I appreciate the effort but am hoping to solve this problem in an afternoon (if not five minutes) and forget about it, instead of acquiring the correct language to think about things or a full theory of diet and nutrition.

My thought process goes like: on most weekdays I sure wish I could skip breakfast and/or lunch and only have one sit-down meal with my family in the evening. Time savings and convenience are the main concerns I suppose.

The first solution that came to mind was to try Soylent/Mealsquares/Huel for a month and cross my fingers, 50/50 it just goes well and solves the problem. I posted to see if there were any obvious considerations I was missing, or clear standout options to try first.

Pre-made frozen meals and protein bars are also plausibly acceptable meal replacement options. 

On a first pass frozen meals register as bulky and hard to store a month of at a time, and not something I'd bring to work. I've also never had an item I can imagine stomaching every day. 

Protein bars seem mostly fine, but my vibe check is that meal replacements are basically enlightened protein bars? Like, maybe the nutrition profile is better and they are packaged in sizes more suitable for full meals?

I don't disagree with what you're saying about theoretically rational agents. I think the content of my post was [there are a bunch of circumstances in which humans are systematically irrational, sunk cost fallacy is on net a useful corrective heuristic in those circumstances. Attempting to make rational decisions via explicit legible calculations will in practice underperform just following the heuristic.]

To spell out a bit more, imagine my mood swings cause a large random error term to be added to all explicit calculations. Then if the decision process is to drop a project altogether at any point where my calculations say the project is doomed, then I will drop a lot of projects that are not actually doomed.

I still don't understand. Your valuation of the project will still change over time as information actually gets revealed though. The probability the project will turn out worthwhile can fluctuate.

I don't follow. As a project progresses it seems common to acquire new information and continuously update your valuation of the project.

I taught game theory at Princeton and wish I'd seen this explanation beforehand, excellent framing.

In the territory, bad event happens [husband hits wife, missile hits child, car hits pedestrian]. There is no confusion about the territory: everyone understands the trajectories of particles that led to the catastrophe. But somehow there is a long and tortuous debate about who is responsible/to blame ["She was wearing a dark hoodie that night," "He should have come to a complete stop at the stop sign", "Why did she jaywalk when the crosswalk was just 10 feet away!"].

The problem is that we mean a bunch of different things simultaneously by blame/responsibility:

1. Causality. The actual causal structure of the event. ["If she'd worn a reflective vest this wouldn't have happened," "If your left headlight wasn't broken you'd have seen her."]
2. Blame. Who should be punished/shamed in this situation. This question already branches into a bunch of cruxes about the purpose and effectiveness of punishment.
3. Responsibility. What is the most effective way of preventing such events in the future? ["If we passed a law that all pedestrians wear reflective vests it would halve incidents like this", "How about we institute mandatory pedestrian-sighting courses for drivers, and not blame the victim?"]

People argue about the same event with different causal models, different definitions of blame, and different notions of responsibility, and the conversation collapses. Fill in your own politically-charged example. 

Setting the zero point seems to be one "move" in this blame game [if the default is that all drivers take pedestrian-sighting courses, then you're to blame if you skipped it. if the default is that all pedestrians must wear reflective vests, then you're to blame if you didn't wear one.]

I don't have a complete reply to this yet, but wanted to clarify if it was not clear that the position in this dialogue was written with the audience (a particularly circumspect broad-map-building audience) in mind. I certainly think that the vast majority of young people outside this community would benefit from spending more time building broad maps of reality before committing to career/identity/community choices. So I certainly don't prescribe giving up entirely.

ETA: Maybe a useful analogy is that for Amazon shopping I have found doing serious research into products (past looking at purchase volume and average ratings) largely unhelpful. Usually if I read reviews carefully, I end up more confused than anything else as a large list of tail risks and second-order considerations are brought to my attention. Career choice I suspect is similar with much higher stakes.

Seeing patterns where there are none is also part of my writing process.

This paper of mine answers exactly this question (nonconstructively, using the minimax theorem).