I don't think the point is whether Soylent will replace food entirely (even though the creator thinks so) or it will 'undermine and erode the food traditions of developing cultures'. Rather to me it seems to be the commodification of (absolute) nutrition which has never been done before. Much like the japanese who have commodified sex and relationships (see cuddle cafes, boyfriends for hire), people can now pay just for complete nutrition without having to buy food, and would do so if the cost saving to them is more valuable to them than the enjoyment derived from the meal.
Obviously this is circumstantial but I can see it being a hit for entrepreneurs or the generic yuppie who has no time for a long lunch/needs to save for that mortgage.
Blizzard turned them down because iirc they were working on Starcraft 2 which the devs were very elitist against Dota. I'm sure they now regret it now since Dota 2 has some insane number of hours racked up on steam (more than any steam game).
In Australia if you had an aortic aneurism such that it was highly likely for you to die anyway it is highly unlikely for you have any claims in the tort of negligence as it requires a gross negligence on the part of the doctor such that it has a substantial link to the causation of the death. There also defences of necessity - that is the person is dying therefore it is necessary for the doctors to take all measures to save the patient. Thus it is probably significantly difficult for a person to be successful in medical malpractice unless it was blatantly largely caused by the doctor alone.
I also would guess that the US would have a similar legal system, which allows for such defences from such claims.
It seems that if courts are paying out too much this is not an issue to do with people making frivolous claims and cashing in but with the way the judiciary is deciding on the claims. If it was more difficult for claims to be successful in court this would stamp out such claims instead of imposing monetary caps which don't allow for the flexibility to compensate each individual case.
I find it strange that the legislature is getting involved in an area which is really up to the judiciary to perform its function...
Actually it probably wasn't this large since Ackman didn't fully covered his short, those are most likely mostly paper losses. I believed he covered a proportion and bought puts instead.
Obviously this is circumstantial but I can see it being a hit for entrepreneurs or the generic yuppie who has no time for a long lunch/needs to save for that mortgage.