How Soylent Auto-Transcribes Phone Calls to Build a Database of Legal Advice | Hacker News Reader

How Soylent Auto-Transcribes Phone Calls to Build a Database of Legal Advice

zapier.com

58 pointsmikeknoop70 comments

Wait so they have their conversations with legal listened to and transcribed by random people at Rev? Considering the things one usually talks with lawyers about, it may not be super great to share that with random people outside the company.

Along these lines, in theory allowing a 3rd party to listen to these conversations waives the attorney client privilege. In practice this would amount to being able to compel REV to testify about these conversations when relevant.

not if Rev is being paid for their work. Think of it like an english to spanish translator, a spanish only illegal immigrant can still expect privilege with their counsel even if translator is there. Just because a third party is involved doesn't automatically waive privilege, it needs to be a third party unrelated to the case.

The Courts will look at the precise role of the third party to determine if the privilege has been waived. Obviously, there is a major distinction in using a interpreter, when the interpreter is essential[1] to further the legal representation. Whereas in the Soylent example, REV is not essential to further the representation, for example the lawyer/client could transcribe the conversation themselves and are only using a 3rd party for convenience.

[1]State v. Shire, 850 S.W.2d 923 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) - Because the daughter wasn’t essential in conveying information to the lawyer and wasn’t reasonably necessary to protect her mother’s interests, her presence at the meeting destroyed the privilege.

This is actually a really bad idea because of attorney-client privilege issues. By having a third party record the call, Uberconference or Gmail or Rev or Zapier itself, and it being sent forward to several other services, Soylent most likely waived any claim of privilege they may have in the event of litigation.

If you are a company considering doing this I would be very cautious.

I commend the hack, but unfortunately the legal world of ethics isn't moving as fast as technology.

Lawyers typically bill in increments of 6 minutes.

So when I had a question for my lawyer, I spent a few minutes polishing it up and sent an email. The response was usually billed for one or two increments.

It doesn't require a Rube Goldberg device to turn text into text.

And it turns out that good lawyers are good at writing. It's as central to their job as coding is to ours.

This has not been my experience at all. I've found that a phone call is much more efficient. If permitted, many lawyers I've dealt with, several of whom were clearly the best and most professional, would milk an email or text-based response for quite a lot more, even after being asked to keep it brief.

If you feel your lawyer is overcharging you, tell them so, complain to the local bar and/or find another lawyer.

Complaining over this kind of issue to local bar will get you absolutely nowhere. I did switch attorneys, two or three times, but they all do this and all assert that all others do it. To boot, in some situations such as family court, switching attorneys can be and often is taken by the judge as a sign that you don't have your shit together well enough to hold down an attorney. Even if you switched for a completely legitimate reason, they can hold it against you and play favorites with the other counsel. This was especially true for a family member of mine going through such a circumstance in a small, rural community where all possible attorneys to hire in the area had close dealings with all of the judicial staff.

OK, you had a bad experience. I've had good experiences. Let's leave it at that.

You've had a good experience,he has had bad experiences. See the difference? The only way you repackaged the discussion was a cheap maneuver, and misleading.

Also, his (only anecdotal, blah blah blah) argument took pains to paint a picture of the entire field/profession using not only his (multiple, to your one) lawyer experiences but also secondhand accounts of people saying the entire industry charges a lot for email.

Most people have to flip the coin once or twice to get heads, would they comment on a statement that it is easy to get heads?

Probably, lawyers are good at email if they are routinely sent a lot of email given the customer demographic in their region and specialization.

> The only way you repackaged the discussion was a cheap maneuver, and misleading.

I object to this. I didn't "repackage" the conversation. I pointed out we had diverging experiences. Telling someone that their experiences didn't happen (his or mine) is plainly silly.

Soylent seems like an ecommerce dev firm with a food product on the side. This article is more detailed than anything they've released about their actual Soylent formulation development and testing procedure.

That's what bothers me about those guys. Their product testing is inadequate.[1] Their outsourced fulfillment operation loses orders.[2] They only do a few sales per minute. No major distributor stocks their product. Yet they're always talking about how elaborate their computer operations are.

