Regarding Yudkowsky's accusations against RationalWiki. Yudkowsky writes:

First false statement that seems either malicious or willfully ignorant:

In LessWrong's Timeless Decision Theory (TDT),[3] punishment of a copy or simulation of oneself is taken to be punishment of your own actual self

TDT is a decision theory and is completely agnostic about anthropics, simulation arguments, pattern identity of consciousness, or utility.

Calling this malicious is a huge exaggeration. Here is a quote from the LessWrong Wiki entry on Timeless Decision Theory:

When Omega predicts your behavior, it carries out the same abstract computation as you do when you decide whether to one-box or two-box. To make this point clear, we can imagine that Omega makes this prediction by creating a simulation of you and observing its behavior in Newcomb's problem. [...] TDT says to act as if deciding the output of this computation...

RationalWiki explains this in the way that you should act as if it is you that is being simulated and who possibly faces punishment. This is very close to what the LessWrong Wiki says, phrased in a language that people with a larger inferential distance can understand.

Yudkowsky further writes:

The first malicious lie is here:

an argument used to try and suggest people should subscribe to particular singularitarian ideas, or even donate money to them, by weighing up the prospect of punishment versus reward

Neither Roko, nor anyone else I know about, ever tried to use this as an argument to persuade anyone that they should donate money.

This is not a malicious lie. Here is a quote from Roko's original post (emphasis mine):

...there is the ominous possibility that if a positive singularity does occur, the resultant singleton may have precommitted to punish all potential donors who knew about existential risks but who didn't give 100% of their disposable incomes to x-risk motivation. This would act as an incentive to get people to donate more to reducing existential risk, and thereby increase the chances of a positive singularity. This seems to be what CEV (coherent extrapolated volition of humanity) might do if it were an acausal decision-maker.1 So a post-singularity world may be a world of fun and plenty for the people who are currently ignoring the problem, whilst being a living hell for a significant fraction of current existential risk reducers (say, the least generous half). You could take this possibility into account and give even more to x-risk in an effort to avoid being punished.

This is like a robber walking up to you and explaining that you could take into account that he could shoot you if you don't give him your money.

Also notice that Roko talks about trading with uFAIs as well.

For a better idea of what's going on with this idea, see Eliezer's comment on the xkcd thread (linked in Emile's comment), or his earlier response here.

For a better idea of what's going on you should read all of his comments on the topic in chronological order.

This is a tangent, but to light up the whole environment just to get a few more photons to the retina is a strange approach, even if it seems to be the go-to treatment (light boxes etc.). Why not just light up the retina with a portable device, say glasses with some LED lights tacked on. That way you can take your enlightenment with you! Could be polarised to reflect indirectly off of the glasses into your eye, with little stray radiation.

Not saying that you should McGyver that yourself, but I was surprised that such a solution did not seem to exist.

But, it's hard to have a truly original thought, so when I googled it I found this. Seems like a good idea, no? Same principle as your artificial sky, if one would work, so should the other.

Also, as an aside to the tangent, tangent is a strange phrase, since it doesn't actually touch the main point. Should be polar line or somesuch.

tl;dr: buy Index Funds, like the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index, because money can be turned into a great many utilons after holding it for a long time.

A cursory glance through Google reveals that, with Soylent specifically, there's a lot of skepticism and concern over long-term health effects in the nutrition community. A search as trite as "Soylent, good for you" started off with a full page of "why this does not work" articles and Wikipedia. Of course, Google is not a scholarly platform and page one of Google is not a bibliography of scholars. Search result number one is from a "nutritionista" who studies "holistic nutrition." Still, this is a new product, developed by people who are not nutritional researchers, made popular by spreading through counterculture channels, so real scholarship is scarce. Take that as you will.

For my part, Soylent is something I would like to work. I have Crohn's Disease, so any leg up on digestive health is one I'm willing to explore. But it's that same quality that makes me hold off on trying something like Soylent or MealSquares. I assume that any long term detrimental effects such things may be revealed to have on healthy people will be amplified dangerously for me. And if my only consolation is "You can save time and energy not cooking," then it isn't worth it. I can already control my diet well enough by cooking my own meals and knowing what goes in them. Not everyone has that luxury, though.

As I'm not a health specialist, my only way of judging food stuffs is by the ingredients list. What's in it? I've seen different lists for Soylent, none of which impressed me enough to change my beliefs, but that doesn't mean they won't change/I'm not mistaken. If you want to improve its standing or help find the flaws holding its acceptance back, try it, tell us about how it's working for you, spread the word of your experience. This thing began as a scientific means of developing a meal alternative and has developed into a scientific, engineered meal supplement. In other words, it's still an experiment. If you want to help by replicating, I'll certainly be paying attention.

I should have thought to check for previous threads. I just heard of Soylent and thought of it as some obscure product so I didn't, but I should have just checked anyway.

I'm reading through them now, but if you wouldn't mind saving me some time, is there some sort of general agreement as to the safety of Soylen and similar meal replacement drinks/bars?

Sorry. Thanks for the links.

Previous discussions on LW:

• [LINK] Soylent crowdfunding
• Ketogenic Soylent
• Soylent Orange - Whole food open source soylent

Here's my review of Soylent and a taskification of how I use it.

Pros:

• Much easier than cooking or even fast food, when transportation costs are taken into account
• Much more nutritionally complete than fast food or processed sugar-foods
• Relatively cheap
• Tastes neutral or slightly sweet

Cons:

• Sometimes sticks to the back of my throat
• Can give foul smelling gas
• Can cause headaches
• Can cause nausea
• Texture of high pulp orange juice
• Doesn't have the daily allowance of sodium

Preparation Process:

• Place Takeya pitcher on counter with top off
• Rip off top of Soylent bag
• Squeeze top of Soylent bag down to a circular shape that fits in the pitcher
• Place top of bag in pitcher and tilt
• Squeeze and press on bag until all powder is in pitcher
• Add 1/4 tsp to 1 tsp of salt, depending on taste and sodium cravings. I use Diamond Crystal Kosher Salt.
• Add warm water to pitcher to the edge of the container
• Put top on and shake vigorously
• Open top, careful not to drip remnants
• Add oil from oil jar and more warm water to edge of the container
• Put on top and shake vigorously
• Place pitcher in refrigerator

Consumption process:

• Pour Soylent into 8oz glass - I use Bermioli Rocco glasses recommended by TheWirecutter
• Alternatively, pour Soylent into 16oz Thermos, such as the Thermos Nissan
• If still warm, put in 1 ice cube
• Sip or chug as needed
• Consume lots of additional water
• Immediately upon finishing a glass, add a dash of water, swirl it around, drink remnants, and then rinse glass

Notes:

• Do not put water in pitcher before Soylent powder, as it's easy to put in too much water, and the Soylent won't fit.
• Warm water mixes more easily with the Soylent
• Soylent tastes better when chilled
• Soylent dries out into a very hard, crusty residue which is difficult to clean, so stray droplets are a nuisance

I pledged to continue donating $1,000 per month.

I also convinced a friend to donate for the first time.