HashHishBang

Buy a blender bottle, the ones with the small wire ball inside which are designed for mixing protein powders and the like. They're about ~20 floz so fill 8oz with Soylent, 8+ with water and you're good. Throw in some ice, shake, and no chilling is needed.

I stopped using the big container entirely since it's like 3-5$ for a bottle I just bought 2 and always have a clean one.

Wow, that was a truly terrible article. The sheer level of laziness displayed is astonishing if only because that same person has managed to type up complaints of this length.

When your number one point about Soylent is it's too difficult to make then I begin to seriously question the author's ability to actually make it through a day.

Follow up points are equally pathetic. Arguing the inflexibility of a powder by only brewing large batches, while the concept that this is a powder, able to be mixed on demand in <5 minutes, appears to have never crossed the authors mind.

The final point appears to be a complaint that not everyone shares the author's viewpoint. Admittedly at that point I had started skimming hoping to see some semblance of an actual point, I was wrong.

Overall it seems this article is trying to use hyperbole and a few mediocre attempts at humorous comparisons to hide the fact that the author comes off as so lazy and incompetent as to have issues mixing powder and water.

One can only imagine the horror that is this individual's attempts to mix coco powder with those tiny marshmallows.

Ok, serious question here. Considering that you are cloning git repos and apparently "bigger" repos as well, I find myself confused by the following.

"There was only one problem. The test took between 15 seconds and 25 seconds. This was way too long."

Why is 15-25 seconds too long? Did you have speed requirements that had to be met? Was this a performance issue that is being glossed over in the article?

Oh come on now. You can't just cut a sentence in half then analyze just that part. Especially when the entire comment was only 2 sentences.

Not to mention that it is very much debatable if any actual analysis was performed for this article. Admittedly I bailed after the 4th or 5th paragraph of entirely unsubstantiated rambling, but I digress.

Slow load times on my computer for...a site to tell me to come back on my smartphone. No. Not even 'No thank you', just no.

Interesting, I'm glad to see people have positive experiences with Hackathons despite my own being horribly toxic. The reasoning given in the article is actually the impetus behind my decision to ditch hackathons (and later the "development" community in favor of QA Automation).

The 'competition' portion of a hackathon usually messes me up in both approach to the work and the desired end goal. Whereas it seems to be a major portion of the attraction for the blog author and a lot of people in this thread.

Perhaps it is a matter of teammates that I have participated with thus far, but trying to hack together a minimum-passable-product (note: not even viable but ~passable~) stuck me as an utter waste.

I would expect that trains have to accommodate the fact that they're trains as well. I would expect trying to stop/start a train traveling at 60mph without damaging the tracks on which it runs would require rather more time than a car.

Yeah I actually went back and looked through that comment section afterwards. The responses from the author were super disappointing.

While I agree that the naming of variables is vastly more important than some (most?) people think, tossing convention without any actual rules for what should replace it is pretty worthless.

The immutability argument was actually novel to me and something that I actually found to be an interesting shift in thought process. However, the change from: Ball ball = dog.getBall(); to: Ball ball = dog.give();

totally destroys any readability. Give returns an object? That object is a ball? What?

That was...a rather empty article, especially considering the argument was supposed to close the issue. While it is interesting to change the point of view from data manipulate to object/system manipulation the author managed to lose that point inside a religious naming debate.

When the "big reveal" of an article is to change the name of a method and then say "look how clever this is!" it becomes hard to take it seriously.

As a Java programmer I'm reasonably confident that didn't happen.

Not to run too far away from the actual content of the post but...

I thought metal-air batteries didn't produce a high enough current to be used in devices requiring much more juice than a hearing aid?

Woah, I always pondered the idea of doing a formal language for this but it's awesome to see someone else's take on it. Thanks for the link.

This is beautiful! The synopsis is a wonderful feature, though I did notice some weirdness with the aggregation of sentences into paragraphs. Sometimes important noun-phrases were cut off completely changing the meaning of the resulting sentence.

Still I worked on a project like this for ~8 months before retreating to get more math background info. I am incredibly impressed to see a tool like this arise with such a level of quality. Well done.