"Rather than working through the issues in an epic startup for the win"
Anyone who uses a phrase like this unironically probably isn't someone I'd want as CEO.
They just finished a financing round. He's probably been forced to be upbeat in front of a new group of clueless older white men every single day for the past six months. It takes awhile to detox from something like that.
why would you trust a cloud storage provider to keep a copy of it?
I started encrypted all of my volumes after I realized that some storage devices end their lives in a way which prevents me from running a scrub pass. Flash storage is even worse, the data moves around based on controller decisions, so even running scrub may not hit everything. By starting out encrypted, all I have to do is forget the key and it's random data.
I figured this was like building a police station or bridge, where we could rely on it lasting for 50 or 60 years, and in a pinch keep it going for 100 or more years. But you're saying that everything needs to be rewritten every five or ten years? Seriously? That's just crazy! Why would you even do that?
These problems didn't start with Google and Facebook, the starting point was more like Eternal September, when AOL met USENET. Back in the "Good old days", things were better because you had to work to get on the Internet, which meant you were skimming off the cream of the crop. Not everyone agreed with each other, but everyone was from the upper part of the distribution, so they could disagree sanely, and they could manage to hold more than one idea in their head at once and thus work together in spite of differences. Nowadays, the Internet is an average over plain old humanity, and not a small human-scale group, it's all of them essentially at once, so of course it sucks. It sucks both because advertisers and other manipulators see that concentration of people and thinks "I can make money off them", but it also sucks BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DEMAND IT. Pewdiepie and Logan Paul were enabled by YouTube, but they were created by consumers. President Trump was enabled by Twitter, but created by voters.
Basically, the original post is discussing a technical solution to a social problem, and it's pissing me off that all of these smart people are focusing on the wrong problems (this general meme is all over the place these days). Yes, we should figure out a way to pare off some of the worst self-reinforcing aspects of Facebook and the like, but that's a materially different problem than "We need to replace Facebook entirely with something which is totally antagonistic to the entire reason Facebook is even successful in the first place." We _could_ manage to modify Facebook, but there is no chance that we'll replace Facebook, unless someone more compelling (and most likely worse) comes along.
So be clear, this isn't a "worse is better" argument. I think people can do better. I just think that all of the incentives are not in that direction, and that ignoring the incentives is the surest route to failure. This is a "perfect is the enemy of good enough" argument, where we're going to suffer with it for another decade until knowledgeable people get off their asses and do _work_ to fix things instead of spending their time on pie-in-the-sky redesigns.
Every other profession, medicine, law, accountancy, engineering, have to deal with the fact that not everyone is a genius, and have systems and checks in-place that means people don't have to be flawless to work in them. Until computing is the same, it will remain a wild-west hobby. Programmers need to get over their pride.
I have no idea about accountancy and engineering, but in terms of medicine and law, they deal with the issue by requiring 10x as much training as everyone else, and it's brutal stuff. You don't have to be a genius, but you do have to clear some fairly high thresholds on being able to retain and apply knowledge. I'm not even really comfortable classing those with software engineering in these areas.
I'm beginning to think that we're reaching the limits of what we can do with the laser lithography method of silicon IC creation. For instance look at the problems Intel is having with 10nm fabrication right now. Perhaps the way forward is straight out of science fiction: a matter compiler/3D printer-like approach, where an integrated circuit is built up an atom or a molecule at a time? Pure imagination on my part, but is it really out of our reach?
If you're having problems implementing high enough manufacturing standards to support your current goals, then the solution isn't to switch to a system which is even *harder* to implement.
"If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn't include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem," explains Pichai,
Utter fucking bullshit. No user WANTS this junk on their phone. The "ecosystem" he's talking about is the kickbacks they get for dumping a load of garbage onto people's phones. It's anti-competitive and removes power from the people. Fuck your business deals. Let people choose what they want to run.
To be clear, the "choice" here is between Google forcing carriers and phone vendors to have certain apps on the phone, versus carriers and vendors placing their horrible in-house apps on the phone. You aren't going to get to choose either way. At least with Google's version you'll have more-or-less production-ready apps with relatively long-term support.
I care whether your programs suck. You can write good stuff in JavaScript. You can also deliver lazy-ass applications in JavaScript. That isn't determined by your language, it's determined by your management and commitment to quality.
