skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's good to see these sorts of numbers, especially as a $BYND stockholder. :)

I've had more impossible burgers (from BK) than beyond, and I think I prefer the impossible taste a bit more, but only slightly. In a burger, with other toppings (tomatoes, mustard, onions, lettuce, etc)... the 'non-beef' taste is pretty minimal, in my experience, although I do notice a slight aftertaste. Haven't tried the new "beyond 3.0" which is dropping this week.

As a 'beef substitute' for every day cooking, haven't used it, but had other family members tell me they use the 'beyond sausage' (some spicy italian variation) in their everyday cooking to replace previous sausage use and they love it. They've gone totally vegetarian, have tried multiple meat substitutes over the years and think beyond is generally the best.

Have been trying ways to reduce meat consumption - going for blackbean substitutes in some situations, beyond/impossible burgers when available, etc. Not sure I'll ever go totally 'no-meat' but I do notice I have far less red meat consumption compared to 6-7 years ago.

I agree with another poster that the high sodium is a problem, and is possibly keeping some people away.
I believe the phrase you're thinking of is "so open-minded that your brain falls out." It's still just a way to put someone down for caring about others, but at least the metaphor works.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25214264

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24676257
As someone who was abducted and kidnapped at gun point, PTSD and trauma are experienced differently by different people.

PTSD/trauma may be the result of being victimized, but it is not “learned” any more than a bone might “learn” to break under stress.

What happens under extreme trauma is an onslaught of electric signals and chemical reactions in the brain, essentially adrenaline (fight or flight) and cortisol (stress) responses. They help you survive when needed, but terrible for the brain and body in extreme amounts and/or prolonged exposure.

The issue is not that it is “learned” but that in some people the trauma essentially fires otherwise dormant pathways in the brain and instead of these pathways going back to a dormant state the neurons and pathways are potentially strengthened by the single acute episode and remain turned on. It creates an awful feedback loop where these neurons and pathways fire from normal/non traumatic stimulus moving forward because the connections become so strong they become a default pathway. Then regular firing of these pathways just reinforces the connections. You could point to that as “learning” I suppose, but it is involuntary. The associated behaviors are commonly avoidance in order to prevent these misfirings but unable to avoid it the responses will usually be consistent with the original response to the adrenaline and cortisol during the trauma.

Not everyone responds the same, because it really isn’t learned but something I would describe more as a physical “injury” to the brain from the natural biological response to the trauma. The 4 pillar model of the article might encapsulate a decent general framework for trauma victims, but it entirely ignores the very real biological responses and physical effects of trauma, so is on par with saying stress and fight or flight responses are learned. If it were learned we would teach soldiers not to have those responses, instead they are trained to manage their reactions to those responses, and even with training trauma can not be prevented in all individuals in all situations.
What about your chat history then? Social graph? Statistical model of your behavior?
Or, you know, just build houses with them, preferably somewhere that isn't as water starved. When the houses get torn down, the wood ends up either recycled or in a landfill which is more or less the same thing.
I eat these on a regular basis and never experience this. This person is full of shit (literally apparently).
Though "easily" is relative as Baudot code used only five bits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudot_code

(with control characters to shift to other character sets!).

Wikipedia says that the several six-bit character set standards for text were inspired by typewriters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCD_(character_encoding)#Examp...

but they didn't represent lowercase (!). (2⁶ would have allowed you to represent lowercase but you would have to sacrifice a whole lot to do so -- as alphanumerics alone would use 62 positions, leaving you with maybe one position for a space and one punctuation mark, and no newline...)

Apparently EBCDIC derives from IBM's 6-bit BCD codes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBCDIC

and is interesting because it uses 8 bits, successfully represents lowercase, and leaves a ton of (non-contiguous) positions unspecified.

Maybe our standards (no pun intended) are just shifting as we deal with more and more capable software, but I'd be inclined to say that seven bits "easily encode" standard English text, and six don't, on account of the lack of case distinction. (Although you could certainly choose to handle that with control characters, and I'm sure some 6-bit systems did so.)
100% less flavour.
Being a victim is what reaction a person takes to events. If they believe that nothing could have been done, then they believe they are powerless.
> there's more data than ever proving that it can be extremely effective

Can you provide some pointers to that data (as the parent did for the contrary position)? Forgive me, but it seems you work in advertising, so I'm not sure if you're the most unbiased person to assert something like this without evidence.
But why would you want to replicate the outcome of a slaughter if that part of the process upsets you?

Why make an apple taste like the death of a cow?

