-30 karma · joined April 22, 2019
I wish to improve my communication and appreciate that Paul Graham thought hard then freely shared his insights on such a difficult topic for a great deal of people.
I've always wondered how and why Geoff Bezos ran Amazon with six page essays and now I think I'm a bit closer to understanding.
What I've stated is that I experienced increased fatigue from exposure to ER while I was seriously ill and had elevated serum ferritin.
Each ferritin molecule has 4500 iron atoms and serrin ferritin increases with acute or chronic viral infections. A healthy level is less than fifty. So a 1150 times increase in iron atoms in someone's blood could plausibly cause fatigue when it absorbs er.
Who does this cause anxiety in exactly?
How is turning off electronic devices going to cause anxiety?
People can turn them off. If it helps great. If it doesn't don't bother.
No anxiety necessary.
You might be better educated than me, better connected than me and more intelligent but there's something to be said for original thought. I'd love to take you up on your bet where you impolitely just called me a whinger. I think I'm smarter than you are just sayin there wasn't one insightful thing in your comment as you tried to apply a method that doesn't really fit the situation. How do we do this? Let's bet our hacker News anonymous reputations on it.
Once the wifis gone the MCS patients spend more time sitting in front of wired digital display devices activating their central cortexes burning through their constrained glutamate supplies (which is also the most probable reason blind people don’t develop schizophrenia)which depletes their glutathione which increases their pathogenic load and inflammation while their spinal column is degenerating and inflaming from the sitting and those two things have a larger negative effect on them than the positive effect of the reduction in wifi exposure.
The disappointment at their failed remedy further aggravates their condition and nobody is interested in their next bright idea for alleviating their condition. So they live their life out labelled as a whinger and their negative emotions contribute further to their health decline.
They won't recover while exposed to er but because removing er won't cure them this is not a reason for not benefiting from minimising exposure.
Spinal function and glutathione production is as or more important for MCS suffers than a reduction in ER exposure which is important but nobody tells them that and I've no idea how to prove it but at least Im thinking about it while recovering from ME which has more utility than telling them to just get on with it.
The end of back pain book by surgeon Patrick Roth will gradually fix anyone's spinal function with a kettle bell and exercise ball.
Diet and sleep will gradually fix glutathione production.
No one will make money from researching this so Dr's are forced to ask patients to just harden up. There's a lot of benefit in hardening up as well but it won't recover spinal function or increase glutathione production or decrease er or chemical sensitivity.
I’m not saying it causes an illness I’m saying if you have a certain subset of illness it increases your fatigue. It also hurts your hands but you aint never gonna believe that ha ha. Iphone 7s are the worst.
I’m getting better and so is my tolerance to er so I’m not overly concerned about myself.
It’s the millions of other edge cases wrongly labelled as whingers by the medical system that I feel for.
ER doesn’t cause fatigue it exacerbates it in certain people. I better look at those hundreds of studies to figure out why I’m so wrong about this.
I don’t want to sell anyone a tinfoil hat or phone case and reducing exposure to er at night is great for sleep and CO2 emissions so why wouldn’t you.
A healthy person can endure a toxic environment. An unhealthy person becomes more unhealthy from increased toxicity.
I’m not saying electromagnetic radiation makes a healthy person unwell i’m saying it delays or worsens recovery of some unhealthy people and there are million different subsets of unhealthy people so which subset are you going to run the double blind placebo on before you decide reduce electromagnetic radiation while you sleep.
It’s a simple experiment anyone can try. Two weeks of camping is an effective insomnia treatment as per research which eliminates electromagnetic radiation from the equation. I think its a zeitgeber in subsets sick people but there’s no profit in researching that so the only tools you have are existing research, intuition, self observation and logic.
People figure out how to sex chickens without a causative mechanism. It isn’t a placebo effect or a double blind trial. Electrochemical gradients as per Michael Levins research affect genetic expression. Much like hedging one’s bet by believing in a creator just in case reducing your exposure to RF at zero cost is the smartest thing someone can do with the available evidence.
Serum ferritin is an accute phase reactant that elevates due to inflammation from acute and sometimes chronic illness or heritable genetic mutation.
When someone is ill and inflamed and fatigued and they have excess serum ferritin circulating in their blood which contains 4500 iron atoms per molecule and absorbs electromagnetic radiation it interferes with their biochemistry.
Why people scoff at investigating the prevalence of electromagnetic radiation exposure when there is a causative mechanism for elevated risk in sick people is because of either arrogance or ignorance. Maybe if the doctors listened to patients instead of diagnosing hypochondria when dealing with edge cases health outcomes would begin to actually you know improve.
