My startup failed, and this is what it feels like - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@nikkidurkin99/my-startup-failed-and-this-is-what-it-feels-like-c5d64b3ae96b <comment><USER3> I met Nikki while I lived at a Hacker House in Mountain View for a few weeks in January 2012, having recently moved to the Bay Area. I remember being impressed at the time by her intensity, and by the fact that she actually had a real product with real users that solved a real problem.

An audible "oh no" came out of my lips when I clicked this link and realized I was reading about someone I had shared a few dinners with.

It's important for little pieces of history such as this one to be recorded. For the founders, to whom it gives a sense of closure, and for the community. So that we don't forget our comrades who didn't make it to the other side, but still have insightful lessons to share.

The press likes to glorify the AirBnBs, the Googles, the Facebooks - but as founders, I think it's important for us to be realize that this is only a tiny visible part of the iceberg, and that at the end of the day, there are so many factors at play that it would be foolish for us to focus solely on the "how many millions did they make". Human stories are never boring, and experience is one of the most precious thing others can share.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to write this, Nikki. We're with you.

\---

 _" Investing money, creating new products, and all the other things we do are wonderful games and can be a lot of fun, but it's important to remember that it's all just a game. What's most important is that we are good too each other, and ourselves."_([http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2012/03/eight-years- today.h...](http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2012/03/eight-years-today.html))

<comment><USER4> > "... but it's important to remember that it's all just a game. What's most > important is that we are good too each other, and ourselves."

These things are easy to say for a very rich guy.

<comment><USER5> Your personal health and well being are much more important than your startup that just failed, even if it doesn't feel like it at the time. Nothing will teach you that faster than losing your health or talking with people who have.

<comment><USER6> And what if you don't have personal health and well being to begin with? What if you need money to pay off the medical bills, money that you know an ordinary job will never suffice for? Making money is not just a game for everybody, just because it's a game for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It struck me when she glossed over how/why her two co-founders left. There's got to be a deeper story to why two "co-founders" would leave right when 1.2M is secured.

She said they _decided to tell me they were leaving the company without even a hint of warning_ \- my guess is there was no agreement in the first place or a lot of unnoticed warnings. To conclude she's just too trustful is almost certainly a flawed conclusion.

I'm sure she learned a lot from this experience, but she seems to write off the deserters as flaky. I'd be asking myself what I did or what lies I was telling myself that made me think I had co-founders when I really did not. That sort of character judgment is as important as product judgment.

<comment><USER8> Hey Andrew, I actually glossed over that out of respect for the 2 guys. My purpose was not to bitch about them, and many people who will read this post in my network will know who I'm talking about. There were mistakes made on both sides, but in the end I bent over backwards to accomodate them and as soon as YC was over and they could say they were YC founders they bailed. I'm not saying its entirely their fault - I should have picked up on the warning signs but I was off fundraising for 2 months and didn't notice. But I did consider them my friends, and they didn't care what position I was left in if they were to leave. Anyway, I'm sure we both learned a lot from the experience.

<comment><USER9> I think it's great that you take the high road and don't resort to dragging other people through the mud. You definitely seem to place the responsibility all on yourself, which I imagine is not always the full truth. Not providing any reason at all, actually makes it sound as if the two co-founders just randomly and completely bailed on you. (Which may be exactly the truth)

I was trying to imagine a logical scenario, for example they had an even better opportunity. Or perhaps it was better to split before the stakes became to high. Maybe the salaries were not going to be what was expected, there were disagreements on responsibilities, etc. I can imagine a lot of scenarios.

Not to diminish your article, which I found extremely interesting. It was just a point that definitely seems like there was a greater story to be told.

<comment><USER10> Well, if you Google around, you get Peter Delahunty. It looks like he's gone from being a CTO at a few places (including 99dresses) to just working under a CTO. It looks like his strategy didn't pay off.

<comment><USER11> Confused that he doesn't list Posse on his LinkedIn page, if he's the guy you're talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was in the same YC batch as Nikki. The thing I remember most about her was her enthusiasm. I also remember that her presentation on Demo Day got the loudest applause and most interest. Sad to hear 99dresses didn't make it, but I'm sure Nikki will have a bright future. Few young women her age will have gained the experience and insight that comes from founding a company and seeing it fail. As Michael Jordan said "I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."