For me eating things in their most natural forms seems more appealing. I don't know what is in beyond meat but avoiding processed anything seems like a more healthy strategy.
Well shit, the taste is slightly off so let's keep killing billions of sentient animals.
As a current student, I see this first-hand. I go to a school that is moderately prestigious, but not well known for CS. Far too many of my classmates are obsessed with the same hamster wheel of optimizing grades, superficial extracurriculars and rec letter chasing. This isn't surprising; it's what got them into this school in the first place. Unfortunately for them it's also quite useless in tech. Some of them go as far as to apply for a masters program. Where else does a budding CS major with no technical skills but a lot of meaningless accolades go?

This culture teaches you to build your own personal potemkin village. Yes, there are some truly exceptional candidates. But for every Malala Yousafzai there are hundreds of students that merely built a very convincing facade. I remember a kid in my high school who worked on the school newspaper website with me. He wrote an API for users that returned the user's hashed password when queried. He didn't understand what was bad about that. I had to take over his work entirely. He's now at MIT. Another kid did no work on the website but begged me to put his name on the masthead when he applied to college. He's now at Penn. A girl at my school lied about being captain of the track team. She went to Harvard.

People try to claim that it really doesn't matter where you go to college. That's not true. Would Facebook have succeeded if Mark Zuckerberg went to Brandeis? What about CUNY? And what does it say about our society that the people who get into Harvard are the ones who lie and scheme? I know that's partially the reality of limited resources, but I'd like to hope that we can do better.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27068466
I was going to delicately skip that point but what the hell, what's a few rungs up the watchlist these days anyway.
Report date: September 14, 2018

Is this being posted to influence stock price?

BYND price change today (May 6, 2021):

At close: 4:00PM EDT 119.04 -2.53 (-2.08%)

After hours: 110.75 -8.29 (-6.96%)
Does grassland really need to be suited for any kind of agriculture?

The prairies used to be one of the greatest carbon sinks in the world, storing as much or more carbon per acre than most forests. They were also a source of incredible diversity.

Cattle ranching operations transforms that carbon sink into methane gas to warm our atmosphere. And while the water is returned, the energy spend transporting and cleaning it isn't.
Toward Signed BPF Programs
I guess I'm just getting too old with MP references...
Not sure this is true if you're looking at free-range though. There are many places which are not very amenable to growing crops fit for human consumption, but are more than adequate for growing the grasses (and more) that ruminant digestive systems (e.g. cows) can easily digest.

So if you're growing soy on deforested land as a base for your "cruelty free" burger, it is very possible that this has damaged the original ecology (and killed living things) more than having grazing cattle would.
Less animals stand to die at the blades of the harvester when one chooses to stop eating animals altogether. You can't eliminate suffering, but you can take active measures to reduce it.
Completely ignores the methane output issue which is a huge contributor to global warming.

Also, killing billions of sentient beings simply because the taste is a bit off, but let's all just ignore that.
Full disk encryption is still done using a key. The owner of the machine will have that key. So he can decrypt the data with the key. Full disk encryption does not mean data recovery is impossible. Your laptop bring owned by Apple, not you is what makes recovery impossible.
There is no compelling evidence that eating unprocessed beef carries any significant cancer risk.

This claim is obvious a-priori bullshit if you know much about human metabolism. Plain old meat is very rapidly metabolized almost entirely into peptides and absorbed; there is little room for it to cause GI problems. Hence why there are a lot of people with plant-related digestive issues (e.g. celiac) but very few people with beef intolerance, outside of freak allergies like alpha-gal (lone star tick syndrome).
When first giving my 4yo burgers the second or third time I forgot to season the patty when cooking. After one bite he said, "That's not food" and wouldn't eat anymore.
> that will never be as perfect as an optical viewfinder,

Don't forget that EVF can surpass OVF in image quality because they can apply lens correction to the viewed image which brings the image closer to the final product. (although AFAIK it's not done currently)
Though from googling it also seems that they're not substantially worse.
As far as I understand it you can have a perfectly suitable vegetarian diet without much effort (note: vegan is trickier and very hard for babies). If you want to maintain your current meat/“meat” consumption then we are still many years off lab meat being cheap and accessible enough yes.

The intent of beyond burger, I think, is not to be a meat substitute every time you would currently eat meat, but instead a nice tasting treat food. Sure, it’s salty and full of saturated fats, but I only have them once a month.
Isn’t this just another ultra processed food? I actually don’t mind the taste of these meat alternatives but I do wonder what the long term effects are if we suddenly switch our diets to eating significant quantities of things that didn’t evolve alongside us. I think it’s healthy for people to be skeptical.
With glowing claims like this its hard to not be cynical or at least skeptical. Reminds me of this gem :https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/the-top-10-most-da...
If these companies fraudulently stole the identity of individual Americans why aren’t they facing criminal charges?

The Francis Wilhoit definition of conservatism as a form of aristocracy seems applicable:

“There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
And we need to eat many pounds of cow.

