They make long articles to maximize ad exposure and SEO. It's good faith --they're doing what they have to to make money with the underlying tech ecosystem-- but it's not a good outcome.
LLMs are shifting that ecosystem (at least temporarily) and new revenue models will emerge. It'll take time to figure out. But we shouldn't artificially support a bad system just because it's the existing system.
Transitions are always awkward. In the meantime, I'm inclined to give people rope to experiment.
The celebrity crypto phenomenon has spread to world leaders on three continents. Tracking the pattern seems worthwhile - open to suggestions and thoughts.
>Assuming that "rich" means "don't need to work at all, for the rest of your life, to keep a roof over your head and food on your table," none of what you listed require being rich.
Yup, I believe that's their point. If you realize the reason you want to be rich can be had for less cost than actually becoming rich, you can save yourself a lot of time and stress.
Anecdotally, I cut my salary by 60% this year to directly pursue what I wanted, instead of saving to do it years later. I suppose I may regret it some day, but at this point I'm confident it was the right choice.
Are you willing to share what you are pursuing? I'm curious. I'm feeling a bit hamsterwheely myself right now and am constantly looking at the horizon for an alternative approach that could work for me.
That's just like if the NAME "alchemy" had been kept and continued to be used for what we now call "chemistry". Changing the name helped the bullshit die away. If it were all "alchemy" we'd have some advanced chemists but also some people continuing the bullshit and asserting that alchemy is legitimate. It's quite unfortunate to keep the name "theology" for the practice of the anthropology of religion or the history of religion.
> Tip: if you care about maximizing the quality of your dietary supplement, research and buy each ingredient individually, and then mix it all up yourself.
That defeats my primary use case for MRP: not needing to think about nutrition. I hate cooking, I hate cleaning, and eating out all the time feels wasteful. I just want quick, healthy meals with a decent shelf life.
> not needing to think about nutrition. I hate cooking, I hate cleaning, and eating out all the time feels wasteful. I just want quick, healthy meals with a decent shelf life.
As I've come around to thinking of the human body as more of a system than a binary switch (sick/not sick), I've come to appreciate that natural food sources have a lot of nutrients in them that are hard to get with manufactured foods.
There's a lot of debate about studies proving this one way or another, but for me looking at it intuitively from a co-evolution standpoint (foods we eat evolved in conjunction with humans) is proof enough to pay attention to the quality of my food. The intuition is basically: food we've been cultivating and bringing around with us for millions of years is going to be more beneficial to our internal chemistry than a substitute we recently made up to save money on production costs.
I also view eating as a chore (except when it's not), so I often end up eating this: black beans, chicken, guac, milk
PS: for the "naturalistic fallacy" group, how do you account for the role of evolution as an optimizer for health vs evolution as optimizer for 20th century economic cost? Optimization targets make a difference.
Evolution is not an optimizer for health. It is an optimizer for breeding and nothing more. The only optimizer for health that I know of is medical science.
EDIT: Also I think the term we should actually be using is "Natural Selection" rather than "Evolution" in this case.
> Also I think the term we should actually be using is "Natural Selection" rather than "Evolution" in this case.
Nope, I'm using it in the "evolutionary algorithm", "evolution as mathematical optimization" sense.
> It is an optimizer for breeding and nothing more.
I really disagree there. Humans did not evolve in a vacuum; their are a ton of systems and subsystems that evolved across different species leading up to humans. I don't have time to write an essay, but I think you're vastly oversimplifying evolution in pursuit of a binary function. It's just not that simple, and neither is how food interacts with our body.
Ok, I now see how you were using the word "evolution". For some reason the fact that you were addressing the "natural fallacy camp" made me think you were talking about human evolution and its role in our eating habits, my mistake.
As far as your disagreement goes... Perhaps "breeding" wasn't the 100% accurate thing to say, but natural selection is the process that decides what genes to pass to the next generation causing evolution... if you really disagree with that you are not disagreeing with me personally, you are disagreeing with over 200 yrs of science spanning many fields.
> you are disagreeing with over 200 yrs of science spanning many fields.
Oh, is that what I'm doing? And here I thought I was suggesting that evolution (in practice and in theory) is a more nuanced process than you're letting on.
Yes, actually that is what you are doing. Natural selection is that simple. I think you are confused by the fact that sometimes the goals of "health" and "passing on genes" overlap. However "passing on genes" (or what ever the analogous "building block" is if you are using a genetic algo for something) is the only underlying "purpose" of evolution. There really isn't any more nuance required.. but go ahead, Im all ears..er eyes. If you don't want to write an essay just post up a link. Im curious if there is actually something out there leading you this way or if you are just "saying stuff".
> for the "naturalistic fallacy" group, how do you account for the role of evolution as an optimizer for health vs evolution as optimizer for 20th century economic cost?
Human evolution has optimized us for having children early and often and living to 40-50 so they've enough time to grow up and become the next generation of subsistence farmers/breeders.
In my opinion, no. We can't even completely understand all of the chemical reactions (the Maillard reaction) involved in making toast at this point.
Sure, we do have a fair bit of nutrition knowledge right now, of course, and not everything natural is good for you, of course. However, current popular "natural food" at this point has been vetted through centuries of sampling and cross breeding. At this point I would consider it "more reliable" than processed MRPs (soylent powder is made of natural ingredients too but has been very heavily processed to get where it is) for that reason alone.
MRPs are okay every now and then, sure. Personally I would bet against using them all the time. Even in the bodybuilding community where whey protein supplements are popular, the consensus seems to be its much better to get your protein from a chicken breast if possible.
