started to react poorly to it and the taste became repulsive?

Not trying to badmouth soylent, I had a similar experience with a brand of granola bars.

<comment><USER55> I never was particularly a fan of the taste myself and what helped me was drinking it ice-cold. The colder it is, the less pronounced the flavor is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Oh boy, another Soylent thread.... Here is how the comments are going to go: Half the commenters are going to say Soylent is not supposed to be for every meal, it's just for when you are too busy to eat. The other half cannot fathom ever using Soylent because if they are too busy to eat they will quit their job first, no exceptions. Neither side can bridge the gap, as food culture is _very_ unique to each person. Let the market sort it all, props to Soylent for letting that happen and not wringingtheir hands over all of it.

(For the record, I would quit my job before skipping meals; they are actually that important to me staying sane)

</comment><comment><USER57> Is there any long term effect medical study about this product?

I think our body has organs which releases various gastric juices to digest the food we eat. It is not only about how much calorie/protein one is consuming, there are also some useful by-products which helps in overall functioning of the body as well. A very simple analogy is only drinking fruit juice instead of eating them raw. We are not taking in fibers which helps in digestion, slow decomposition and good bowl movement.

I am very skeptical about approaches like this where we measure our food just in terms of calories, vitamins, protiens and then consume them directly in that format.

<comment><USER58> That would be extremely interesting, indeed.

Soylent has said they were looking into having studies done, but I don't recall what the details were or when it was planned for.

While anecdotal evidence isn't enough, it's fairly common to see people posting results of their blood work after a few months of Soylent. But I'd personally love to see some more details and unbiased tests in an "official" study.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Ensure wrapped up in a nice minimalist package.

</comment><comment><USER60> There's no saying more true than you are what you eat (or drink). Soylent drinkers are definitely Soylent people. I prefer a world of flavor, spice, and variety. I also wonder if it's a coincidence that the funders of the Juicero (solving a problem no one knew they had for people who clearly have too much disposable income) are the same as the funders of Soylent. I know there's a high overlap of HN readers and Soylent drinkers, but I think there's a big disconnect with the rest of the non-Silicon Valley populace.

</comment><comment><USER61> As an anecdotal/tiny success story, I drank Soylent exclusively for a month and lost 10 pounds - of course, this was by dramatically reducing my calories and exercising, not by virtue of Soylent alone. That said, I did find Soylent to be great on two accounts - it is not something you will consume for fun/pleasure/killing boredom, and it is easy to measure your calorie intake if you are consuming it solely. Side note: I am not a doctor or nutritionist, do not take my story as scientifically-grounded advice.

</comment><comment><USER62> Anyone know the difference between Soylent and a good quality weight gainer like Reflex Instant Mass Pro?

Nutrition Facts

Reflex Instant Mass Pro [https://www.reflexnutrition.com/instant-mass- pro/](https://www.reflexnutrition.com/instant-mass-pro/)

Soylent [http://files.soylent.com/pdf/soylent-nutrition- facts-1-8-en....](http://files.soylent.com/pdf/soylent-nutrition- facts-1-8-en.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER63> I wonder how long it will be until some VC forces the inevitable rebranding of the Soylent name.

"We need to reach out to a larger demographic with a name that communicates the value proposition of the product. Liquid Lunch focus-groups well in the demographic of females 18-30, which is where we see our growth trending in future..."

I've always liked the cheekiness of the Soylent name and it's really the only thing that's made me pay the slightest bit of attention to the product.

<comment><USER64> Serious question: how many people in that demographic group do you think have ever seen the movie/read the book that it's based on? I'm approaching 30 myself and never heard of the source material before all the news articles/comment threads on this new powder I was buying.

Which is to say, I don't think the name is as problematic for the real-world target audience as some people make it out to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Coffiest easily exceeded my modest expectations. Quick, easy to digest when I'm nervous, and the combination of caffeine and theanine is... nice. My diet is trash, and it's vastly better than not eating or stopping for an Egg McMuffin at the drive through.

Soylent has gotten me off fast food entirely. I keep a few bottles at home and at work, so that I can get a meal during my commute that doesn't come from a drive through.

</comment><comment><USER66> I can't stand reading these posts about Soylent. There is so much irrational hate backed up by nothing more than incomplete and irrelevant arguments. People recommend virtually any other product even if it misses half the qualities of Soylent; things like nuts + fruits, whey protein, ensure, clif bars or even cooking.

I'm fairly certain it's due to an astroturfing campaign, but I don't know who would pay for such a thing.

</comment><comment><USER67> I drink a lot of coffee, and for me the Coffiest product is cheaper and healthier than your average Starbucks drink. I also really like the taste of the Cacao drink, which satisfies my sweet tooth whenever I feel like reaching for a bar of chocolate. I don't necessarily view it as a meal replacement, but rather an upgrade to unhealthy things I already eat regularly.

</comment><comment><USER68> I still don't understand the strong reactions Soylent gets on either side. There's plenty to criticize and to like but reactions to it cluster around it being the end of the world or solution to all your problems.

I'm a fan of the breakfast Soylent (Coffiest). To me it's the best form of the Soylent idea.

</comment><comment><USER69> If Soylent were a good idea it wouldn't need a $50M funding round at this point. People know about it. Most people I know who've tried it after a while didn't like it any more and abandoned it.

And now they've brought out flavors, basically turning it into an expensive meal replacement. It's ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER70> Live a restrictive life, careful, watching, planning and get life expectancy of 85yrs ? A bad turn of luck could be the end is right around the corner

Live a wild debauched, taste everything, free for all, no care whatsoever and get a life expectancy of: 80yrs? A somewhat lucky draw could see you beyond 90

Hard choices :)

</comment><comment><USER71> I'm reserving judgement until I know exactly how Soylent affects our microbiome. This study seems to just have gotten started: [https://mycrobes.berkeley.edu/the-study/](https://mycrobes.berkeley.edu/the- study/)

</comment><comment><USER72> As a person who has researched Soylent, I would not describe it as cheap or healthy. Most of the people with opposing opinions seem to think it's a magic weight loss supplement. In reality, the properties that cause weight loss seem to be the low quality ingredients.