Just pulling numbers out of a hat, starting from raw video, lossless compression perhaps drops the bitrate needed by an order of magnitude. Existing lossy algorithms drop maybe another order of magnitude. It is very likely that with a lot of work, that could drop another 50%, but it's fairly unlikely to drop another order of magnitude off of existing systems.
Netflix should watch what it wishes for, though. Dropping another order of magnitude maybe would make things cheaper for Netflix, but that's also the kind of thing which enables new competitors to come along and usurp the current vendors.
I paid the bills as a Carbon (who knew?) developer. Considering I've always been able to keep current and learn new skills every few years, I was blindsided by Cocoa/Objective-C and the change to the Apple Developer tools. Inside Macintosh was a great resource and when Cocoa was born Inside Macintosh was left by the wayside. The small independent/inhouse developer was left to flounder. For all the greatness attributed to Steve Jobs, he seemed to have abandoned the small developers who couldn't go to "boot camps" or wherever else folks went to get on board the new platform. OS X is nice, but Carbon was a well documented and easy to navigate environment. Carbon made the Mac what it was and Apple and Steve Jobs decided to push NeXT OS instead. I am not alone in having fond memories of Carbon while using Microsoft's tools to ply my trade.
Eh, I spent the 90's working on NeXTSTEP stuff and abandoned Apple for a decade or so after the merger, but my opinion is exactly the opposite - after using NeXTSTEP, I looked at MacOS and could hardly believe that that was what Mac was running in the late 90's. Simply put, they were mired down by technical constraints which were making it increasingly hard to make broad changes and were looking for a way out. They didn't just realize it when they acquired NeXT, they'd already failed to build a replacement with Pink/Taligent.
Watch the Jobs 1997 WWDC fireside chat. I spent a lot of my career frustrated with him, but in that talk he was spot on that it didn't matter how cool opendoc or other technologies were if nobody used them. Having a well-documented but dead platform helps nobody.
Every few years, someone comes out with a social thing for forum thing or whatever, and they insist that using "real" names will make people better-behaved. Every time they are proven wrong. People we well-behaved in small groups, people are not well-behaved in large groups. Full stop. There's surely a marginal size where knowing who people are will make a difference, like when you grow from 50,000 people to 100,000 people maybe, but "online" or "The Internet" are far far far beyond that region, so it doesn't matter.
This isn't just a problem in online forums. I've seen it in workplaces, a workplace with under a thousand people can feel fairly homey and interconnected and grounded, 5,000 people starts to get a little dicey but workable, but when you get up to like 25,000 people, even with the best intentions things routinely get out of control and mobs are always forming. It's not only that people fell they can get away with stuff, it's that people stop standing up for what's right. In a smaller group, when someone gets drunk at a company event and starts making an ass of themselves, unrelated people step up and usher them out. In a larger group, everyone feels like they aren't responsible for the group, so nobody steps up, and the asshole just keeps on going until something horrible happens.
What kind of "experts" can really help you here? Kim Jong-un is not exactly well balanced. What you need is someone who can steer a power-mad and basically unbalanced person into doing something you want them to do, to point out how it's really in their best interests also.
Trump is probably the ONLY president who can pull this off. Because unlike any of the past presidents for many decades, he will speak plainly, and as a result he actually will be more trusted and respected by someone who doesn't really know who to trust.
And his record of keeping his word will certainly help a lot in such negotiations!
Having been in a position of having a common first-name email at a company, I will never accept that in the future, even if offered. It results in getting all the emails for all the people with the same first name, plus a bunch of emails from external people who can't get ahold of anyone so they just start randomly spamming likely addresses. In any case, autocomplete supersedes any time-saving advantage it would offer.
As far as being a "status symbol", that's even worse. If your company is successful, you'll end up spending all of your time trying to avoid projecting status, trying to fade into the background and just be a regular employee to the extent possible. Unless, of course, you're an asshat, in which case you'll glory in your status projection (and hopefully, for the sake of your co-workers, be let go).
I pass about 8 school grounds (covering all age groups) on the way to work every day for over a decade. I remember it was always kids playing sports, on the swings, running around, etc. The last 5 years it's mostly sitting around and staring at phones.
I'm so thankful I wasn't raised in this generation.
