In before someone touches their screen too hard damaging the LCD because it's not reinforced to support the pressure of touch.
700 karma · joined September 28, 2012
Except they're not. The heat dissipation in the thin iMacs is terrible in that it prevents the CPU from working at full capacity 100% of the time.
That top of the line iMac costs four grand while a Hackintosh costs half that and gets you a top of the line graphics card and the ability to keep on par with the top of the line.
For desktop users, size of the machine is not nearly as important as raw. computational. power. The iMac was good in its time but that time was half a decade ago. The Mac Pro was supposed to be the revolution for Mac desktops, but they neglected it for too long. And since you can't upgrade it yourself that shiny new Mac depreciates exponentially and even more so when software updates bog down resources further.
Support for specific combinations of hardware is near the flawless breaking point where just about anyone could follow the guides to put together a machine that will run MacOS using near top of the line hardware. Being able to dual boot Mac and Windows, so that I can be productive and game on a high end graphics card - and not locked down in expandability is unparalleled.
If you're paying for top of the line build quality, you shouldn't have to sacrifice for last-gen hardware for the sake to be 1mm thinner.
"function example(): string? {"
vs
"function example() : ?string {"
I had an Uber driver drop me off in a sketchy alley three blocks from the location I specified, but because he barely spoke a lick of English I had trouble communicating that it wasn't my stop.
Everything is packaged so that you're either finding ways to use up ingredients or you end up throwing them away because they've expired. Some foodstuffs come in smaller servings which is a blessing but the costs add up.
The timing however is not. This is not a preventative measure, it's reactive. Would Soylent have taken the same action if they had not been put on blast on Reddit and other sites? If not for the bad publicity I don't think they would have done anything at all.
Until they are ensuring the quality of their product from batch to batch I'm out. That means properly mixed bars, testing each batch to ensure the 100% nutritional values they claim.
Soylent is not a conventional product. It's trying to tap into a new market and approaching these issues as if they've already a mainstay. When there's mold in both their powder and their bottles, now I'm checking my bars for mold too. When they sell a product they claim has 100% nutritional value, yet they don't test such a claim - I'm now wondering if the rest of my supply is also lacking.
I've enthusiastically enjoyed Soylent. Their Coffeist is my go-to breakfast and I will continue to finish my remaining supply of bars and bottles. But I won't spend another time until Rosa Labs can be trusted to back up their claims and correct these frequent manufacturing mishaps.
For two weeks they sold Coffeist without knowing the manufacturing process burned off the Vitamin A and C. They promised an update via email to customers but instead posted a blog update, while re-labeling and selling the remaining product at full cost.
The last instance of mold occurred just last month inside and out of sealed 2.0 bottles. Machinery leaked mold before the bottles were wrapped. Numerous customers and several batches were contaminated - with no contact from the company.
Other problems have included varying consistency from batch to batch and formula changes of viscosity without warning, and then the claims from users that have found roaches inside of the Soylent-branded boxes containing the bottles (not inside the shipping box).
The problem here is their approach. To discover this information you have to be connected to the community and keep yourself fully up to date or else you may find yourself unknowingly consuming a tainted batch. So far Coffeist has been the only instance in which they reached out to customers, despite there being several to many contaminated batches of their entire line - from bars, bottles, and powder.
The whole point of Soylent is that it's convenient, worry-free, and nutritionally complete. When I have to vigorously check my bars or bottles for mold, improper mixing, or to see if the expiration matches a contaminated batch - it's no longer convenient or worry-free. When they don't know for two weeks that manufacturing burns away the vitamins - and they re-label to sell it at full cost - it's no longer nutritionally complete.
"If you notice you have a bad batch, contact us," is not the approach I can trust for a new contender with no market trust. For a company that totes 100% transparency, they need to work on their customer outreach.
Food is not a game of roulette. Soylent is a new contender in the market of food replacement, and while I have enthusiastically enjoyed their product - I won't gamble on whether or not I may have a bad batch. They haven't earned my trust even if the hiccups are far and few between. Considering they market their product as "food you don't have to think about," they have done customers wrong.
Their approach needs to change if they want to win back the trust they've lost. From nutritional discrepancies in their labels, to mold inside and outside of sealed bottles, and unknown sources of violent illness - their M.O. for these problems seems to be to sweep it under the rug and only address customers that come forth.
When they have a batch that knows is tainted or has a problem, they make no effort to reach out to potentially affected customers. I've been subscribe to the bars since the beginning, and have had no problems until this one batch. While I did not experience violent illness, I had other symptoms I never would have connected had I not discovered the problem via articles such as this. When I have to inspect each bar and bottle I open, Soylent is no longer the worry-free meal replacement for me.
Very cool.
Soylent 2.0 Bottle = 400 Calories, ~$29 for 12 bottles (via Amazon) works out to ~166 calories per dollar.
Soylent Bar = 250 calories, $24 for 12 bars (via Soylent.com) works out to ~120 calories per dollar.
Back when I was a kid there was something like this in a handheld gameboy-like device that had an antenna you could use to chat with anyone nearby that had the same device. The only problem was nobody else in the nearest five mile radius had one.
When this kind of technology is baked into our phones, without the need for carriers or network providers, this kind of communication would be facilitated by devices instead of software. This kind of communication exists now in the software realm (ie. Yik Yak, FireChat - with closed participation) but once that layer transitions from software to hardware visa vi dongles or built into our phones, that participation will become more open and face less scrutiny against surveillance.
Hundreds of social apps enter the market every month, but the reason so many fail is because they try to keep up with the standard. Bumble and Happn both tried to replace Tinder, but couldn't because the value of communication hardly changed. Bumble surely gives women more power into the dynamics of online dating, but women not having power was hardly an issue given Tinder's match process. The saturation of refinement has already piqued in that market.
Social apps don't necessarily miss the mark, but rather they fail to predict. We are in an age of ephemeral messaging at the moment but it's a false premise given the increasing control of the police state governments. The next revolution in communication and social apps is going to be off-the-grid communication, where there are no networks or carriers - just end points. Mesh networks and Tor-like nodes are below the surface at the moment, but once that technology moves from software to hardware I predict it's going to bloom (permitting encryption is not outlawed) into dongles you attach to your phone which eventually are sold as features.