</comment><comment><USER40> One thing I'm curious about: do liquid diet like Soylent change the brush border in our intestines in an appreciable way? If I went completely soylent for a few months, and then tried to eat something more...raw, would there be any changes in digestion?

</comment><comment><USER73> "Everything the body needs..." \- the Matrix next we get implantable nutrient packs that last for a year. Hey, YCombinator idea? Go fund that. (this might classify as a troll post as its not particularly relevant but just had to, sorry)

</comment><comment><USER74> If Forerunner didn't participate in this, then Soylent doesn't have a chance. I'd trust Forerunner over GV (or anyone) on a new consumer brand - and that's what Soylent is, going up against everything from Hint water to Ensure.

</comment><comment><USER75> I'm curious about the naming choice as the end of the movie with Heston reveals that eating "Soylent Green" is a form of cannibalism. Does the term "Soylent" signify something outside of the movie?

<comment><USER76> No, the name is directly referencing the movie. It's a tongue-in-cheek and self-deprecating, much in the spirit of programming culture.

<comment><USER77> It's not, it's referencing the book that the (apparently very different) movie is loosely inspired by. [https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en- us/articles/201541809-Why-is-i...](https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en- us/articles/201541809-Why-is-it-named-Soylent-)

<comment><USER78> Given that Soylent in the book is an apparently commercially successful product that rides the wave of a Malthusian catastrophe, it's still an odd choice (or a revealing Freudian slip) given their early hype about solving world hunger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Does anyone know the valuation of the company? And more importantly, what justifies that valuation? I have trouble believing that the meal replacement market is all that lucrative.

</comment><comment><USER80> I used to get annoyed by all the negativity Soylent received from people. Now I just get amused by it. Soylent has been nothing but a positive addition to my life.

</comment><comment><USER81> The future is food that tastes and feels like real food but with the nutrients that your genetics and physical conditions tell that you should eat. One day...

</comment><comment><USER82> I've been wanting to try Soylent but have not done so b/c of the price. Is there an HN promo code or something? I'd try it for a full month.

<comment><USER83> Soylent offers 50% off if you "refer a friend", so you can get it for ~$16.

[http://soy.lt/r/bbyysMpsFN](http://soy.lt/r/bbyysMpsFN)

Note, though this is a "referral link", I do not get anything out of it, but they do donate to World Food Program USA: [https://www.soylent.com/refer/](https://www.soylent.com/refer/)

<comment><USER82> Thanks :) Just ordered some.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> How is Soylent better than buying a quality blender and fresh veggies and protein powder and coconut oil? Or is for folks who live in a food desert?

</comment><comment><USER85> The best food advice I've read: don't eat or drink anything that humans haven't been eating or drinking for at least 500 years.

</comment><comment><USER86> Off topic, but have anyone tried 'Soylent Coffiest'? How do you like it for breakfast + coffee replacement for few days a week?

<comment><USER87> I couldn't stand it. It tasted bitter and fake to me. I have colleagues who swear by it though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Congratulations.

I have been drinking Soylent 12 bottles a month. This alone has freed me up from thinking about what to eat for lunch.

</comment><comment><USER89> Does anyone know of any clinical trials showing health benefits of Soylent? or adverse health consequences?

</comment><comment><USER90> Have they figured out the vile angry flatulence problem?

</comment><comment><USER91> Maybe... you're not as busy as you believe you are?

</comment><comment><USER92> personally I love soylent. Curious what the hard numbers are on sales growth/units shipped per month.

</comment><comment><USER93> Soylent and Juicero

Rather surprised that nobody, as yet, has made a connection between Soylent and Juicero.

* 1st: Juicing & Nutrition \- There's very little evidence that liquid food / juicing has any benefits for most adults. Most nutritionists worth their salt will advise _against_ juicing. Juicero (and other juice makers) take perfectly good,healthy, nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables and make them _less healthy_. Ditto for Soylent. Crushing natural foods (vegetables, fruits, any other in their natural form) together to seek out their nutrients, and reconstituting them in powder/liquid form is, by any other fancy name, a juice. "The skin on an apple, the seeds in raspberries and the membranes that hold orange segments together — they are all good for you. That is where most of the fiber, as well as many of the antioxidants, phytonutrients, vitamins and minerals are hiding. Fiber is good for your gut; it fills you up and slows the absorption of the sugars you eat, resulting in smaller spikes in insulin. When your body can no longer keep up with your need for insulin, Type 2 diabetes can develop." [1]

\- I wonder if people who see the benefits of Soylent/juicing have read Michael Pollan or Marion Nestle. See [1], [2], [3]

* 2nd: Silicon Valley and investments Both Soylent and Juicero are funded by marquee investors. Here's a brief list for Juicero (Total $118M raised) [4] GV (nee Google Ventures) KPCB Abstract Campbell Soup Thrive Capital

Here's for Soylent (Total $70M raised):[5] GV (nee Google Ventures) A16Z Tao Capital Index Ventures YC Lerner Hippeau Initialized Capital

What do these have in common? Apart from being in the food business? It is the _Food-as-a-Service_ business model. That is the essential ingredient (no pun) of the business, not the nutrients per se.

In effect, both Soylent and Juicero are products targeted towards high disposable income, busy professionals who want convenience, and perhaps the glow of "save the world from hunger". (whatever that means). Any health benefits are inconsequential at best in the grand scheme of things.

If you value your nutrition and health, you are far better off relying on the tried-and-tested advice from Michael Pollan: Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly Plants.

All other rationalization of time/effort/nutritional benefit of Soylent/Juicero in "save what world from hunger" is, well, just plain old rationalization by any other name.

