Some soylentils have an interest in the
Soylent food product, which claims to be complete, scientifically-based nutrition. Now Farhad Manjoo at the New York Times has spent a week and a half living off of it, and found it disappointing:
I just spent more than a week experiencing Soylent, the most joyless new technology to hit the world since we first laid eyes on MS-DOS.
Read the rest at the NYT: The Soylent Revolution Will Not Be Pleasurable.
I usually love Ars Tech and enjoyed Lee Hutchinson's trial last summer, but afterward their Soylent articles didn't really fit with the rest of the site. After trying to find a good one to send as an info link to somebody else, I realized that the reason they don't fit in is that they read like paid product placement. The result is that they're as bad as Farhad Manjoo's clusterfuck, just with the opposite slant.
Lee's rant the other day is a good example. Read straight, it was more disjointed than most amateur blog posts, over-the-top emotional with a side order of aggression, and contained irrational leaps of logic (like the idea that even suggesting a non-disabled fully-employed person could learn even basic cooking means someone has no empathy or experience with mental illness) -- nowhere near "Ars Technica" quality. If Rosa Labs gave Ars/Lee a bullet list of readers' concerns with the paid 'request' to address what they can & convince readers to not keep speaking out otherwise, however, the article's flaws suddenly make sense.