This is Iranian research. So what. They have brilliant scientists. Serum ferritin absorbs and is affected by electromagnetic radiation and is highly elevated in sick people. As my serum ferritin has reduced from 1200 to under 310 through venesection and lifestyle I have gradually been able tolerate exposure to electromagnetic radiation without being fatigued by it for extended periods. People running a daily energy budget become pretty adept at working out what burns through their energy and electromagnetic radiation exposure definitely does and bored sick people definitely want to use wireless devices but can't. The hypochondria diagnosis is illogical when it comes to electrosensititivity.
They're all just whinging man. Not one of them ever hoped it was all in their head and they could think their way out of it.
Hacker News is a perfect subset of people lacking the perspective to consider exploring the possibility that electrosensitivity is a thing that occurs with declining health.
Why so much negativity about researching something so ubiquitous? Let's discuss inverse power laws and quadratic functions, maybe we can build a machine learning model with our deficient statistics instead of taking two hundred phones out of two billion and testing their electromagnetic radiation at multiple distances and angles so we actually have a reliable model.
Why rely on a model?
20,000 phones are being sold an hour. Why not buy 200 phone's off 200 shelves and test them comprehensively at 0 mm, 1mm, 2mm, 3mm ..... The cost to volume sold is completely negligible and it is useful consumer information as 3 percent of the population is electrosensitive.
An estimated 30 million people suffer from Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (chronic fatigue) in the world and the average diagnosis takes seven years. Chronic health conditions are increasing exponentially. Healthy people aren't sensitive to environmental stimuli but unhealthy people are and the number of chronically unhealthy people grows by the day as livers strain under the stressors and weakening of modernity.
Turn your wifi off in your house at night and see if you sleep any better. Pretty simple anecdotal experiment. A house without the wifi on or excess electrical componentry on has a nicer feel. We did not evolve with this electromagnetic radiation and the cost of testing is negilible given the global population's growing exposure to it and something interesting may fall out of the research.
The risk of Apple having to make slight design modifications if research raises an issue is not a huge concern of mine. One hours phone sales should cover it and then they could further differentiate their products and raise prices.
How many electrical engineering schools are there in the world? Sounds like a great way for a university to get their staff free Iphones with a research grant.
Human’s love observing an argument.
Twitter is too concise to form decent arguments.
If there was a website called Dual - where people could register a username - then post on the forum where they were arguing to verify their dual account and then continue the argument on a platform set up for settling written arguments and integrating external references.
People would talk less anonymous smack or have to back up their smack on dual and then write at a level that convinces the masses they know what they are talking about. No swearing on dual. The disagreements would actually educate everyone and the voting and following would tell you what to advertise.
If someone was talking smack on a forum and didn’t register on dual you could assume they were a coward or a troll. If followers could supply duelers with arguments we would get to the truth in an entertaining way very quickly and any misunderstanding would be highlighted and documented.
People often do great thinking in the heat of an argument. We should harness the anonymous arguments. Politicians should accept duels instead of televised debates.
Limit the responses to 300 words and six references or something effective.
I wish I had the money and health to clone twitter and do it but someone should do it. Both sides have to watch the arguments unfold so it brings observers and duelers closer to the truth rather than polarising them.
The trick is in trusted auto verification of anonymous duelers and getting enough duels and spectators to make internet dueling a thing.
This is while Telsa is building out a charging network and fighting for a direct to consumer sales model and also possessing a knowledge base of every fault that's ever occurred in it's entire fleet and every Tesla Sale increases the return on Tesla's deployed capital plus a highly dedicated creative resilient workforce that are at the point of smoothing variability and product refinement.
So for BMW to win they have to bet the factory that they will take enough market share while Tesla's quality and brand strengthen. Hence the current share valuation.
Now a lot of people say Elon is a manipulative exaggerator but the fact remains he has built car sensor database company with a carbon advantage that has BMW on the ropes while reigniting a space race. If machine learning can sort the data and it seems to be improving year on year then alot of people who haven't built nearly as much will probably be taking a Tesla to work.
Why do people want Tesla to fail. Economies of scale, improving battery technology and a global charging network and everyone eventually has a cheaper travel option. How revered the founder was is a quite irrelevant.
If a book takes more than 4 hours to mind map it's either a good book or poorly organised.
The reading speed isn't the constraint. It's placing the knowledge in your knowledge tree without tiring yourself out. Only read the key parts of the knowledge tree slowly in depth.
