You don’t get to make that call.

Let me repeat that:

YOU don’t get to make that call.

Both of you were being immature, stupid idiots. I’m sorry if that’s not witty or incisive, but it’s the truth.

Given that Rob (not I) comes from a software background perhaps you can fathom that he might borrow from the work flow of software development, where he is already experienced. I don’t see the problem in borrowing this term, but to each his own. You’re welcome to not use it.

Getting to what I sense is the bigger issue you have with the product -testing it’s real world capabilities- with a group of people who are not part of the original company.

I can see a point of concern here. These people may not be equipped to detect rot, mould, or implied rat poop. However, I wonder if others that you’ve mentioned (industry partners, colleagues) are significantly more capable of detecting these things. Please remember that Soylent is not being foisted on the unwitting public, but a group of self-selected, open-eyed (I’ll avoid a contentious word here) testers.

From what I’ve read, adjustments have already been simultaneously been made to both package and contents. Perhaps this a departure from the traditional process you’re claiming is the norm, but I don’t see an invitation for death or dismemberment. And in any case, I’d gladly have a sore tummy for an afternoon in the service of improving humanity’s nutritional well-being. You’re welcome, again, to disagree. I won’t even call you selfish for it.

Lastly, that my order was taken sometime mid-last-year and has yet to be fulfilled further suggests Soylent Inc. is working to improve the product before wider distribution.

Let’s just agree to disagree on the worth and degree of personal risk by engaging in this project, but if you’ve got something helpfully specific to add, please kindly say it.

Do you know what Beta testing means? Let me quote from Wikipedia: “The users of a beta version are called beta testers. They are usually customers or prospective customers of the organization that develops the software, willing to test the software without charge, often receiving the final software free of charge or for a reduced price.”

This is food, not software. Do you understand that different testing methods and schedules may be required? Apparently not. In your mother’s basement it may seem to you like everything in the world is identical to software development. But here’s some news for you. It’s not. Rats running around may not affect software, but they do affect food. Is that clear enough for you?
You don’t test food production with outside customers (and press!) while you’ve got rats running around and sending out ziploc bags of damp powder in the mail. At least not if you know what you’re doing.

In the food industry, if you’re testing for taste and package design, you use a focus group. If you’re testing your product and packaging for freshness and durability, you test its condition in a lab after various periods of time sitting in the packaging. If you want “real world” testing, you send it in the mail to yourself a hundred times, or to your associates 3000 miles away.

Once you’ve completed all these steps and you have a finished product that’s been through multiple rounds of lab testing and focus groups, that has good packaging and doesn’t go moldy after a few days, and that can now be produced on a trial basis on the actual production line of your manufacturing partner, and where the only step that remains is pulling the trigger on an actual production run, then you send out a hundred packages to various industry partners and colleagues. (Not customers. Not press.) And after that’s worked successfully, then you send samples to the press and prospective customers.
Get it?

Does the gentleman wish to unpack his assertion? Do you not want Soylent to test their own product? If so, why?