[1] [People think juice is good for them. They're wrong. - The Washington Post]([https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/26/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/26/people- think-juice-is-good-for-them-theyre-wrong/)) [2] [Books | Michael Pollan]([http://michaelpollan.com/books/](http://michaelpollan.com/books/)) [3] [Marion Nestle - Wikipedia]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Nestle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Nestle)) [4] [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/juicero/investors](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/juicero/investors) [5] [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/soylent- corporation#...](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/soylent- corporation#/entity)

</comment><comment><USER94> Nerds will buy anything if trendy Silicon Valley 'thought leaders' endorse it.

</comment><comment><USER95> Aside from brand, how does soylent differ from ensure?

<comment><USER96> There isn't an Ensure product that is formulated similarly to Soylent at the moment. Ensure has two products with a similar calorie count compared to Soylent (Ensure 350g vs Soylent 400g). Here's how they break down:

Soylent Drink: 400cal, 21g fat, 20g protein, 36g total carb. 9g sugar.

Ensure Plus: 350cal, 11g fat, 13g protein, 57g carb. 22g sugar.

Ensure Enlive: 250cal, 11g fat, 20g protein, 45g carb. 22g sugar.

As you can see, Soylent has more fat, which provides 9 cal/gram compared to 4cal/gram from carb/protein. This allows it to hit its calorie goal without adding nearly as many carbs and sugars.

<comment><USER95> Interesting. Thank you for the detailed breakdown.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> Don't know why GV would invest in Soylent after so much fiasco. Seems like they earn money so easily that they are content to throw it away.

</comment><comment><USER98> Weird. You need food during an eight hour shift?

<comment><USER99> Lots of people prefer eating smaller servings more frequently, some people need a snack to get through the day. Yet others have varying schedules that cause may fall between meals in a way that makes them hungry.

<comment><USER100> Knew a weight lifter that was doing 5 to 8 small meals per day. She was pretty darn fit. I wonder if anyone has done an actual study on the subject?

<comment><USER101> Here's a meta-study that claims possible positive effects for small, frequent meals: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26024494](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26024494)

On the side bar there's a bunch more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> That's quite a chunk of change for rebranding SlimFast for the urban millennial set. I wonder how many other eight figure venture-fundable concepts could be exploited by lurking in the grocery store aisles with a label maker.

<comment><USER23> You don't quite understand what the deal with Soylent is.

You couldn't live on SlimFast if you had to. It's an appetite suppressant/meal replacement for short term use, given that it's not nutritionally balanced.

Neither is it similar to Ensure or most other meal replacement drinks for the same reasons. They're usually absolutely loaded with fast, low-index sugars that'll spike your blood sugar.

Basically, it's the food equivalent of water. Neutral, nutritious, has what your body needs and nothing more. The carb source they're using is high-GI, meaning it won't cause that spike. The idea being that when you CBA'd to cook, when you'd normally run to the local burger joint's drivethru, you shake up a glass of this stuff, and you're back to doing whatever you're doing for cheaper (about $3 a meal) and in less time.

Basically, it hits all of the right notes that most of the on-the-shelf competitors do not. It's relatively cheap, it keeps a long time, it's actually good for you, it's convenient as food could ever possibly be.

I personally love the stuff.

<comment><USER103> It was hard to find the right nutrition data, but:

Slim Fast:

[http://www.livestrong.com/article/125563-slim- fast/](http://www.livestrong.com/article/125563-slim-fast/)

[http://www.fathead-movie.com/images/slimfast.png](http://www.fathead- movie.com/images/slimfast.png)

[https://tamafitness.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/shakeology_v...](https://tamafitness.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/shakeology_vs_slimfast.jpg)

Sounds like you could probably survive entirely on Slim Fast. It's got Iron (which the original Soylent didn't have), Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Vitamin B, Vitamin D, and Iodine, and a bunch of other micronutrients. You probably wouldn't have a great time but I doubt you would on a Soylent-only diet either.

Solyent doesn't seem to differ much:

[http://files.soylent.com/pdf/soylent-drink-nutrition- facts-e...](http://files.soylent.com/pdf/soylent-drink-nutrition-facts-en.pdf)

<comment><USER23> You overlooked the calories: 180 in Slimfast, 400 in Solyent. And that's just the premade drink. One pouch of the powder is a flat 2000, something I don't think Slimfast even has an answer for. Also, pay attention to the ingredient list: Milk, water, sugar, in that order.

Slimfast is a diet drink as the name implies, while Soylent is a meal replacement. If you wanted to get a reasonable (non-starvation) amount of calories from Slimfast to live on it and it alone, Soylent then wins on balance and cost.

<comment><USER103> You'd have to drink more slimfast, sure, but that challenges the assertion that you cannot survive entirely on SlimFast.

They also seem to have a protein shake drink [http://d8m5oga7foiu.cloudfront.net/wp- content/uploads/2016/1...](http://d8m5oga7foiu.cloudfront.net/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/NF-50012-2-AdvStrawberry.jpg) which seems similar but obviously lower in calories, better protein:carb ratio though. They also seem to sell some powder you can mix with milk, presumably you could put more than one scoop in.

Not saying Solyent doesn't work for you and I don't want to sound like I'm promoting Slimfast. It's just not the first or only meal replacement shake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> I feel like I'm the only who has ever read the nutrition facts. It's a garbage product full of ingredients I wouldn't aim to put in my body. Love the idea of it all, just not the science behind it.

<comment><USER105> Can you elaborate a bit? What exactly is garbage about the ingredients?

<comment><USER104> First off ingredients on labels are listed in order of most prevalent to least. So what stands out specifically is the unhealthy oils. Sunflower and canola. I'm mobile or I would paste links, but read up on them. Horrible omega ratios, and sketchy by-products are usually found in them (hopefully Soylent at least has quality versions of this).

Also maltodextrin is always one of the main ingredients. Super high gi, and no nutritional value.

<comment><USER106> The maltodextrin is needed to bind the oil into a powder.

<comment><USER107> It's only needed if you want to drink soylent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Soylent - We've put SlimFast on the Internet.

And this after JuiceBro. Amazing.