<comment><USER13> What I like most about that MJ quote is that all the stats link up. If he has made those 26 game winning shots he would have had not lost "almost 300 games" and he would have missed fewer than the "more than 9000" shots that he missed. Man, he was awesome.

<comment><USER14> Also interesting is that he knew those stats in order to make the quote. He was known for remembering every little slight, stat, etc... in order to use as motivation. I picture a little piece of paper with 25 written on it, and him thinking he does not want to write 26.

<comment><USER15> I think that quote was from a commercial so he probably had some help remembering. Good quote though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Well written. One thing I always find funny about the startup world is the idea that hardship is good. Hardship isn't good. Hardship sucks. Sometimes hardship is something you need to survive to accomplish your goals, but not always. While there are a lot of successful startups that went through a lot of hardship, there are a lot of them that didn't. It seems that based on a lot of factors that were outside of your control you were playing the startup game on "hard mode" and you gave it a pretty good run anyways.

Also a pretty good lesson that having a good job and comfortable life maybe isn't so bad after all (a very un-silicon valley lesson).

<comment><USER17> Hardship at a lot of startups is the result of entrepreneurs not respecting the old adage, "It takes money to make money." A lot of entrepreneurs don't really know how much money they need, and young ones often start their companies before they know where it's going to come from.

The good news is that now is a great time to be selling equity in a tech startup. The bad news is that even if you're successful in trading your company's equity for capital, there's no guarantee you'll get enough capital, or that you'll be able to get more of it when you run out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> One thing Nikki has going for her is that she's young. At 22 and already having the experience she's had, she has a great opportunity to learn from those lessons, tap into the network she's built, and ultimately do something great.

I love the aggressiveness and the spunk she clearly has. Looking back on my own life (I'm one of the "older crowd" in HN terms), I _wish_ I'd been that ambitious at that age. Or, maybe ambitious isn't the word, maybe "focused" would be better. In either case, I wound up waiting until my late 30's to found a startup and now I'll be 41 in about a month, and we're still looking for the mystical, mythical "traction". :-)

The downside is, being this old, I feel a certain sense of "this is my last shot". If I fail with Fogbeam Labs, I doubt I'll have the energy, passion, drive, and mojo to try again. So if there's a lesson in my experience, that I'd try to share with the younger crowd, it would be "Be more like Nikki, and less like Phil". :-)

<comment><USER19> Flipside, if she started 99dresses at age 32, would it have failed for the same reasons?

<comment><USER20> She would not have had teh same idea but if she did, she would have dealt it lot better IMO.

The advantages of age( if you are still open minded & not set in your ways) is huge but seems discounted in the YC and VC world. from y'day [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7930428](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7930428)

from long back [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7455757](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7455757)

<comment><USER19> While YC and VC are nice social proof, the best social proof is a healthy business with customers and growth.

I mean, total kudos for being 19 and following her passion. I know at 19 there would be no way I could have been the dominate force I am at 34.

And I wonder what I'll be like at 54.

Probably look back and think, "Man I didn't know anything when I was 34"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So I see another startup failed story. Thinking I'll read it later after getting something done. an hour later, I start reading...

Right in the first sentence I see "99dresses". I have to admit, it took me a minute to process what's going on. She has been receiving significant coverage in mainstream Australian media. As someone, who is running startup from Sydney (there aren't so many of us), this felt like someone in your family has passed away even though I've never even met Nikki.

I'm not even sure what I'm writing here... I just feel sad.

<comment><USER22> I am based in Sydney. I am not running what could be called a startup since my tech business has been running since 1999, but I do have a lot of experience with the the whole startup process. Is there a meetup of startup founders in Sydney?

<comment><USER23> Almost daily. All over the place. Meetup.com is flooded with them.

<comment><USER22> I am sure - I should have been more precise are there any good meetups :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I met Nikki in Sydney while at a start-up camp.

I will admit to being slightly jealous because she did get a lot of attention due to what I thought was solely being a tall attractive female that dresses well. However having read this seeing and seeing how this played into her impostor syndrome has made me re-evaluate my thinking. The attention might be useful, but I can totally understand questioning if its because its who you are or what you are doing. Since everything in the start up world is about what you are doing I can see this attention leaving you with self doubt.

She certainly has done more then I have, and at a far younger age.