Use A3 paper and a click pencil. Speeds the reading right up. When the books mapped, explain the mind map to someone.
He constantly configures his classroom to maximise learning continuity for the entire class. It is a massive challenge balancing out the problems students face physically or outside the classroom. Teaching has become the easy part of teaching.
The problem with student learning is that is affected by three things.
Emotional Health Physical Health Teaching Quality
to build an educated adult you need to optimise all three variables.
The problem with rewarding teachers is that their students aren't objectively assessed on all three dimensions.
In every district in the world there should be three person educational assessment teams that consist of an emotional health assessor, a physical health assessor and an academic progress assessor that work as a team to objectively assess the students and work with the teacher and support agencies to eliminate learning barriers.
Any students that need help should get referred to the correct service or program as quickly as possible. The teacher should focus purely on teaching and integrating support agencies.
Teachers deserve to be rewarded for their teaching ability in an objective way. As it happens there is a lot of unnecessary subjectivity and people blame teachers for not being social workers, counsellors and doctors. The education of every child in a class deteriorates as these three dimensions become less homogenous because the maximised learning continuity of the group depends on a limited resource. It is teachers who can creatively balance them while engagingly delivering the curriculum that are creating unrewarded alpha in the educational space.
Paying $250,000 a year in salary to a group of 3 specialist objective assessors with the data linked to the health and social services would get a better return on investment than any other expenditure a government could make in lifting the health, education and future earning potential of children.
If a child isn't learning there is always a reason. The faster you address that reason the more value you create. Sometimes it's the teacher, sometimes it isn't but for the child's sake we should definitely diagnose the reason.
I think a little bit of silicone is a smart trade off to save a lot of toilet-cleaning chemicals and compared to a toilet brush this is an order of magnitude better.
It would be interesting to know how many hacker-news users actually clean a toilet regularly. I'm guessing not many if any but that is an outrageous assumption. I know you will still have to clean the toilet after a spotLESS application but it will be easier and use less detergent.
Does the silicone lubricant have to come in a spray application or could you license spotLESS lubricant to the likes of Toilet-Duck to incorporate into toilet cleaners? If councils treated their sewers with the nanohair layer would the silicone lubricant floating past keep it lubricated.
It's a shame that the swoosh logo is already taken.
Maybe siting in a taxi shouldn’t be a $100,000 a year job.
The only benefit I see between a uber driver and a licensed taxi driver is that the uber is exponentially easier to heil.
So much better than phoning some droll dispatcher for a slower service.
Licensed taxi operators used to do exactly same thing with a slower more expensive service.
If they were better Uber wouldn’t have sold 10 billion tickets in 2018.
Uber adjusts Taxi fares to supply of drivers and demand. Licensed taxi drivers restricted supply to charge the more for a worse service.
Uber can do this because they are a now a verb. Customers love Ubering and that’s all that matters.
If legislation changes to increase driver pay Uber will still have network, cost and brand advantages over it’s competitors in the growing taxi market.
Ignoring laws broke taxi cartels globally. I think that is forgiveable.
And they aren’t forcing anyone to drive Uber but uber does provide an low barrier autonomous employment option that never existed to millions of people. The fact this works in their favour is irrelevant because customers love Uber.
It’s not like there’s a training opportunity cost to driving uber. You use a car you have and know how to drive anyway and you drive it in your spare time or on a full time basis to deliver people or things. The cost to secure this employment is $30 for a police record check. Don’t even need to write a cover letter.
They mightn’t be the straightest company in the world but neither are taxi cartels so they had to go to the edge of the line to displace them for the greater good.
So uber doesn’t have
Depreciating factories, Competing manufacturers, Supply chains Software R&D
And has expertise in establishing brand prescence and marketshare.
Uber = better taxi and demand for taxis will increase in future with or without driverless cars.
How easy is it for car manufacturers or software companies to build and displace what Uber has in operation in the transition to driverless cars? I think it’s difficult.
Uber seems to have deep experience how this market will play out and they are actually spending the money on r&d to see how it will play out and should be able to position the Uber brand which everyone in the Western world associates with taxi to clip the ticket on an increasing number of taxi rides in the future.
Google and Apple are possibly the biggest threats but they have a whole lot of anti-trust, privacy and motivation issues to overcome. Possibly Tesla has a automotive technology edge but unlikely and Tesla is constrained by its capital intensive business model.