</comment><comment><USER108> I feel like more people should read this book

In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan

[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/315425.In_Defense_of_Food](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/315425.In_Defense_of_Food)

</comment><comment><USER109> Serious question -- do they have an FDA approval?? Can they produce and sell it without it?

Recently learnt about some Amish selling home made honey without FDA approval; now awaiting trial on a 20 years jail charge.

<comment><USER100> Can you point to that story? I know some got caught putting "cures cancer" on the label and that is a big no-no.

<comment><USER109> Yes that was the one. He had a client cliaming she got cancer free.

[http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-23-amish-farmer- facing-68...](http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-23-amish-farmer- facing-68-years-in-federal-prison-for-making-homemade-products.html)

<comment><USER100> Yeah, that's a whole different thing. The FDA is a bit nasty to anyone claiming any health benefit without a study. Ask the cereal companies, they got sued quite a lot. Soylent and others just have to put labels on the food and that can be done without some prior approval.

The killer FDA rule that is going to impact a lot of people goes effective for enforcement on May 5.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mobile Operators Demanding A Cut From Chat Apps - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsflicks.com/story.php?story_id=1087

<comment><USER2> The page crashed the tab after I swiped onto the third slide.

Does it name any particular mobile operators at any point, or is it just FUD?

<comment><AUTHOR> I went through it with no issues. It had some nice stats,its more developing world base but it shows how bad telecoms are bleeding,</comment></comment>


Making Users Pay. Stripe + Devise in a Rails 4 App - <AUTHOR> http://mikesabat.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/making-users-pay-building-a-site-with-strip-and-devise/

<comment><USER2> Way to go, Mike! Just after learning rails from a tutorial, you are tackling payments, which is a pretty ambitious task that could intimidate even an experienced dev.

Props to Mattan and the state of our tech that taking credit card payments on someone's first app was the easy part. Fussing with CSS display:none, environment variables, and JavaScript error checking proved to be more confusing.

The world has turned upside down. I am freeeeeeeaking out!</comment>


Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change - <AUTHOR> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ <comment><USER2> You know whenever I read about this debate for some reason I recall George Carlin's prophetic words;

"The planet is fine....

The people are fucked."

[http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&...](http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DeScDfYzMEEw&ei=rC_ETObjAorZcfT9nc0N&usg=AFQjCNH8Nxzpk1rsIxEmp_Ju5jTVgjTxag)

Whether we like to admit this or not; the earth and life will go on without us. It's our own survival we are fighting for over here; not a complex system in which life has taken hold by surviving through tough odds without the intend of surviving. This piece of rock really doesn't give a damn.

<comment><USER3> Alarmism has a really bad track record.

<comment><USER2> It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable by any metric you care to throw at it. We've over run our phosphorous reserves. We're depleting energy, land and the ability to feed our civilization. We're systematically amputating ourselves while worrying about the blood spilling on the floor.

It just strikes me how far away from reality this debate has taken us. Yes, none of this will kill the planet or this species for that matter, but it will kill this civilization.

In fact, this has happened again and again throughout history as Jared Diamond points out in his book, Collapse. When you see the record of civilizations and the choices they have made then 5 key metrics stand out;

1) Environmental damage

2) Climate change

3) Hostile neighbors

4) Friendly trade partners

5) The societies response to it's environmental problems

What's interesting is how he compared these metrics and individually isolated cases in histories where only a few were present and used them as examples to see what was going on. It's a beautiful and thrilling exploration between the factors, stakeholders at play and why those choices were made (as far as we know). A comment simply won't do that entire thing justice.

The thing is that there is a delicate interplay between our surroundings and our civilization and stretching it too far without healing won't lead to pleasant consequences. A civilization is a delicate state of things that needs to be maintained at a certain cost be it resources, intellectual or cultural capital. Everything joins to create an integrated whole and that's the problem; you can't have one without the other.

So, essentially we need to make a series of choices about how we are doing things and how we could do them if we want this period of prosperity to survive beyond a few decades.

Yes there is hope, but there's loads of work to do.

see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed)

<comment><USER4> >It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable by any metric you care to throw at it

That sounds like alarmism to me.

You can find examples of writers worrying about running out of the specific resources industry used at the time running back to the 19th century. The modern environmentalist movement has predicted apocalypse like clockwork every ten years dating back to 1960.

The current environmentalist movement is much more well-funded and professional. I guess time will tell if that means they are more accurate.

I'm not familiar with Diamond's book, but it's worth pointing out that the civilizations he examines are at a much earlier phase of technology. Individual differences often confound authors who try to paint historical trends with a broad pen.

<comment><USER2> Actually, he backs up his claims with pretty hard data. He draws conclusion from a wide variety of metrics and evidence like core samples, records, tool use, geological standing, possible trade relations, genetic sampling etc.

You really need to read him. Check his wikipedia page out ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond> )

>>>are at a much earlier phase of technology<<<

Ironically, our ancestors said analogous things. Are we truly that different?

<comment><USER4> >"Ironically, our ancestors said analogous things. Are we truly that different?"

The difference between human society before 1800 and today is huge.

<comment><USER5> Nevertheless, we can't wish new, needed technology into existence. Sometimes it develops quickly, sometimes it doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why did they decided to cut the graphic at 400,000 years before today? Maybe that's because a couple of million years ago the concentration of CO2 was well above today's level?

By the way here is another picture: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaci...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif)

<comment><USER7> Look closely at the right edge of the picture. The text below the picture is revealing...

 _Human deforestation and burning of fossil fuel has raised atmospheric CO2 to over 380 ppm in the last century, well above pre-industrialized levels, and "off the scale" of this graph top._

<comment><USER8> "Off the scale" is a complete fucking BS term. The carboniferous period had a mean CO2 concentration of around 800ppm and was marked by glaciation and low sea levels - our current correlation between CO2 and "global warming" is off the bullshit scale.

The mean global temperature in the carboniferous period, with CO2 concentrations over double of present day was an astounding, just wait for it... 14C, which is the incredible, * unbelievable* 0C above the mean present day global temperature.