[1] http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/18/9171521/soylent-prop-65-la... [2] http://readwrite.com/2014/07/22/soylent-food-replacement-bad...

> Their product testing is inadequate.[1]

Did we read the same article? That article has _nothing_ to do with their product testing. It has everything to do with Prop 65 and labeling. To quote TFA:

> But legalities and press releases aside, from a practical health perspective, none of this may matter: as Soylent notes, Prop 65's guidelines are notoriously stringent, pulling many everyday products into its labeling regime — and outside California, there are other more broadly accepted sets of lead and cadmium guidelines that the product meets.

...?

> Their outsourced fulfillment operation loses orders.[2]

Present tense.. they _had_ major shipping and supply problems at launch. They don't seem to anymore.

They didn't put prop 65 stickers on the product, even though the absurdly low limits of prop 65 required the warning.

That might be because they didn't test the product well enough to detect those very low levels; or because they think prop 65 is bogus; or because they just didn't realise it was a thing.

None of those are great for a food product.

(Although I agree the prop 65 labelling is so strict it becomes worthless.)

I loath Soylent, but the prop 65 thing is a distraction rather than evidence of anything wrong. That same warning is on a bunch of stuff because the limits are absurdly low, far lower than any safety threshold.

Just curious. Did they let the lawyers know the call is being recorded (it might even be illegal not to do so in some states)? and how did the lawyers react?

They use UberConference. I'm guessing that makes it clear that some recording is happening, although the website doesn't say either way. https://www.uberconference.com/features/record_conference_ca...

EDIT: California is an "all party consent" state - everyone being recorded has to agree to it.

From some quick googling:

"California law generally requires a person to obtain consent from all parties to a call before recording the call. See Cal. Penal Code § 630 et seq. Consent can likely be obtained by providing a recording disclosure at the outset of the call."

All recorded calls on UberConference begin with an automated message: "This call is being recorded"

Doctors record your health info too.

This is a great post. I'd love to hear more about multistage zaps people use. I'd also enjoy a post that talked about different zaps that zapier uses in house.

> "That couldn't be further from the truth. We drink Soylent because it gives us the time to do other things that we love."

I find this strange that he acts like food is an obstacle (all of the time). What about the joy of enjoying your food?

This again... you can drink Soylent and still enjoy food. You can drink it for the times when you just need food but don't need to enjoy it.

Meal replacements have been around forever. Why is soylent better?

True meal replacements which are suitable for long-term use are not widely marketed to consumers. They tend to be available only through medical channels.

1. Why is Ensure unsuitable for long-term use? (It's available at every local supermarket and drugstore, nutritionally complete, and marketed as being suitable for exactly this purpose.)

2. If we're assuming that this is a meal replacement for when you don't want to eat traditional meals, does it matter if it's suitable for long-term use?

Thank you - I was under the impression that Soylent was significantly cheaper than Ensure, but after doing some napkin math it seems to be roughly equivalent (powder form) or actually more expensive (bottled form) per calorie.

Ensure and Soylent have radically different purposes. Ensure is meant for weight loss. Soylent is meant for nutritional sustenance.

Ensure is not meant for weight loss. Ensure is liquid food for people who can't eat.

Are you thinking of Slim-Fast? From https://ensure.ca/en/faq :

Will I gain weight if I drink Ensure®?

You can increase weight if that is your intended goal. Consuming Ensure® Regular or Ensure® High Protein (1.0 kcal/mL) [...] is a good way to maintain a healthy weight and help build muscle mass. Ensure® Plus Calories has a higher caloric content (1.5 kcal/mL) and may help you in increasing your weight. [...]

Ensure Plus is labeled in the US as "to gain or maintain a healthy weight" or somesuch.

There's no difference in what they're meant for. It's just that the makers of Ensure are much more conservative about marketing. (The ellipses in the quote above are all "please, please talk to your doctor.") If you prefer a product whose marketing strategy is more cavalier about human nutritional needs, but not meaningfully different in terms of actual product, by all means use Soylent. But Ensure is cheaper and available off-the-shelf everywhere.