A year ago, I went with a group of scouts to Seabase in the Florida Keys. We spent a week on an island with no electronics of any kind, even watches. When we got back, the kids all spent their time playing odd physical games, while the various adult leaders were all sitting silently staring at their phones.
I put my phone away at that point.
BTW, did _you_ spend any time today outside just running around?
... and since all of the weight is distributed on the outside of the sphere, it slows rotation down. But if dying early isn't going to make people lose weight, I doubt having fewer days in the time they do have will manage it.
Its not so much about how they lost a bitcoin its more about how they purposefully destroyed it!
I mean I can put a stack of $100 bills in the fireplace too and they will also be 'gone forever' as far as I am concerned personally. Its not like I can phone of the fed and ask them to print me some new ones.
Frankly the people at Wired are stupid, most journalists these days are, so no surprise there.
To be clear, not only does WIRED not benefit - they effectively removed the benefit of the BTC from the universe. So not only does the BTC value not benefit WIRED, it also cannot benefit anyone else. Basically, imagine if Apple had given them $100k worth of MacBooks and iPads to review, and then in order to maintain their "integrity" they arranged to have the devices destroyed. That's just waste for nothing.
I've been a professional software developer for 30 years, and while there certainly are many cases where I've worked with or interviewed people who were lacking in computer-science skills, very little of that was because they weren't getting enough CS teaching in primary and secondary school. I mean, if you've spent 4 years in college getting a CS degree and a few years in industry working and you STILL can't keep up, adding a semester in 11th grade isn't going to help.
On the other hand, raising English communications proficiency across the board by a single grade level would have HUGE benefits for the industry. Communicating better would likely result in better technical results, too.
... is that they often ship before they're ready, and don't stabilize for a long time, so when you are trying to figure out how to accomplish something, what you find on the Internet is a collection of popular hits which correspond to an old version of things, or a collection of thesis papers about how things should work.
As a for-instance, I've found it nigh unto impossible to decode systemd stuff. Don't get me wrong, I can see that there's an architecture in there, and I can see that it can likely accomplish what I want to accomplish, the problem is that there seem to be like 7 places where config files live, and configs are broken up into many pieces for different phases of things, and all of this interacts. So where an old-skool init-style system was just a shell script which you could easily write and test, now a bit of what you want to change can live in 21 different places, which aren't consistently binned across different sub-systems, and you can't easily test things in isolation. Oh, it didn't work - why? I don't know. Again, with init it was a shell script, you could usually just run it manually to see why it was failing, but under systemd the log output goes... somewhere. Which you can figure out, but again now you're researching systemd architecture instead of solving the problem you came here to solve. It feels like C++ mindset applied to system startup.
And that's even before you've realized that the particular package you're trying to figure out is still maybe using upstart. Or init. And nobody documents that, so you have to figure it out via detective work. Fortunately find and grep still work, for now.
You can try some random crap made up by a guy in a lab coat if you think it will help... unless it's marijuana. You can't try that, it's far too dangerous for you.
Or LSD, that's also been defined to not ever be useful for medical treatment under any circumstances. It's so not useful for medical treatment that you can't even research whether it might be useful.
So, if you need to create an artificial "bio factory" to create the substance, why not skip the cockroach step and engineer the yeast to produce a substance that either we know is useful for humans because humans already eat it, or a substance designed to be useful to humans?
Because a "superfood" is a variant of a normal food which has a few percent boost in some identifiable (marketable) nutrient, but which has zero proven efficacy. So if something costs about the same to produce as something else you eat, and can be labelled a "superfood", then it's worth creating a product because you can charge 100% more for it. But if it costs 100% more to produce, you have no product.
While we have some products which use yeasts in their manufacture (mostly bread and alcohol), we have very few products created entirely by yeasts.
Also... does this milk create more protein for the same water weight, or is is just comparing regular milk's protein content with something which is simply contains less water? If our goal was to have more protein per cup, we can already do that. It's a dumb goal, because most people need water anyhow and anyone who can afford a superfood tax is only protein deficient by choice.
Slashdot Mirror
"Rather than working through the issues in an epic startup for the win"
Anyone who uses a phrase like this unironically probably isn't someone I'd want as CEO.
They just finished a financing round. He's probably been forced to be upbeat in front of a new group of clueless older white men every single day for the past six months. It takes awhile to detox from something like that.