As CO2 levels spiked in the carboniferous period, it is marked by the drop of sea levels by 120m to the present day level, and as the CO2 level subsided, the sea levels rose 80m.

Sorry, but "off the scale" only counts when you actively pick and choose what scale you want to use, which in terms of geological temperature, CO2 and O2 concentrations quite literally means disregarding millions of years of geological time.

<comment><USER9> Both CO2 concentrations and the global temperature varied significantly over that period of Earth's history (~400-250 millions of years ago). Around 300 Mya, CO2 was comparable to what it is today and temperatures were likewise comparable. Around 400 Mya, CO2 was in the 4000ppm's and the temperature was likewise higher (by ~ 8 C). No contradiction.

Also, when discussing matters scientific, please cite your scientific sources --- otherwise the discussion is of little value. Like so:

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/abs/nature06...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/abs/nature06085.html)

[http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/1052-5173(2004)014<4:CAAPDO...](http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/1052-5173\(2004\)014<4:CAAPDO>2.0.CO;2)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think at this point, everyone has made up their minds which side to believe, and more evidence isn't going to help the matter, unless it is the sort of rock-hard evidence no one can possibly ignore (like repeated snowless winters in Detroit).

<comment><USER11> Really? You mean to say that if you believed something, no amount of new evidence to the contrary could persuade you to change your mind?

<comment><USER12> I think he's probably saying that most people are like that, and sadly, I have to agree.

<comment><USER11> Ah that's a good point - reminds me of this: [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/1...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when- in-doubt-shout-%E2%80%93-why-shaking-someone%E2%80%99s-beliefs-turns-them- into-stronger-advocates/)

<comment><USER10> That, and I've also definitely been guilty of ignoring new articles on the matter. I am already convinced climate change is happening, so why should I bother reading the 26th article on whether it's happening or not?

I'm sure the same thing happens with people who are not convinced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does this mean human beings can effectively prevent ice age?

These are supposed to be cyclical, so it's pretty much guaranteed sooner or later we will have to face one.

</comment><comment><USER14> You'd think NASA would know well enough to start the y-axis at 0. Lousy graphs of this sort create the appearance of deceit, even in it absence, and wind up giving ammunition to skeptics.

<comment><USER15> Why does the y-axis of a graph need to begin at 0? 0 is a number like any other number. If the result set you're attempting to display doesn't have any values at 0 then why would you display 0? The graph in question also doesn't show any data points at y=-257,687 ... does that concern you?

<comment><USER16> Because when zero is not marked it is impossible to judge the relative magnitude of all graph fluctuations without looking at the y axis scale. On this graph a lot of people (incl. me) would be tricked into thinking that in the last 100 years the amount of CO2 increased by an order of magnitude. Now, I know that's impossible, and I checked the scale at the left to find the usual suspect. But many normal people would just believe what they see. It's typical deceit method that is widely used in corporate presentations, journalism, etc. The only excuse for not marking zero on most charts is if you want to show minor fluctuations more precisely, which is not the purpose of this graph.

<comment><USER17> The magnitude of the fluctuations should really be judged against the error bars, not against zero. That's what tells you whether the change is significant.

<comment><USER18> But that doesn't tell you whether it's important. Statistical significance is a measure of trustworthiness, given assumptions about the generating process. It tells you nothing about whether the data is in any way meaningful, after assuming relibility.

What does tell you about that type significance of (rational) data is the delta, which _requires_ the 0 in order for you to see the scale. Now, in many interesting cases this could be represented as error bars under H0, but that's usually not done in publications, because they only have room for one plot type.

The range of the plot is not arbitrary. To suggest otherwise is deceptive.

<comment><USER17> _But that doesn't tell you whether it's important_

Yeah, I'll buy that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So much armchair quarterbacking, very little PhD in climatology. Reading the deniers' comments I wonder if they tell their doctor how their endocrine system is powered by crystal energy and argue with the pilot about Bernoulli's "so-called" Principle.

Science has come to a conclusion. Do you listen or merely justify your previously held belief?

<comment><USER20> The problem is that they really, really hate hippies. And hippies are all about global warming, they'll even go one step further and lecture you with a bunch of crap about "gaia" or something.

So in order for these people to be good, upstanding Americans, they must be 100% diametrically opposed to the hippies, even if the hippie is saying "the sky is blue".

Personally, I'm ok with dropping the gaia and taking the science.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Despite the conservative naysayers, the federal government is heavily invested in climate research. Take the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (GFDL) in Princeton, NJ. This is a NOAA facility involved with sophisticated climate models. Raytheon, a major defense contractor, was involved in day-to-day operations and public relations.

A defense contractor is involved with public relations for this facility, not Indymedia.

Typically, climate models require the resources of high-performance computing facilities with thousands of processors. These facilities cost tens of millions of dollars to implement, and millions to maintain.

Why is climate research a matter of national security, involving the oversight of defense contractors and personnel with security clearance? For at least two reasons. First, it is of strategic interest to the United States to know how the planet will be affected by global warming. If large parts of China or the Netherlands are going to end up submerged under 20 feet of water, and millions of people will have to be evacuated, this U.S. would not want to outsource the ability to forecast this to, let us say, non-allied countries.

Another reason is that with the increased likelihood of hurricanes in the Gulf (to mention one case of extreme weather) it is a matter of national security to have better models for predicting the likely trajectory of a hurricane as it approaches land. A wrong guess can cost billions.

Despite the global warming deniers among politicians who are loyal to the big energy lobby, you can rest assured that funding for the development of sophisticated climate models and the elaborate high-performance computing systems, scientists and operational support personnel needed to design, run and maintain them them is provisioned by the federal government as a matter national security.

</comment><comment><USER22> Visit:

<http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/master.shtml>

      1. City: Cranbrook BC
      2. Days: June 1 to October 1
      3. Click Report
      4. Repeat for any number of Canadian cities

<comment><USER23> <http://www.surfacestations.org/>

Only about 1 in 10 surface weather stations is sufficiently properly sited to produce data accurate to within 1 deg. C.