Sorry for the bad thoughts Nikki. I had been following 99dresses loosely over the years and I had hoped you would succeed as there are so few start-up stories that come out of Sydney. Wishing you the best of luck with whatever you chose to do in the future.

<comment><USER25> You're a good person for acknowledging this and offering her such kind words. Everyone's got biases and resentment, but you just discharged yours with genuine dignity. Please take care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Sometimes I wonder how non-technical founders can sleep at night with all the stress. It elevates cofounder risk to a single point of failure for the entire company.

Seeing through "developer bullshitting" is a dark art that is hard to master without spending a bit of time as a developer.

<comment><USER27> Indeed. As a former non-technical founder (now semi-technical), the worst part of the fear of failure is that your "job" is keeping companies alive. If your company dies, not only is your company a failure, but your only "skill set" is called into question. Knowing that fact and simultaneously being unable to contribute directly to the product, wondering how hard you can push your technical co-founder/team (or how far is right?) is enough to drive one insane.

It was easier (and more beneficial) for me to learn how to program. I'm not the most technical one on the team, but at least I can pitch in and work instead of wonder.

<comment><USER28> A thousand times this.

The worse case scenario is much, much worse for non-technical cofounders.

They often don't have a deep, specialized skill that is easily used by other companies.

<comment><USER29> Sales is a skill that is in a high demand by many companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Nikki, I just sent you a request for an interview on Mixergy. This is a courageous post.

<comment><USER31> is this a joke ? why are you telling others ?

<comment><USER30> No joke. I've gotten some of my best guests by commenting on Hacker News. The community here is incredible.

I would usually just leave it at an email, but I imagine her inbox is flooded after this incredible post. Also, I'm hoping her friends will see this and help me connect with her.

<comment><USER32> Aren't you meant to be on paternity leave? Still working?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's sad to read stories like this. But I have to wonder... if the concept is profitable what keeps it from being executed without 2 million dollars in investor money? So maybe you stay smaller... who cares? For you, it is about what you are making, not how big the company is. How much does it really cost to set up a database driven website? Hmmm?

Now, I realize this doesn't apply if the end game is a high dollar exit, but if you can make a decent living with your application/web site ("startup" and "founder" are overused terms in my opinion) who cares?

If you can't make a profit long term, then maybe you your idea doesn't deserve to live. Simply passing the bomb on to the next set of suckers be they the public at IPO's, or acquires, or VC investors hardly seems like the right thing to do (although no doubt it is done all the time... sometimes with incredible profits).

There is life outside the VC world. If it's a good idea and profitable and you love it....stick with it. If you are looking for a billion dollar exit... that's another thing entirely and it's time to move on to the next idea.

<comment><USER34> I generally agree with this perspective, but a two-sided marketplace is one of the business models that really does need to grow fast. No one would install the Uber app if it didn't have any drivers, and no one would apply to be a driver if there were no riders.

<comment><USER33> OK. That's a very valid explanation in this case.

Kind of like all the ebay replacements that never seem to get anywhere in spite of how awful ebay is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> 22 is __so __young.

At 21 I was on a plane headed home from another country. I cried in the office. I cried on the plane home. We'd Burned almost half a million dollars, a couple of years of work, let go a team - and had nothing to show for it. With no degree, no more money and no job I moved back in with parents.

So I suppose this article resonates, and in the most literal sense - I've been there.

I think the hardest thing for me at that moment in time was I didn't really have a handle on just how young I was and how much more I had coming. It was all I'd really done with my life up to that point.

It's taken me quite a few years to gain that perspective, and it's a difficult thing to communicate. The world is inconceivably vast and expansive and you have the next half century to build within it. Yourself, your ideas, your creations.

At that age and on that scale it's only a failure in the moment. Then, as time passes it becomes just another step along the way. It imparted knowledge upon you, and opened doors you don't even know about yet. All of the parts that hurt fade away and you're just left with the experience gained.

The fast-paced echo-chamber of the technology startup world is a particularly hard environment to step back and get a real sense of perspective in, which makes it a particularly hard environment to fail in, especially as you'll always be reading about someone else magically killing it.