From a net cash flow perspective, clipping tickets on taxi rides seems a profitable growth business while R&D into driverless car tech is a bottomless well but if your the largest taxi ticketer in the world it’s probably good to be at the edge of this field of knowledge.
At $26.00 a share uber needs to clip $1.00 per ride on 2.4 billion trips to get 12* earnings.
It did 10 billion rides/deliveries in 2018 and has 12 billion cash on hand presently.
It is a software business and owns the copyright to it’s software stack so should have lower operating costs than it’s smaller competitors licensing bits and pieces of their stack plus economies of scale plus one focus on getting people and things from a to b as easily as possible.
I hope it goes lower. At 26.00 - 7.00 for the cash on hand you are paying 19.00 for a verb that sells 6 tickets per day at $1.00 profit per ticket equals a 30% return on the core business which is being invested into R&D to secure brand prescence and network effects in emerging delivery technology.
That R&D can stop today and Uber will continue to print and clip the ticket for 10 billion rides per year now and for the forseeable future.
So it’s just a question of whether the current manager is a genius at deploying capital into the driverless r&d space and can get dominant market share of air taxi’s and delivery because the core of Uber (10 billion tickets per year) is a fantastic business and that definitely didn’t happen by accident and with antitrust regulations the uber app should become more profitable and dominant.
I hope it goes lower.
Thats a whole lot of mindshare and Uber is a whole lot better than a taxi. Future demand for taxis will go up. Uber is the verb for the software layer in the middle of getting from a to b.
Nobody can innovate enough in the space to displace Uber’s brand lead. Running a server is cheaper than paying a dispatcher.
Like Coca cola there is an uber on every street corner of the western world and customers love uber. Uber doesn’t need to buy syrup or warehousing.
Sounds like an opportunity to buy a profitable brand that successfully invested in becoming a verb.
I wonder what would be the minimum support cost if you kept the brand going and outsourced the server tech support. And what would be the minimum number of developers required to update the app for drones and air taxis.
I reckon 100 x 250k development 2000 x 100k server support 10 x 200k design 1000 x 100k driver/customer liasion Servers don’t know say 10,000 x .5k
Equals about 400m a year in operating costs.
If they are serving more than 400m rides a year and growing that should be a buy because every ride past 400m is pure profit and the only depreciation is their servers which is a minuscule percentage of their costs.
I’m going to read up on this company. It’s lower risk than Tesla because it only requires labour and the demand for getting from a to b is only going to increase. Lyft will never be a verb. Its definitely worth further investigation. I hope the shares sink further.
Importing corn, to feed a cow in a shed, then milk it three times a day, using a robot that breaks down regularly, and coupling it with a collar, that doesn't detect estrous more effectively than a primitive farmer who just observes his cows and isn't an expert in the maintenance of 10 robots - is the current state of modern agricultural technology.
Unfortunately the Lely salesman, the bank manager, and the farmer are unaware that maintaining multiple complex robots on farms is not profitable and that one state of the art robot to 50 cows or so is a waste of capital that only exists due to farmer subsidies and the tediousness of milk-harvesting.
Halter has the lead in this space currently because
Their collars remotely move the animals - this is a good thing when those animals evolved to graze pasture. The collar does anything the other collars do to a higher standard plus a lot of other things which are important to farming grass profitably.
Also while those Lely robots are uneconomic presently - at some point in the next 5 years - a single robot that sits in the cups on side of a rotary cowshed and milks 350 cows per hour will come on the market.
So the halter collar will move the cows to the pasture and back to the cowshed and one cost effective robot will milk them. Producing healthy food at a lower cost which is good for everybody except for subsidised corn farmers who are I feel are slowly poisoning the world.
They have some fairly decent backing, I think they secured 8m in their last round. The founder of Rocket Lab sits on their board. They are certainly doing interesting work in the agricultural space, and there is nothing wrong with primitive. We evolved for 600 million years or so and using technology that respects rather than exploits evolution is generally healthy.
The dairy-farmer in video [2] gets a subsidy from the government as does the corn farmer who supplies corn for his cows. The thing is the dairy-farmer would make more money - and everyone would be healthier if there was no subsidised corn in the system. Also one of the reasons that New Zealand farmers are innovative and produce healthier food from pasture that is cost competitive globally including delivery is, that they don't get any subsidies. None. Nothing. They eat what they kill from a natural economic and environmental system.
The good ol boys and the Europeans run farms in protected markets that are only economically viable with their taxpayers topping them up. Doesn't read like a fertile space for innovation.