<comment><USER24> The urban heat island effect and 'micro-climates' have a negligible impact on long term warming trends, especially when records are averaged over large areas. Also, rural temperature records show the same warming trends as urban ones. The 'evidence' on this site isn't relevant to arguments regarding the existing of global warming.

<comment><USER22> Exactly. You can use the Climate Reports to lasso areas away from urban centres in the map:

<http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/guru.shtml>

The site says nothing about global warming or the cause. The site does show that there is a consistent warming trend over summer months across all of Canada, and is most extreme in northern Canada. Also, I believe the Environment Canada data is accurate to within 0.2 degrees C.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Does anyone have any reference(s) to the methods used to sample data about atmospheric 400,000 years ago? It's amazingly interesting.

<comment><USER26> They send a cyborg back in time to collect samples. While he is there, he kills Sarah and the world ends in 3... 2... 1... <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator>

Seriously, ice core samples: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core>

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Also see <http://code.google.com/p/tempgraph/>

</comment><comment><USER28> The power of a graph.

</comment><comment><USER29> Religion doesn't belong here.

<comment><USER30> So flag it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> For anyone who still thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, some reading material: <http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt> <http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt>

Oh and yes, the graph was limited to 400K years,because otherwise it would show CO2 levels in the past FAR higher than today. And it doesn't show CO2 vs temp over geological timescales, because that graph clearly shows that CO2 lags temp, not the other way round.

It's the same old story - figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer.

<comment><USER20> "figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer."

So let's get this straight. Your theory is that a 95% scientific consensus exists because they're all trying to make money off a scam? What's the scam, you get a PhD, postdoc, do 4 years of research at poverty-level wages and you get a 40k grant? Wow, that's effective.

Wouldn't they just work in finance or technology if they wanted money? Or, if they know climate science, they could probably just call the coal industry and build graphs saying the opposite for 10X what they're making right now.

So the reality's actually the exact opposite of your statement.

<comment><USER32> Scientists may not care much about money... But they care a great deal about peer recognition, status, buying expensive hardware to do simulations, having a lot of grad students, etc.

All of those would disappear if convincing evidence against climate change were found. I once heard a top scientist in solar science complain that his field had been corrupted that way.

I agree that Science is our best hope for understanding climate, but let's not idealize it.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, so in that field, if you're one of the 5% guys and you're actually right, and can make a convincing case? Total meal ticket. Everyone loves the David beats Goliath story when David wins.

The problem isn't incentives, it's evidence. The overwhelming majority of evidence points towards an existing warming trend that's exacerbated by CO2.

<comment><USER32> In solar science, the reason we get so much money is that satellite-launching agencies would like us to produce a "solar weather forecast", because solar eruptions can severely damage equipment in orbit. The top scientist I mentioned earlier had a paper that basically said:

"Solar weather forecasting is much more complicated than anticipated. The medium-term prospects are grim."

He bitterly complained that his paper was ignored. All the other scientists were busy making (possibly hopeless) predictions and applying for more grants. See also: the AI winter.

 _Yeah, so in that field, if you're one of the 5% guys and you're actually right, and can make a convincing case?_

The issue here is that in a complex field, with such incredible uncertainty, when do we ever have a truly "convincing case"? Who's to be the judge on that? Hacker News readers? The government? So that leaves us with the other scientists. If they are any good, they'll graciously acknowledge the challenger's criticism. But if they are heavily invested in the status quo, they might find it easier to just ignore you.

I love science. But I'm uneasy its politicization. We've discussed a prominent scientist's resignation from the American Physical Society before: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1775143> The top comment was great.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


ASK HN: Review my startup Joint. Group chat + IM over your Twitter network. - <AUTHOR> http://joint.im/r/khPZl9sn4eg Joint is an Instant Messenger platform built on top of your existing Twitter social graph.
* Here are some highlights: 1. Instantly IM with anyone on Twitter. 2. Private group chat with friends on Twitter. 3. Meet friends of friends through chatrooms.
I've created a sample chatroom for this thread. Please visit and try: http://joint.im/r/khPZl9sn4eg <comment><USER2> (summarizing some observations from the chat).

I really like the idea. I can see myself using it at coffee shops, or other places for impromptu groups.

I wouldn't mind seeing a web-app just because I think that would be even easier to pull people in with. Installing something just for a quick chat might be too much for people, or might not even be possible, i.e. wanting a quick group chat but you're at a public library computer.

All in all though, it's a cool idea, and solid little app. Also ethpressO was very nice and engaging in the chat :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! it's cool to talk synchronously (in the messenger) and asynchronously (on hackernews) with you at the same time. I really appreciate your feedback :)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Joint is an Instant Messenger platform built on top of your existing Twitter social graph.

* Here are some highlights: 1\. Instantly IM with _anyone_ on Twitter. 2\. Private group chat with friends on Twitter. 3\. Meet friends of friends through chatrooms.

I've created a sample chatroom for this thread. Please visit and try. As a regular HN heavy reader, I would appreciate some help and feedback from the community. Thanks! : <http://joint.im/r/khPZl9sn4eg>

</comment><comment><USER3> The Adobe AIR Application Installer seems to launch automatically. I hadn't decided whether or not I wanted to try the app at that point, but I definitely didn't want to see my CPU usage shoot to 100% and have my browser lock up. So I decided to force quit the installer and close the website. Maybe it's a great app, but the AIR experience immediately kills it, for me at least.

Chrome on OSX btw

<comment><AUTHOR> We spent quite a lot of time working on Adobe Air's CPU issue. I think many crappy air based apps out there are like that and give the impression that Adobe Air always uses up CPU power, but we've been testing and optimizing this with several people for last month and the cpu usage stays around 0.1% most of the times, so please feel free to try again. Thanks!