See! Manufacturers and carriers can totally be trusted to bake in their own app stores and browsers!
why would you trust a cloud storage provider to keep a copy of it?
I started encrypted all of my volumes after I realized that some storage devices end their lives in a way which prevents me from running a scrub pass. Flash storage is even worse, the data moves around based on controller decisions, so even running scrub may not hit everything. By starting out encrypted, all I have to do is forget the key and it's random data.
I figured this was like building a police station or bridge, where we could rely on it lasting for 50 or 60 years, and in a pinch keep it going for 100 or more years. But you're saying that everything needs to be rewritten every five or ten years? Seriously? That's just crazy! Why would you even do that?
These problems didn't start with Google and Facebook, the starting point was more like Eternal September, when AOL met USENET. Back in the "Good old days", things were better because you had to work to get on the Internet, which meant you were skimming off the cream of the crop. Not everyone agreed with each other, but everyone was from the upper part of the distribution, so they could disagree sanely, and they could manage to hold more than one idea in their head at once and thus work together in spite of differences. Nowadays, the Internet is an average over plain old humanity, and not a small human-scale group, it's all of them essentially at once, so of course it sucks. It sucks both because advertisers and other manipulators see that concentration of people and thinks "I can make money off them", but it also sucks BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DEMAND IT. Pewdiepie and Logan Paul were enabled by YouTube, but they were created by consumers. President Trump was enabled by Twitter, but created by voters.
Basically, the original post is discussing a technical solution to a social problem, and it's pissing me off that all of these smart people are focusing on the wrong problems (this general meme is all over the place these days). Yes, we should figure out a way to pare off some of the worst self-reinforcing aspects of Facebook and the like, but that's a materially different problem than "We need to replace Facebook entirely with something which is totally antagonistic to the entire reason Facebook is even successful in the first place." We _could_ manage to modify Facebook, but there is no chance that we'll replace Facebook, unless someone more compelling (and most likely worse) comes along.
So be clear, this isn't a "worse is better" argument. I think people can do better. I just think that all of the incentives are not in that direction, and that ignoring the incentives is the surest route to failure. This is a "perfect is the enemy of good enough" argument, where we're going to suffer with it for another decade until knowledgeable people get off their asses and do _work_ to fix things instead of spending their time on pie-in-the-sky redesigns.
Every other profession, medicine, law, accountancy, engineering, have to deal with the fact that not everyone is a genius, and have systems and checks in-place that means people don't have to be flawless to work in them. Until computing is the same, it will remain a wild-west hobby. Programmers need to get over their pride.
I have no idea about accountancy and engineering, but in terms of medicine and law, they deal with the issue by requiring 10x as much training as everyone else, and it's brutal stuff. You don't have to be a genius, but you do have to clear some fairly high thresholds on being able to retain and apply knowledge. I'm not even really comfortable classing those with software engineering in these areas.
I'm beginning to think that we're reaching the limits of what we can do with the laser lithography method of silicon IC creation. For instance look at the problems Intel is having with 10nm fabrication right now. Perhaps the way forward is straight out of science fiction: a matter compiler/3D printer-like approach, where an integrated circuit is built up an atom or a molecule at a time? Pure imagination on my part, but is it really out of our reach?
If you're having problems implementing high enough manufacturing standards to support your current goals, then the solution isn't to switch to a system which is even *harder* to implement.
Wow, that's a big word. But I'm sure you're right, the customers are probably just faking it.
"If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn't include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem," explains Pichai,
Utter fucking bullshit. No user WANTS this junk on their phone. The "ecosystem" he's talking about is the kickbacks they get for dumping a load of garbage onto people's phones. It's anti-competitive and removes power from the people. Fuck your business deals. Let people choose what they want to run.
To be clear, the "choice" here is between Google forcing carriers and phone vendors to have certain apps on the phone, versus carriers and vendors placing their horrible in-house apps on the phone. You aren't going to get to choose either way. At least with Google's version you'll have more-or-less production-ready apps with relatively long-term support.
I care whether your programs suck. You can write good stuff in JavaScript. You can also deliver lazy-ass applications in JavaScript. That isn't determined by your language, it's determined by your management and commitment to quality.
[This isn't specific to Microsoft in any way.]