Ensure is inferior to Soylent in a few ways:

- Ensure is nutritionally unbalanced. You'll get 200-400% of some nutrients (Vitamin C, Manganese) over 2000 calories and much less than 100% of others (fiber). Drinking Ensure over a whole day would have you consuming 120g of sugar (!), double that of Soylent.

- Ensure comes in a fixed variety of flavors, all of which are sickeningly sweet. You can make Soylent as flavorful and sweet as you want or drink it bland, depending on your preference.

- Ensure comes in silly formats (250 calorie bottles? what, am I supposed to open and drink three at a time?)

- Ensure uses milk products while Soylent is Vegan.

Excess vitamin C is certainly not harmful; nobody worries about drinking two glasses of orange juice (or even just one, and picking up more vitamin C from other sources), at least not because of its vitamin content. Orders of magnitude more vitamin C might be problematic, but 400% just isn't a problem.

Manganese seems to be the same way; at around 500% DV, you should worry about toxicity, but not before.

The rest of your criticisms are legitimate, though they're much more matters of opinions/preference than objective inferiority. (Personally, for instance, I find the taste of Ensure just fine; a bit on the sweet side, yes, but personally I use it when I'm failing to have an appetite, and sweet works for me.) Note that if you're aiming for a full meal replacement, the 350-calorie Ensure Plus is probably a better choice.

One objective advantage of Ensure is that, to my knowledge, it does not cause the legendary smelly stool that Soylent does.

"Ensure is intended for supplemental use with or between meals and for interim sole-source nutrition."

Soylent is a total food replacement; you don't need to eat anything else at all. It's not supplemental, and it's not interim.

If you're not eating it a lot, then no, there isn't any need for Soylent.

The difference between Ensure and Soylent isn't that Doylent is more sustainable; it's that Ensure protects its reputation by discouraging potentially unhealthy uses, while Soylent just bluffs to "fake it till they make it"

Ensure is also intended for complete replacement of meals; they just don't market that way in the US to the general public. They do to doctors, and they're more open about this use outside the US. From https://ensure.ca/en/faq :

For how long can I use Ensure®?? How many servings do I need to consume each day to meet my daily needs for good health?

Ensure® products deliver complete and balanced nutrition Ensure® products can be used daily. Individual needs depend on many factors — age, gender, level of activity, health status. Please consult your health care professional for details related to your health.

Can Ensure® replace a meal?

Yes. Ensure® products are complete and balanced, when used in appropriate amounts they can be used to replace meals.

Basically, if you're going to do something like switch to Ensure or Soylent or anything as your sole meal source, talk to your doctor first, but if the doctor doesn't object, Ensure is as usable for this purpose as Soylent.

Yes, it "can replace meals." It can't replace all meals, and that wording exhibits a good deal of effort trying to hide that fact from you.

What is the appropriate amount of Ensure you'd have to eat in a day to survive on nothing else, and is that the actual amount recommended for meal replacement?

This is untrue. Ensure can be, and has been, used as sole source of nutrition.

> that wording exhibits a good deal of effort trying to hide that fact from you.

No, that wording is keeping them compliant with stringent regulatory systems. The fact that Soylent ignores that regulation is a bug, not a feature.

More than one person has pointed out your error. The fact you continue to push it is dishonest.

Talk to your doctor. The manufacturers tell doctors all of this; they just don't market that to the general public.

That's also the right answer for the same question about Soylent, btw. It just turns out that people who are unenthusiastic about proper medical advice form a lucrative market.

From personal experience with Soylent 2.0, it's more nutritious and filling than other replacements/supplements I've tried. The product seems to place some importance on properly replacing a meal, not just being a vitamin blast.

Soylent powder doesn't spoil for a year and at a cost of $2, I can make myself breakfast in literally 50 seconds using a faucet, 5cm^3 of chocolate powder, and a blender bottle.

You should try porridge. Its been around for ages.

I don't think you can make porridge in 50 seconds.

Unless you're talking about instant porridge. Please don't tell me you're recommending instant porridge.

Been a while since I made any but I am sure a couple of minutes in a microwave would be enough. OK, not 50 seconds, but not a particularly large amount of time.

I ate oatmeal for breakfast nearly every morning for 13 years.

So true. The beauty of Soylent is that you get to enjoy food instead of it being a chore.