<comment><USER3> The problem isn't related to the app itself, but moreso the way that AIR Application Installer launches immediately when I navigate to joint.im — before I even click the "download" button. I find it intrusive, considering Application Installer hogs my CPU (and I'm not sure if there's any workaround for that). Application Installer runs in the background and consumes 100% CPU even if I navigate away from the page. So then it has to be quit via Activity Monitor. I'm not sure if this is only an issue with my AIR install or if it happens for everyone on OSX.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This finally fixes Twitter's broken Instant Messaging.. It's about time! sure.. it's air, but at least java and air run on all the platforms..

The idea behind it is awesome..,Let's hope it gets the traction it deserves.. Imagine everyone having this!

</comment><comment><USER5> I dig it, Ethan. The Twitter contact tie is brilliant, and I can see this crossing into many different potential areas of real utility.. sexier DM sessions, group collab (work or for fun), CS. Very slick.

</comment><comment><USER6> I really like this idea. Not only for casual chatting but as a way for companies/brands to connect with users/followers.

</comment><comment><USER7> Nice Joint Ethan! There are many times when I want synchronous communications. This is a perfect compliment to Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER8> Love it! The only thing that gets me is the name - I always think of Grandma's Boy when I hear it...

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually love how the word Joint has different meanings to different people. In San Francisco when people hear Joint....

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wah...Really awesome idea man...just signed up for this and its looking good....

</comment><comment><USER10> very nice! like the quick and simple IM built on top of my twitter graph</comment>


Ask HN: Will Apple sue the FBI to find out how it hacked into their phone? - at-fates-hands <comment><AUTHOR> No. The FBI can hack as much as they want - as can you - and you'll never have to give up how you did it to the manufacturer. If Apple wants to know they can offer money or they can ask friendly (that's not going to go very far given the back-and-forth to date) but you can't use the courts to force it.</comment>


Eclipse IDE 2019-12 is released - <AUTHOR> https://www.eclipse.org/eclipseide/2019-12/noteworthy/ <comment><USER2> I use Eclipse CDT+GCC+OpenOCD every day for developing firmware for some projects. It's a great IDE and I love it and I have donated to the foundation several times now. For other projects I use VSCode, and what I really miss in Eclipse it's a nice Dark Mode like in VSCode or QTCreator.

Eclipse has a dark mode but it leaves some UI elements like scrollbars as _system default_ (at least on Windows, it means dark mode with white/gray scrollbars), and other windows/menu look ugly, for example the _watch_ window is a sort of a table grid that has the internal _white_ lines with dark background. Some other UI elements don't change at all and make them unreadable/unusable (black text over dark background).

I know there are plugins to do this. I've tried them all, but there is always something missing.

edit: I know I can code on VSCode and switch to Eclipse for debugging, but it brings a lot of bad memories from 20 years ago when you were editing code on i.e. Ultraedit an moved over a different program for debugging because that's what was available for some given ICE probe.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is a single Eclipse plugin that keeps me married to that IDE: log4e ([http://log4e.de](http://log4e.de)). It makes it a breeze to add logging statements to your code. One click puts start/end statements on all methods. One click lets you log a particular variable. And all the statements are templatized, making it dead simple to ensure your logging adheres to your company's logging standards. I WISH this plugin (or something comparable) was available for IntelliJ or even NetBeans. I'd drop Eclipse in a heartbeat.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have sporadically used Eclipse since the time of "Interface Age", but most of my Java programming was on Netbeans. I also used it with PhP.

I have recently started another Java project and noticed than Apache Netbeans has a lot of problems that the Netbeans 8.0 had not, without having more features. Even Nb 8.1 and 8.2 had problems.

I also noticed that most libraries versions are stalled since around 2010. So I have two questions:

* Is Eclipse 2019 worth learning from a new user?

* Has not the community moved to Python or something else? So a Java coder might be left without new resources?

<comment><USER5> New Java projects is very much the exception in my experience. People will continue to make a living supporting old Java apps for decades to come though. But once you find yourself in that boat, you better make sure you stay there and make sure the journey is worth your while as you'll find it perhaps more difficult to jump ship.

Java's 'COBOL' years are not here yet, but probably not far off. And those that remain to keep the Good Ship Java steaming will probably do OK, can't image it being very exciting though... but that's fine too.

<comment><USER6> While Java is stagnating, the JVM ecosystem will always be the leader of the server. It's the only place where you can get modernity (Kotlin, etc) AND the most production ready, feature rich library ecosystem.

<comment><USER7> I'm curious why you think that Java is "stagnating" considering how they are shipping new releases even faster than ever over the past couple of years? If anything, I sometimes feelthat some Java people are annoyed that they're moving _too_ fast.

<comment><USER6> I was talking marketshare wise. Otherwise, yes Java is catching up!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How a robot got Super Mario 64 and Portal "running" on an SNES - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/01/how-a-robot-got-super-mario-64-and-portal-running-on-an-snes/ <comment><USER2> I watched this live on Twitch, it was unbelievable. I forgot for a time that they were still on the SNES - the streaming of the video was that good. Low quality, but good enough that you forgot you were in the "TAS OS", and it wasn't just Twitch streaming artifacts.

The TAS blocks at the Games Done Quick fundraising events are always amazing, but this was a step above.

<comment><USER3> The way they did it was a bit confusing. They were playing Zelda, and then they cut the game off right as they walked through a door. Shortly after, Super Mario N64 popped up on the center of the screen. Twitch chat wondered if they were still playing Zelda and playing SM64 through the Zelda game. It wasn't clear what was going on, and they saved the explanation until the very end.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I think the effect would have been better had they explained what was going on immediately rather than saving it until the end. Very cool tech, regardless :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow. Just wow.

Being unfamiliar with this area I can't tell if this is ridiculously good or just above average. Nevertheless, for _me_ this was an amazing display of both hardware and software hacking.

This kind of falls into the same category of "out of the box" thinking that is used by NASA ground crews to squeeze more and new functionality out of old and distant hardware that far exceeds its original design parameters.

Loved it.