I don't have one for immune disorders. I apologise but people with multiple sclerosis don't gravitate towards vegan diets.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6412750/
Can you please share a few of the best studies you've seen on veganism reducing depression and autoimmune disorders, I'm genuinely interested and hope I'm missing something.
"Tesla has the best chip in the world for the one neural network they want to run" is what I wanted to convey but don't actually have the technical background to do it.
"Frankly you're trying to have a technical discussion about a bullshit term"
You are right. I apologise for diluting the discussion and will go back to reading hacker news not creating it.
I love this site and don't want to dilute it.
2. Musk has investors and the price of his cash financing goes up when people short his stock and there is negative sentiment. It was a major strategic weakness when the viability of tesla depended on short-term cashflow financing and he did what he had to save the company that he poured his life savings into. Not so much now that he's built a system where every additional vehicle sold adds additional value and long-term investors can see that. Musk thinks long-term the markets think short-term but if you run out of cash, there is no more planning and he hates the markets lack of vision and people profiting from negative sentiment effectively killing optimum solutions. The market has a lot of long-term faith in Amazon and Google and Microsoft because of their dominant networks and economies of scale and profit from complex software with zero marginal cost.
3. Solving problems in sub optimal ways isn't solving them it's compromising on them. He solves them optimally with the least capital but admits his mistakes, one of which was not judging the benefit of humans and teamwork on production lines versus robotic manufacturing technology correctly. If you are generating negative externalities you aren't reducing entropy in the system and Tesla learnt this painfully and won't forget it.
4. I'm completely out of my depth on the data scientists employer preference but if I had the choice of solving problems from a constantly growing ocean or from an artificial fishpond and I had a desire to contribute majorly to solving the autonomous driving problem and I had to factor in the probability of earning enough money to buy my time freedom as quickly as possible then the data is suggesting that Tesla at this point in time is a reasonable bet.
The question is whether he can compete with Toyota on mass scale while battery tech comes down in price but he's quite lucky Toyota misbet on fuel cells and don't readily admit their mistakes, it appears he's built a 10 year lead on the autonomous driving and can compete in the high end of the electric market profitably. The first question anyone would ask a driver of an electric BMW is why they didn't choose a Tesla? That's a fairly strong position, I wouldn't be shorting that stock.
The entrenched car lobby have only have two lines of defense left. The first which was to short him so he runs out of access to cash from negative sentiment is virtually broken on Tesla's current revenue and IP acceleration. The last line will be a delaying argument over Safety but he has a much larger dataset.
Geico falls when Tesla proves safe autonomy. There is a lot at stake here and Musk has focused primarily on the physics which is the right thing to focus on for humanity.
How difficult is it for BYD to clone his autopilot chip and will that stop the Chinese from exporting knockoffs because I'm certain they can close the data and software gap instantly by swapping out a harddrive or 10.
I think he's got 10 years before the chinese chip fabs catch up.
Musk's question how did Tesla build the best AI chip for driving in the world without being a chip designer was the far more interesting yet overlooked question.
Musk has a talent for framing problems appropriately so that optimum solutions emerge with a minimum deployment of capital. And he's not secretive about it, he applies his training in physics and phenomenal knowledge to make good bets and eventually identifies and acknowledges his mistakes.
Tesla doesn't have an advertising budget. Musk couldn't care less about it's shareprice but I think he will be a bit perturbed if identical technology emerges faster than he foresaw as was Apple when the Android ecosystem emerged.
As it stands with his chip and data it is game set and match for autonomous driving which is a software game and the leader takes all the data and a fully autonomous vehicle is worth significantly more than non-autonomous vehicle and if you are data scientist you probably want to work for the company with the best data-set and highest remuneration.
The data is the gold and Tesla owns it and no-one can steal it and use it for at least 10 years by which point battery vehicles will be cheaper than petrol vehicles which is the major problem with the model 3. It is currently uneconomic against a toyota corolla but gains ground with every piece of battery and energy storage research that musk does not pay for.
Humans need 250grams of protein a day, some can come from plants, some from eggs, some from animals.
Currently what happens is that corporations lobby governments to protect local food markets under the guise of food security so that grass fed meat cannot be imported from sparse populations with lots of pasture into dense populations short of pasture.
The dense population then gets obese and mentally ill on corn-fed local beef while the corporations profit from the margin between feeding an animal corn or feeding it grass while sidestepping the cost of negative externalities. A hectare (10,000 sq m) of corn will grow 30 tonne of corn in a year, a hectare of pasture will grow 16 tonne of grass in year on the same land. The corn progressively wrecks the land and needs to be replanted every year. The pasture is perrennial and preserves the carbon content of the soil which is a massive and under reported component of the carbon cycle. 10kgs of grass or corn make 1KG of meat. Humans already have a surplus of corn, they are currently turning it into biofuel.