Or many more pounds of plants to generate a pound.
My implication was that 'all the power goes to this group, which is ridiculous' - not 'the idea that people have that all the power is concentrated there is a bad idea'.

Probably my bad.
Define suitable. In a market sense? Most farm profits come directly from the government. 2020 was supremely profitable for farms (https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/record-high-ag-sub...) due to subsidies.

In terms of some like of positivist, ecosystem sense? I don't know, ask an ecologist what used to be on the land. I can promise you it wasn't cows.
Safe Heaven by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
> It's also worth keeping in mind that living off plants generally kills more total animals

This is untrue, as the animals you are eating are fed and raised on plants, which are harvested with the machines that potentially kill the field animals. So even accounting for that, fewer animals will die.

Also, animals tend to migrate out of fields during harvesting, and relocate (which is still not good! But better than being ground up by machines)
It's completely contrary to the barrage of what I call "cult of the victim" that spews forth from nearly all media.

[Villain music]
Last time I did a comparison, in terms of things that I personally want to consume less of (sodium, calories), real meat still wins
Its hard to see the problem when your livelihood depends on ignoring it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that serving ads for consumer products and services is evil. Definitely annoying, but not morally wrong.

However that is not what is happening. Some of the largest companies in the history of the world are actively building and profiting from platforms that allow political parties and governments to distribute targeted propaganda and digest huge amounts of personal information collected under intentionally obfuscated terms of service.

If you are working at google / facebook / twitter you are just as responsible as the scientists and engineers who worked on the Manhattan project. You are the destroyer of worlds.
Because we are natural meat eaters and still have strong cravings for meat even if we don't eat it. Eating a close facsimile can help those satisfy those cravings and avoid a rebound to eating real meat.
I would also not publish in areas that would lead to complete ostracization from academia.
They're supper processed. I recommend stacking a beef burger with a "impossible/ beyond or other veggie burger".

This cuts your beef consumption in half and I actually prefer it to plain burgers now.
This is my main concern with fake meats. The taste and texture are fine, the price point is acceptable, and I like the idea of not harming animals for my dinner, but I find it hard to believe that something with 20 highly-processed ingredients is healthy for me to eat. I thought I was supposed to be avoiding processed foods.
Just my anecdote, but when I used Instagram (stopped probably 2 years ago), the ad targeting was pretty terrible for me. Occasionally they would get something completely on the nose (to the point that it was a little creepy), but most of the time (>90% probably), the ads were completely irrelevant to me, either for things I already have and have no need to replace, or for things I don't think I'd ever conceivably buy.
We also destroy enormous swaths of rain forest each year to increase the amount of land for cattle...
I suspect it is fairly popular. Some of my friends who use Clubhouse talk about listening to groups of tea farmers in China talk about tea. Voice chat is very popular in China anyway, since it is easy and accessible to people who have not learned an IME. Add the fact that things iPhone and exclusive are popular and I am not surprised the concept can do well.
Maybe you can say more about what you disagree with, then, rather than writing off the comment as a bad argument. I don't think it was that bad or emotional, personally.
Totally agree on Impossible Burgers. Like the GP, I also try to avoid eating meat due to animal welfare concerns. That, said, I've tried going vegetarian multiple times before and honestly I felt awful - I'm naturally very slim and not particularly energetic to begin with, and when I was on a vegetarian diet I felt totally lethargic.

With Impossible Burgers, though, it really tastes and feels like I'm eating a real burger. It completely satiates my desire for meat, and it makes my body feel "good" from an energy perspective.
I think the question is regarding nutrition / health, not taste.
I suspect financial institutions are interested in crypto because they don't want a new financial system with a more democratic organizational model to make them obsolete.

Maybe there are some forward thinking people there who want crypto to be the driving factor behind refactoring from COBOL, who knows.
>Girls tend to be taught to worry about the feelings of other people more than their own and to conform to social expectations and to cave to social pressure. Trying to live up to high ideals about all people deserving to be treated well while I was not being treated well by them was something of an Achilles Heel for me.

This is an assertion many people make without any actual factual basis or proof. It sounds like what we think is true so we believe it is true, but that's often how many societies make their biggest blunders.

>I seem to not be the only woman who keeps trying to find some high road long after it's become obvious that the person in question is simply abusive and taking advantage.

Most people do this. In fact this is a teaching of Jesus Christ, to turn the other cheek even in extreme and dangerous circumstances. I'm not Christian, but it's the largest religion in the US, so you could presume most people would learn this trait (wrong or right as it may be). And you could assume that their religious upbringing is more influential on them than some cryptic, unable to pinpoint, way in which "people" teach girls one thing and teach boys another thing about how to be respected.
Meat is plant material that was processed inside the body of an animal. So they're both processed food.