Just pulling numbers out of a hat, starting from raw video, lossless compression perhaps drops the bitrate needed by an order of magnitude. Existing lossy algorithms drop maybe another order of magnitude. It is very likely that with a lot of work, that could drop another 50%, but it's fairly unlikely to drop another order of magnitude off of existing systems.
Netflix should watch what it wishes for, though. Dropping another order of magnitude maybe would make things cheaper for Netflix, but that's also the kind of thing which enables new competitors to come along and usurp the current vendors.
I paid the bills as a Carbon (who knew?) developer. Considering I've always been able to keep current and learn new skills every few years, I was blindsided by Cocoa/Objective-C and the change to the Apple Developer tools. Inside Macintosh was a great resource and when Cocoa was born Inside Macintosh was left by the wayside. The small independent/inhouse developer was left to flounder. For all the greatness attributed to Steve Jobs, he seemed to have abandoned the small developers who couldn't go to "boot camps" or wherever else folks went to get on board the new platform. OS X is nice, but Carbon was a well documented and easy to navigate environment. Carbon made the Mac what it was and Apple and Steve Jobs decided to push NeXT OS instead. I am not alone in having fond memories of Carbon while using Microsoft's tools to ply my trade.
Eh, I spent the 90's working on NeXTSTEP stuff and abandoned Apple for a decade or so after the merger, but my opinion is exactly the opposite - after using NeXTSTEP, I looked at MacOS and could hardly believe that that was what Mac was running in the late 90's. Simply put, they were mired down by technical constraints which were making it increasingly hard to make broad changes and were looking for a way out. They didn't just realize it when they acquired NeXT, they'd already failed to build a replacement with Pink/Taligent.
Watch the Jobs 1997 WWDC fireside chat. I spent a lot of my career frustrated with him, but in that talk he was spot on that it didn't matter how cool opendoc or other technologies were if nobody used them. Having a well-documented but dead platform helps nobody.
Every few years, someone comes out with a social thing for forum thing or whatever, and they insist that using "real" names will make people better-behaved. Every time they are proven wrong. People we well-behaved in small groups, people are not well-behaved in large groups. Full stop. There's surely a marginal size where knowing who people are will make a difference, like when you grow from 50,000 people to 100,000 people maybe, but "online" or "The Internet" are far far far beyond that region, so it doesn't matter.
This isn't just a problem in online forums. I've seen it in workplaces, a workplace with under a thousand people can feel fairly homey and interconnected and grounded, 5,000 people starts to get a little dicey but workable, but when you get up to like 25,000 people, even with the best intentions things routinely get out of control and mobs are always forming. It's not only that people fell they can get away with stuff, it's that people stop standing up for what's right. In a smaller group, when someone gets drunk at a company event and starts making an ass of themselves, unrelated people step up and usher them out. In a larger group, everyone feels like they aren't responsible for the group, so nobody steps up, and the asshole just keeps on going until something horrible happens.
What kind of "experts" can really help you here? Kim Jong-un is not exactly well balanced. What you need is someone who can steer a power-mad and basically unbalanced person into doing something you want them to do, to point out how it's really in their best interests also.
Trump is probably the ONLY president who can pull this off. Because unlike any of the past presidents for many decades, he will speak plainly, and as a result he actually will be more trusted and respected by someone who doesn't really know who to trust.
And his record of keeping his word will certainly help a lot in such negotiations!
Having been in a position of having a common first-name email at a company, I will never accept that in the future, even if offered. It results in getting all the emails for all the people with the same first name, plus a bunch of emails from external people who can't get ahold of anyone so they just start randomly spamming likely addresses. In any case, autocomplete supersedes any time-saving advantage it would offer.
As far as being a "status symbol", that's even worse. If your company is successful, you'll end up spending all of your time trying to avoid projecting status, trying to fade into the background and just be a regular employee to the extent possible. Unless, of course, you're an asshat, in which case you'll glory in your status projection (and hopefully, for the sake of your co-workers, be let go).
It seems odd that in the days of phone numbers being portable we don't have a portable email identity because there is no addressing system.
You have a portable phone number, but most companies don't want you handling corporate business on your personal phone number.
In fact, _I_ don't want to intermix company and personal phone calls or email, either.
I pass about 8 school grounds (covering all age groups) on the way to work every day for over a decade. I remember it was always kids playing sports, on the swings, running around, etc. The last 5 years it's mostly sitting around and staring at phones.