If you factor in the soil preservation then pasture plus grazing animal is the most economically viable sustainable option because double yield of corn comes at the price of the health of the soil and the humans and the animals that it's fed to. Look at the skeletal record around the time of it's invention for the associated decline in health despite the calorific surplus. Look at why corn fattens cattle.
If land is put to it's best economic use the problem slowly corrects itself as the human population naturally declines with improved standards of living.
If you were able to buy grass-fed hormone free argentinian or south african or russian mince in Walmart at true cost the world and the US would be healthier and wealthier. The invisible hand works as long as negative externalities are acknowledged truthfully but there is a lot of profit in obscuring them.
There is also lot of room for trees around pastured land to offset the methane and sheep produce less methane than beef plus non inflammatory milk plus wool.
A plant sits in one spot thinking how to poison anything that eats too much of it. An animal moves about consuming as little poison as possible.
Once you're assured of enough calories (which used to limit population growth) the primary solution is to eat some calories from animals that evolved systems for processing plant toxins to minimise your toxic load.
I used pea goo in the comment because I went to the beyond meat website and looked at the ingredients in the impossible burger. The impossible burger consists of about 15 chemical compounds, combined by people highly financially motivated to optimise flavour, texture and colour and the primary component is pea protein. If you can think of a more concise name I'm all ears but it's definitely not a iphone or macbook air.
Vegan's choose pea goo over lamb. That's their choice and some vegan's will have the genetic biochemistry to live healthily on a plant based diet. The general population doesn't share that biochemistry. Veganism is the most environmentally sound option if one's health optimises from the diet. Unfortunately this is not the case for the majority of the population. The average vegan should be admired for their sacrifice, not their logic.
It does not work particularly well for dietary reasons. The calorie reduction will reduce inflammation if it is not offset by additional excess calories but the omega 3 fatty acid profile will not compete financially with fatty acid profile of algae or grass-fed protein. The beyond meat diet will therefore lead to more inflammation in the general population and increased rates of chronic illness including diabetes and brain disorders.
A moderate amount of protein and fat from Grassfed animals and oily cold water fish combined with moderate low inflammatory carbohydrate starches and loads of vegetables is the optimum human diet.
Every other diet has a negative externality of increased chronic illness. Health outcomes as measured by life expectancy are not better for the average middle income human who survived to the age of 5 in 2019 than they were for the equivalent dataset living 150 years ago in England.
And then you have the vegans. What is more precious? a virus, a amoeba, a bacteria, a prokaryote, a eukaryote, a fungus, a plant, a insect, a arachnid, a cephalopod, an invertebrate, a reptile, a bird, a mammal, a political ally, a community, a friend, a sibling, a parent, a child or a vegan's theory?
Rhetorical question. Human Parents minimise the suffering of their children and expect the favour to be returned in kind.
The choice between animal suffering and decreased probability of the onset of your child's future chronic illness is easy if enlightened. Beyond meat therefore doesn't work for economic reasons and is a fad of unknown duration.
The negative externalities of a vegetarian diet are currently obscured by the corn lobby and any other political factions currently profiting from the sale of inflammatory foods. They love the vegans chipping in. I often wonder if roadkill slowly dying keeps vegans up at night or If they are sleeping through it? And if if they are, how?
As for grassfed animals. Pastured land is marginal for growing starches or vegetables. Solutions are in development for the reduction in nitrate leaching and methane emission. The positive externalities of a low inflammation moderate carbohydrate, moderate protein grass/algae fed diet and the reduction in chronic illness outweigh the negative externalities of the methane. Put nuclear engines in cargo vessels to trade the meat around, methane problem neutralised, global health enhanced.
Food should be judged on it's toxicity to the general population and nothing else. It is the only objective measure and miraculously the economics results in humane farming practice and better human health.
Pretty hard to judge the toxicity of beyond meat and that's why I choose to eat whole ingredients that I process myself. I think they will make some money dependent on flavour, texture, marketing and distribution capability. Although kraft spent 1 billion relabeling their cheese about 10 years back so good luck competing against that. Eventually the human dietary truth will come out and misplaced idealism won't save the business from public knowledge. That could take 20 years but I think the inflammation and dietary literature is going to converge before then.
Bill Gates isn't a vegan.