<comment><USER6> This is pretty insane. [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/01/prepare-your- switch-t...](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/01/prepare-your-switch-tab- shortcut-at-work-awesome-games-done-quick-is-back/?comments=1&post=32598703)

> > TASbot... Gods above and below, that's some mighty fine hacking to > translate inhuman button presses into actual glitch code. It's like waving > your hands madly in the air and conjuring up an airliner, Matrix-style.

> As TASBot's keeper I can tell you that what we have prepared this year is > akin to gesticulating wildly and calling a space shuttle into existence out > of nowhere. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > While the AGDQ SM64 and Portal TASBot runs were really just pre-recorded > video and audio streaming through the SNES

phew! I was totally confused -- assumed they were somehow rendering and doing the actual gameplay.

</comment><comment><USER8> Anyone know how / why they're able to send this much data over the controller ports? That seems like a sample rate that's way into the "insane" realm, irrationally beyond what any human could produce.

<comment><AUTHOR> The live video includes a caveat that they "cheated" by networking directly into the console for several orders of magnitude more button inputs. (i.e more than the 8 controllers from the console)

The cheat was apparently controversial for the team.

<comment><USER8> For tasbot though, I wonder what that actually means. If they soldered onto the board to bypass a chip or something I can certainly see it being controversial - they're usually very clear about "this system is unmodified, we just have a bot pressing buttons".

<comment><USER9> It's less button presses at this point and more putting data into the memory where controller input is stored at an arbitrary rate.

Talk from Defcon: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZrNWiBzqUE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZrNWiBzqUE)

<comment><USER8> Aaaaaah. So that lets them update the value (up to) every time the memory is accessed - that I can definitely see running so quickly. And still "using controllers", arguably.

Still. Much amaze. Wow.

<comment><USER8> (too late to edit) hmm, no, that video talks about how they did the twitch chatroom thing. As I interpret it, they did that by tricking the snes to re- poll the buttons faster than it would normally do, and they said they could achieve every couple ms (instead of once per frame), which is wildly below what the streaming video demo needed.

The video is awesome though, thanks for the link! Now ya've got me queueing up tons of defcon videos....

<comment><USER9> Hm, I might be remembering wrong or mixing it up with details from various forums, but I thought it mentioned the FPGA version capable of pushing several mb/s through the controller ports.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, they mentioned it exists (2mb/s iirc) but made no attempt to describe how it works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is the Rube Goldberg Machine of programming.

<comment><USER11> I wonder if early programming projects weren't like this. Abusing low level components to do things they weren't really meant to do.

<comment> white-flame That accurately describes the Commodore 64 scene. Games, demos, disk speeders, and copy protection particularly abused the hardware. Many games couldn't run without hardware glitches from the video chip, and undefined CPU opcodes which end up executing some weird fusion of otherwise normal instructions were often exploited to save a few necessary cycles here or there.

<comment><USER11> True; but I meant even 50s computer projects. They were trying to make memory out of mercury acoustic waves .. feels so hackish in a way

<comment><USER12> Wait, was that real? I thought Stephenson made that up...

<comment><USER11> Unless there's some misunderstanding:

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mercury+delay+line&ia=web](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mercury+delay+line&ia=web)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How far into the video does TASBot begin?

<comment><USER4> The actual play starts at 29:00 ([https://youtu.be/Ukq29ePnTqI?t=29m00s](https://youtu.be/Ukq29ePnTqI?t=29m00s)), but the video streaming through the SNES starts at 55:50 ([https://youtu.be/Ukq29ePnTqI?t=55m50s](https://youtu.be/Ukq29ePnTqI?t=55m50s)).

<comment><USER14> Thanks for the timestamps. That's incredible!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> During this stream[0], the TASBot setup is reused for a remote-playable version of Stack-Up. There's an earlier stream where DwangoAC pitches how it would work, which I'm having some trouble finding now.

(I recommend that streamer, too. His main project for several years has been to play all NES games to completion.)

[0] [https://www.twitch.tv/themexicanrunner/v/109380650](https://www.twitch.tv/themexicanrunner/v/109380650)</comment>


Rage boils over at Amazon sites over coronavirus risks - <AUTHOR> https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-amazon-employees-rage/ <comment><USER2> > "Amazon employees have no options whatsoever. They do this or they go work > elsewhere," [British union officer] said.

An excellent description of reality. I take it the subtext here is that other people are getting laid off or lower hours and get the European equivalent of unemployment insurance, but they won't if they just quit?

A proper read of this story is it's good news. Work keeps getting done, because people need money. Instead of the world falling apart. To be fair, a Communist system would also force these people to go to work, they just wouldn't be allowed to complain about it.

</comment><comment><USER3> What part of stay home does Amazon not understand? People should stay home; the economy's crashed anyway, what does it matter if your stupid boss at your greedy company fires you?

</comment><comment><USER4> Hello America

Welcome to learning that maybe you should set aside the world police (literal with military and figuratively with your gospel of exceptionalism) thing once in a while and pay attention in more than just hipster nihilist tourist kind of way.

<comment><USER5> OK.

Let's say we set aside world police and exceptionalism and nihilistic tourism. What should America be learning from this?

<comment><USER6> That capitalism, in its current state, is a broken system? As cliche as it sounds, there's no other way to describe it when you have frontline workers risking their life—and their family's lives—to make a man whose net worth is $100+ billion even richer. This is not a progressive society. No one wants to see it (besides the super wealthy). We've regressed back to the master and slave social classes we used to read about in history books.

<comment><USER7> Describe the alternative to this system. Its not enough to be against something. If you can't offer an alternative then you might as well be screaming into a well.

<comment><USER8> Universal healthcare and education at all levels. Strong worker protections, good safety nets. Return to mid 1900s tax rates on the rich, fund the IRS to make sure corporations and ultra wealthy pay their taxes.

We have multiple successful models to look at where capitalism is reigned in by all the above.

<comment><USER9> Neither of which would solve this pandemic. Someone has to man the line or else everyone dies. Should we get rid of the military because it results in someone dying to help the greater good of a larger sum? Life is full of suffering</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>