jaycifer

There’s a few main aspects to these things I see: the enjoyment of drinking them, the nutrition value, and convenience. For context I’ve ordered a box of Soylent a few times a year for a few years, and my roommate has been using it (or products like Soylent such as Huel) since 2015~2016.

Flavor/enjoyment: Plain Soylent tastes like liquid cheerios. Any flavors you find taste like liquid cheerios with flavor syrup added. To many that sounds gross, but if that sounds bearable to you then it’s worth a try. I like the flavored ones, mainly the creamy chocolate and mint chocolate, which tastes like melted ice cream.

Nutrition: you probably know but each bottle has a decent amount of calories enriched with 20% of your daily value of vitamins and nutrients, which is neat. I’m not a health professional, but I’m guessing it’s probably healthier than taking vitamins but not as good as getting them from a source that naturally has the nutrients. For me who has maybe one bottle in a day it’s a way to keep a baseline of nutrients that I may not get from my normal diet and that aren’t covered by my vitamin supplements.

Convenience: Having bottles is really nice if you commute. I like that when I’m headed out the door I can grab one to drink for work. I won’t be hungry or spend money on fast food. I will often be hungry by the time I’m home but as a person that tends to overeat I consider that a good thing.
My roommate who does the shake blending himself works remote so he can often find the few minutes to put a bottle together. He’s built up a reserve of ~20 blender bottles but usually needs about a third of them for his daily drinking if we keep up on dishes. He’ll use 2-4 a day for breakfast and lunch before a solid food dinner. We also keep space for 2-3 gallons of milk for how much he makes.

That’s all anecdotal, but I hope it gives you an idea of what daily life with the stuff may look like.

Shoutout to the ST: Armada 3 mod for Sins of a Solar Empire. I didn’t play the originals but the mod is really impressive.

As someone who just learned of these a week ago, you’re one of today’s lucky 10,000! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chopped_cheese

You know, I remember in middle school learning the art of Google for research purposes and being amazed that I could find almost any information I could want in minutes. It was also in that time that I first encountered the “Let me google that for you” website that just takes text, shows a mouse moving over the Google searchbar, pastes the text, and then returns the search results. Seeing that made me realize I’d feel a fool if it had to be pointed out to me that I could google the answer to a basic question.

So to see someone acknowledge that they could take one minute to find the answer to what an acronym they don’t know, from a more reliable source than an internet stranger (like the gpt answer above), and then outright refuse to do so on the basis that the answer should have already been spoon-fed to them is frankly bizarre. I sure didn’t know what RDT was when I opened the thread, but just to make sure I wasn’t crazy after reading the threads here I typed ‘rdt coffee’ in my search bar and in less time than it took you to write your comment I had the answer.

I need to understand, what is the process behind your thinking here? Why do they need to explain a 20 year old coffee term in a coffee community that takes less than a minute to learn the basics of if you do the thing you think you shouldn’t have to? I’m really trying to understand without letting judgement seep in, I’m just at a bit of a loss here.

13 digit pins? You mean my phone number and birthdate?

If a large chunk of their production is exported the market could be influenced to reduce the amount they can export, such as expanding US chip production to replace Chinese imports. Then their industries would be less profitable and have to spend time scaling down to meet the lower demand, which would also reduce their capacity to develop.

I think that fits between one extreme and another?

Yeah, but behind that wrong side is a valid person, and without a discussion you’ll never know how they ended up on that wrong side. Without knowing how they got there, you’ll never be able to sway them away from the wrong side and they will continue to be wrong.

I think everyone has something worth saying, but in the majority of cases I just don’t have the time, energy, or patience to get to that something.

It’s silly to gripe about someone watching a movie for so long, but not because the person watching needs something to fill their life. If that was the only justification needed you could justify owning a yacht because it’s the only place you could get away.

The real argument is that running a television is not very energy intensive, and being on the grid means the energy it does use is produced at a scale where the environmental impact is drastically reduced.

I’ve had to reread your second to last paragraph multiple times because it just feels bonkers to go from saying that people enjoy television to saying people might kill themselves without it. What basis does that have in reality? I tried looking into it a little and the only search results regarding suicide and lack of tv discussed suicide coverage on tv and whether it increased suicides. Searching for whether people are happier without tv had a lot of anecdotal “yes” articles and articles relating to a study about teens being happier with less screen time. That seems fairly inconclusive and may just mean there’s a gap in the research that could be filled, but I think you’re really underestimating the average person’s ability to live without television.

Yeah but “words evolve” and “language changes!” You can’t just go around asking whether they’re good changes!

Company A was created independently. In a sense, it owned itself. After a while Company A decided it needed capital or a close business partner. Company A told company B "We will sell you a 49% share of our company for capital and close business relations." Company B accepted. Now what happened to the other 51%? They're still with Company A, so we can say that Company A owns shares of itself.

On the contrary, I’d argue energy mostly meets many of the philosophical criteria for God.
Omnipotence: It literally is what drives stuff to happen.
Omnipresence: It is present to some degree in all things everywhere for all time, though you could argue about vacuum.
Omniscience: See omnipresence, although having knowledge implies some level of consciousness, which is pretty debatable. My psychedelic phase tells me that it’s totally a thing, but I’ll be the first to admit that’s not a rational argument.
Omnibenevolence: I don’t understand why God needs to be good.

If the author no longer has passion for his OSS project, and isn’t being paid for it, why is he still working on it? Why should he feel responsible for companies building their processes on a free piece of software without guaranteed support? Why the heck is he sacrificing sleep for something he claims not to care about anymore? It sounds to me like he’s not living his values.

If compensation for volunteer work is mandated, it becomes less volunteer work and more of a part(or in some cases full)-time job. My understanding is that a core pillar of open source software is that anyone can contribute to it, which should make it easier for contributors to come and go. Based on the graph shown it would take more than a full-time job worth of money to meet his demand, which seems unlikely in any case, and it’s time for him to go. Either someone else will volunteer to pick up the slack, the companies using it will pay someone to pick up the slack like the author mentioned, or the software will languish, degrade, and stop being used.

I don’t see how any of those outcomes suggest that people need to be paid for the time they voluntarily give. I could get behind finding better ways to monetarily support those who do want to get paid, but “how could it be easier to pay OSS contributors after their passion is gone?” is a lot less provocative of a headline.