Not really. We still really don't know as much about nutrition than we think we do. That is why eating a varied diet is promoted; because we just don't understand what we need as well as we think we do.
2 years of gym and I never needed these powders to fill up my macros.
>sunday
>market, buy groceries, pasta and meat for whole week
>cook everything at once
>put everything on freezer
>clean up everything only once
Of course, I need to wash my dishes during week, but it takes literally 1 minute and half. And you can argue that there are powder to purposes other than macros, and I agree with you that you must take it if you think you need to. I, personally, don't.
I think it goes against a lot of people's idea of efficieny. Why should each person need to research, source, and mix their own MRP if we have similar needs?
That's why I started the sentence with "if you care about maximizing the quality of your product" -- it's a trade off. If you are ok with getting the average stuff, it's absolutely not necessary to customize your own MRP. The problem is, in the supplement industry, "average" often times means bad, so at least do a little research on any off-the-shelf supplement you're about to buy.
In the past when I was using legal prohormones and needed to feed in a lot of protein and nutrients, a 1 gallon milk jug filled with mix and stored in the fridge was ridiculously efficient. There's no way it was more unpleasant than Soylent; I distinctly remember kind of enjoying the chocolate flavor.
The deal is that people have to know what their body needs first and foremost. Gain? Lose? Maintain? All are different goals and methods. Solyent advertising as an off-the-shelf works-for-all-people might be fundamentally true, but I don't think it can be argued that it's the ideal for each and every person.
but cooking good meals is so damn easy, there are even companies which will deliver the ingredients to very nice meals if you want to cook them.
anecdotal at best, but a friend years ago was diagnosed with adult diabetes and told he had to change his diet. this guy never cooked. part of his transition was cooking classes provided as part of his diabetes counseling. he discovered a world of quick and easy meals, many in a single pan and all were healthy.
I subscribe to Blue Apron, one of those companies you describe that deliver ingredients. I'm thinking about canceling because it takes so damn much effort to cook their meals. I have to chop my own garlic, where I would just use garlic powder or minced garlic before. I have to prepare my own kale, which I would just get kale with the stems removed before. I have to fry my own sage, which... well I would never use a garnish before. It's a meal I'm eating, not a meal I'm selling.
Saying "it's so easy, they deliver the ingredients" is a non-sequitur. Sure you don't have to buy groceries, but cooking still takes a lot of time and effort. Sometimes it's a solid hour that I spend cooking, then a half hour eating, and a half hour cleaning up.
I get four hours I spend at home between work and sleep, and two of those are spent preparing to eat, eating, and cleaning after eating. It's much quicker and easier to pick up KFC on the way home instead. That's the problem Soylent solves.
I tried Blue Apron. It was OK but their meals were definitely reasonably involved to prepare. For example, one of their meals was some sort of gourmet hamburger that took way more work than I would normally put into making a hamburger and I wasn't even all that impressed by the final result.
On the one hand, it can be kinda nice getting everything you need for a new recipe delivered to you. But I have a pretty well-stocked larder and a binder of recipes I make semi-regularly so it didn't really solve a problem I have. (And it's not inexpensive either.)
I strongly recommend getting a good electric pressure cooker. Getting one has been a huge time saving for me because of how automated it is. Just put the food in the inner pot, put the lid on, and press a single button. It senses temperature and pressure to control the heating element so the food is cooked perfectly every time with no burning/scorching and minimal steam escaping. You can put frozen food in and it will still cook perfectly. If you don't overfill it the only thing that touches the lid is steam so all you have to clean is the stainless steel inner pot. You still have to wait about 60 minutes but most of that is leaving it unattended. The food usually has a better texture than with conventional cooking too.
I'm sitting here eating my scrambled-eggs breakfast taco. Fry eggs, fry taco (for decadence), add veggie condiments that are already prepared, eat. I even use a cast-iron skillet so I don't have to wash it, just rinse & leave on the burner a minute. 10 min.
Cookbook author Melissa Joulwan has an algorithmic approach to weekly meal prep that results in delicious and easy weekday meals, if you're willing to make the "cook 2 hrs on weekend + cook no more during the week" trade-off. It's not the mere minutes that Soylent promises, but for some folks reading this it might be useful. It's paleo so easy to adapt to high protein/low carb/high veggie/whatever floats your boat here.
This is underrated advice that applies to any household chore. I like cooking for the sake of cooking but the time spent on it feels wasteful. If I put on an educational podcast I suddenly don't mind the time I spend cooking/washing dishes/whatever.
man, I'm glad I'm not the only one. One compromise I found that works is go to the deli at your grocery store. Get a half pound of some salad (doesnt have to be greens, they have potato salad, noodle salad, etc ), then get either "tuna salad" or "chicken salad", and buy a loaf of bread or crackers. Then just scoop the meat-salad onto your crackers/bread slice right before you eat it. It's like JIT cooking. Cleanup consists of throwing away the salad containers.
You do not spend 30 minutes, let alone 60, chopping, mixing, turning, cleaning. No way. You can do other things like browsing HN (or nothing if you wish) while the meal(s) cook. A fair part of the 'cooking' is just about waiting, not acting.
And as far as the active part is concerned, I like to listen the radio and if I can get organised so that I can prepare the food while one my favourite broadcasts is on the air, I don't even notice I "have to work".
LLMs are shifting that ecosystem (at least temporarily) and new revenue models will emerge. It'll take time to figure out. But we shouldn't artificially support a bad system just because it's the existing system.
Transitions are always awkward. In the meantime, I'm inclined to give people rope to experiment.