I'm so thankful I wasn't raised in this generation.
A year ago, I went with a group of scouts to Seabase in the Florida Keys. We spent a week on an island with no electronics of any kind, even watches. When we got back, the kids all spent their time playing odd physical games, while the various adult leaders were all sitting silently staring at their phones.
I put my phone away at that point.
BTW, did _you_ spend any time today outside just running around?
Financial companies are only allowed to defraud the public insofar as they support political campaigns. Plain old fraud will not be tolerated!
... and since all of the weight is distributed on the outside of the sphere, it slows rotation down. But if dying early isn't going to make people lose weight, I doubt having fewer days in the time they do have will manage it.
This is good for the community, because they'll finally have access to the enterprise-grade SourceSafe version control system.
Its not so much about how they lost a bitcoin its more about how they purposefully destroyed it!
I mean I can put a stack of $100 bills in the fireplace too and they will also be 'gone forever' as far as I am concerned personally. Its not like I can phone of the fed and ask them to print me some new ones.
Frankly the people at Wired are stupid, most journalists these days are, so no surprise there.
To be clear, not only does WIRED not benefit - they effectively removed the benefit of the BTC from the universe. So not only does the BTC value not benefit WIRED, it also cannot benefit anyone else. Basically, imagine if Apple had given them $100k worth of MacBooks and iPads to review, and then in order to maintain their "integrity" they arranged to have the devices destroyed. That's just waste for nothing.
I've been a professional software developer for 30 years, and while there certainly are many cases where I've worked with or interviewed people who were lacking in computer-science skills, very little of that was because they weren't getting enough CS teaching in primary and secondary school. I mean, if you've spent 4 years in college getting a CS degree and a few years in industry working and you STILL can't keep up, adding a semester in 11th grade isn't going to help.
On the other hand, raising English communications proficiency across the board by a single grade level would have HUGE benefits for the industry. Communicating better would likely result in better technical results, too.
... is that they often ship before they're ready, and don't stabilize for a long time, so when you are trying to figure out how to accomplish something, what you find on the Internet is a collection of popular hits which correspond to an old version of things, or a collection of thesis papers about how things should work.
As a for-instance, I've found it nigh unto impossible to decode systemd stuff. Don't get me wrong, I can see that there's an architecture in there, and I can see that it can likely accomplish what I want to accomplish, the problem is that there seem to be like 7 places where config files live, and configs are broken up into many pieces for different phases of things, and all of this interacts. So where an old-skool init-style system was just a shell script which you could easily write and test, now a bit of what you want to change can live in 21 different places, which aren't consistently binned across different sub-systems, and you can't easily test things in isolation. Oh, it didn't work - why? I don't know. Again, with init it was a shell script, you could usually just run it manually to see why it was failing, but under systemd the log output goes ... somewhere. Which you can figure out, but again now you're researching systemd architecture instead of solving the problem you came here to solve. It feels like C++ mindset applied to system startup.
And that's even before you've realized that the particular package you're trying to figure out is still maybe using upstart. Or init. And nobody documents that, so you have to figure it out via detective work. Fortunately find and grep still work, for now.
You can try some random crap made up by a guy in a lab coat if you think it will help ... unless it's marijuana. You can't try that, it's far too dangerous for you.
Or LSD, that's also been defined to not ever be useful for medical treatment under any circumstances. It's so not useful for medical treatment that you can't even research whether it might be useful.
So, if you need to create an artificial "bio factory" to create the substance, why not skip the cockroach step and engineer the yeast to produce a substance that either we know is useful for humans because humans already eat it, or a substance designed to be useful to humans?
Because a "superfood" is a variant of a normal food which has a few percent boost in some identifiable (marketable) nutrient, but which has zero proven efficacy. So if something costs about the same to produce as something else you eat, and can be labelled a "superfood", then it's worth creating a product because you can charge 100% more for it. But if it costs 100% more to produce, you have no product.
While we have some products which use yeasts in their manufacture (mostly bread and alcohol), we have very few products created entirely by yeasts.
Also ... does this milk create more protein for the same water weight, or is is just comparing regular milk's protein content with something which is simply contains less water? If our goal was to have more protein per cup, we can already do that. It's a dumb goal, because most people need water anyhow and anyone who can afford a superfood tax is only protein deficient by choice.