If you cook in large batches you can also accomplish this.

Assuming you have the infrastructure available to do so. (I personally don't use Soylent or similar products, but I can see the appeal in many situations)

I'll have to look up the pricing -- I assumed if you could afford a 100% meal replacement, you could afford to cook.

I meant more along the lines of storage/freezer space for cooking ahead. Price-wise these meal replacements aren't that great.

You can also live without electricity. It's way more convenient because you don't have to pay bills or worry about electrocuting yourself.

If you really need to drink an engineered solution it is a symptom of something else. Having to skip or delay a major meal should be a matter of absolute emergency.

I guess in the USA lunch is not the major meal, but it is sacred in my side of the planet and I like it like that. I'm a very anxious person, turning off everything for an hour in order to eat well is a very useful ritual and plays a big part on my concept of enjoying life. And I'm really considering moving to a place that has a "ciesta" culture as well.

What really matters in life?

Personally it feels depressing and boring to consider shoving plant and animal parts down my maw to be some critical part of a fulfilling life. The fact that some foods have different flavors is about as enthralling as clothing that comes in different colors. Those are both certainly nice features, but they are difficult to get excited about.

This is, no exaggeration, the saddest comment I've ever read on this site.

It can't be serious. :-)

Have you never been in a situation where you were in a rush to go do something but you were hungry and didn't want to be hungry while you did the thing?

This means that soylent (which you could make in literally 50 seconds using a blender bottle, soylent powder, and faucet) would be somewhat useful. You'd probably want to add some flavor like chocolate powder though.

Myself, I very occasionally get really nervous and anxious and really just feel a bit of a revulsion at chewing and eating food. But, I know that I should eat because to maintain homeostasis. Perhaps you are capable of a sympathetic response to that situation. Soylent has been a good solution for me for those times.

Normally, I do enjoy food. I'll admit as a hard-of-smelling person, I probably don't get as much joy as other people, but I do enjoy it. But it is indeed sometimes an obstacle.

I have a simpler alternative:

* 1 liter milk

* 3 large bananas

* 1 spoonful peanut butter

* 1 scoop of cacao powder

Mix it all in a blender and enjoy.

Simpler =! better. Your 3 bananas are far too many carbs compared to a serving of my Soylet or Ketochow.

We were talking about saving time, not dieting. Actually this type of shake with some added protein powder is ideal for weight gain during strength training. Typically I couldn't finish such a big serving without some exercise to build up appetite.

I disagree that your simple shake provides the same nutritional benefits as a serving of Soylent, but to each their own.

Based on on the long term studies done on nutritional value and absorbtion rates of Solyent? Or based on their marketing?

Based on the nutritional content of a serving of Soylent from their nutritional label versus the few ingredients listed above.

How is that simpler than Soylent which now comes ready-to-drink in a bottle?

That doesn't have nearly the general nutritional value. Bananas and milk both spoil far faster. It's also a specific taste that would likely get tiring if you had it too often. It contains two ingredients (milk and peanut) that significant fractions of the population are allergic to.

And on top of all of that, it's more time consuming to make and to eat, so I don't see where "simpler" comes from.

I've enjoyed this drink for many years without getting tired of it. It's not for every meal of the day but it can replace a meal in a pinch. I've never tried Soylent but I'm sure anything could get tiring if overused. By simpler I mean I can get these ingredients anywhere in the world. From their website:

Soylent is sold exclusively through Soylent.com and is currently available throughout the United States and Canada. 1.

Soylent powder costs $1.54 per 400 kcal. 2.

A liter of milk alone provides 670 kcal. 3. It should cost less than $1.54 in most parts of the world. Milk contains a good mix of macronutrients, vitamins, and minerals. Bananas, peanut butter, and cacao powder are also very nutrient-dense but I like this combination mainly for the flavor.

1. https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/202256309-Where-to...

2. https://www.soylent.com/product/powder/

3. http://www.positivehealthsteps.com/calories/milk-calories.sh...

Why does McDonald's exist?

McD french fries give me joy. There's really no other reason to eat them.

Didnt have time to read this article. Had friends over and we cooked a nice meal together and had a very pleasant evening. I like it that way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com