If you want a healthy unprocessed burger, might I suggest trying a delicious homemade black-bean burger.
Which is why "at least nothing had to die" as an argument falls apart pretty quickly as a reason for eating Beyond Meat burgers. Pretty much everyone has different lines on which animals they find acceptable to kill, and I don't think that most people care too much if an animal that has been bred specifically to be eaten ends up getting eaten. If people want to try the sympathy route to get people to switch to a plant based diet, I think they'd have better luck bringing up the poor living conditions frequently found in factory farming.
One can also choose to consume meat that is not treated with cruelty. It’s more expensive, but does exist.

The “less violence” argument doesn’t hold sway with some. That’s a purely subjective assessment that not everyone agrees with. For example, I don’t consider the slaughter of animals for food to be particularly more violent than the wholesale shredding of plant fibers at harvest.
So how would this hypothesis impact the idea of vaccination?
definitely not a substitute. for vegans? sure. meat eaters? headline is clickbait
>And as a predatory animal, the fact that something "needs to die" for me to feed doesn't factor into the equation.

I'm having a hard time following this... are you saying that you don't think about the reality of killing animals for food because of some biological mechanism outside of your control?
As in, the bike ride is shakier?
Did you saw their pack of ten burgers? $1.60 per burger, it's dirt cheap!
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/06/17/cheaper-burgers-li...
Geez, we need to cook everything soon
There is only so much natural arable farmland on earth. If everyone is vegetarian, I'm not sure it would sustain current populations, without requiring deforestation/etc. There are many places in the world where people are sustained by animals like cows and goats which are able to eat things humans can't digest on their own.
This guy works in ad tech and this is the extent of their moral reasoning on the issue? This is about one argument and 90% history. Better to say you don't want to think about how the sausage is made.

Many have commented on the inherently harmful nature of advertisement, so I would like to address the one argument I see in there, it goes something like must "ads must exist or else we would have to pay for content". But even this seems to me largely unfounded. By excluding "donations and hobbies", what the author is really saying is "ads must exist or else the content we get would be different (read: worse)".

I see no reason to believe this. The sources of information I find reliable are ones based on consensus, eg Wikipedia. If anything, I find getting information from traditional media less reliable than getting it directly from random people, as the latter don't have a financial interest to present only certain types of information or present the information in certain biased ways. The bigger a news corporation is, the more interest it has in 1) relying on fearmongering and 2) conforming to a "current government" bias (as we have seen to horrible effect when Trump was president). As for entertainment, it is doubtful that anyone could become a millionaire with daily vlogs or let's plays as they can today, but I personally know of many that would be glad to just make a living. It's also improbable that a single big website such as YouTube would totally dominate the video sharing landscape, as they wouldn't be able to rely on ads to do so. Incidentally, getting rid of ads would solve the "advertiser friendly" problem that plagues mass media, small content creators and consumers alike.

In short, saying "ads are the only way" seems to me the same as saying "the web is have is the best version of the web" or even "it's the only web we can have". I disagree on both counts, and I for one can't wait until the house of cards crumbles.
Wanna live in a nice place with a garden for reasonable prices in your own house? Rural Germany is for you. Remote work from there? Yeah, not on 36k modem speeds you're not!
I've been trying to eat less meat for environmental reasons, and it's been made much easier because of Beyond Burger.

I personally can't tell the difference between Beyond Burger and a real beef burger, especially when I buy it from fast food chains like Carl's Jr where it is covered in sauce. I've had Impossible Burger several times and I could never get over its smell.

Beyond Sausage Spicy Italian is also a favorite in our household.
We don't know the answer to this of course.
Presumably they did some animal studies to show that huge doses of their product don't obviously damage a mouse.

Generally there is a 30+ year lag time to work out if some lifestyle change is detrimental. Look at smoking, soft-drinks... even more difficult with food products. We err on the side of recklessness by letting these products loose with minimal testing.

Personally I think that the cellular meat products, where they grow actual animal muscle cells in the lab, including seafood, are going to be the real killer product in this space. They have the advantage of true biocompatibility with us, less cringe factor and avoid the need for excessive processing to mimic the real thing. I also think that cellular meat will be cheaper and less resource intensive than plant based products in the end.
No, the Soviet System was a complete failure from top to bottom, producing some great scientists is nice but a side show.

Using standardized tests from 14-21 to select leadership feels very meritocratic, but it's also very crude. Also there is the ugly notion that maybe the best way to lead a nation is not purely meritocratic.

American Ivy League, despite their follies, produce a ton of very high calibre people. So does the 2cnd tier and below that, it's possible to get a very decent education but less guarantees of exceptional outcomes.

Some industries are full of Ivy League grads but many are not.