I've failed since then, and I've succeeded since then. But as the years roll by, I've come to realise that the winning and losing don't even matter, because the journey just keeps on going regardless. If I saw myself now, when I was on that plane at 21, I'd have thought I was looking at someone who had mythically 'made it'. But you know what? I haven't. It's exactly the same: I've got another 40-odd-years of succeeding and failing ahead of me, in both my personal life and my professional life.

Personally I find that quite cathartic.

<comment><USER31> 22 is young. yeah, when kids in other countries can't even get food , walk 10km for glass of water we are wasting money on these so called , self proclaimed "start up" people and promote such behavior.

<comment><USER36> Dude, every single post you've made in this thread is negative.

Yes, hardship is relative. Yes, hardship in a first world country is relatively easy (compared to your example)

Some of these startups are targetting the developing world - if it takes a few fashion startups to get there, so be it. You don't know what Nikki's second, third, fourth or fifth venture will be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Thanks for posting this! It sounds like it was incredibly difficult at times. Hard to imagine, but thanks for making it vivid.

I would love to hear more about the following (not holding my breath):

"After hiring a few people and finding an office in NYC we were ready to launch. We solved the chicken-and-egg problem using techniques that we promised never to speak of again because they squarely sat on the grey/black spectrum of naughtiness. If there was a line, we definitely crossed it. We had to. These hacks were harmless to others, so I figured it was only a problem if we got caught."

Edit: ++empathy.

</comment><comment><USER38> Your story is mostly about you not getting a VISA, getting back-stabbed by people, spending 2 months fund-raising, media coverage, personal issues, your age, your gender. There is hardly anything about why the startup failed.

But maybe the article isn't about the startup - it's about the emotional ride. Maybe that's why a lot of startups fail - they get so involved with other things, it's not about the startup anymore.

<comment><USER23> All the issues she mentioned are HUGE parts of building a successful business that absolutely everyone will go through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I really appreciated this article. I'm on year 5 of my "startup" which has struggled and kicked and clawed and just barely hit profitability at the end of last year. I have to admit that it feels totally uncool that we have hung on all this time instead of just quitting after spending somebody's millions of dollars in 6 months. (We never had millions to spend, but anyway). There are so many times when you feel like things are just not going to work. Working hard and persevering are ideas that don't always jive with the "fail fast" strategy.

Even after all this time and things beginning to look positive, I still worry constantly that we will backslide or somebody will come along and take our marketshare or any number of other things. I wish that 99dresses had a different outcome, but still it is an encouraging story. No doubt with this kind of attitude and experience Miss Durkin is going to find success. I think it is extremely important to know that not every venture has to take off within six months to be successful. It's a long haul for most of us.

</comment><comment> UVB-76 Strange as it might sound, I'm rather envious of Nikki.

Although the business didn't work out, to have gained so much life experience at such a young age is incredible.

</comment><comment><USER39> There's some very old entrepreneurial wisdom that says if your business can make it past year 4, it has staying power. I thought that was bullshit until I made it past year 4 and right about that time we discovered efficiencies, lucrative markets, a kick-ass business model and what we are really good at.

And yeah, not having money is really really awful, especially when it goes on for years with no certainty that it will ever change. But as entrepreneurs, that's how we do.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is a "fail story" that stuck with me -- wish I'd been able to suggest it when you were looking for stories similar to your own!

[http://blog.jazzychad.net/2011/05/02/startups-are- hard.html](http://blog.jazzychad.net/2011/05/02/startups-are-hard.html)

Also here are some Mixergy.com interviews that I've enjoyed from failed entrepreneurs:

[http://mixergy.com/interviews/adyin-mirzaee-fluidware- interv...](http://mixergy.com/interviews/adyin-mirzaee-fluidware-interview/)

[http://mixergy.com/interviews/chris-snook-no-limit- publishin...](http://mixergy.com/interviews/chris-snook-no-limit-publishing- interview/)

[http://mixergy.com/interviews/rene-eric-forecast- interview/](http://mixergy.com/interviews/rene-eric-forecast-interview/)

[http://mixergy.com/interviews/dean-soukeras- computergiants-i...](http://mixergy.com/interviews/dean-soukeras- computergiants-interview/)

[http://mixergy.com/interviews/mark-bowness-tribewanted- inter...](http://mixergy.com/interviews/mark-bowness-tribewanted-interview/)

[http://mixergy.com/interviews/james-altucher-failseries- inte...](http://mixergy.com/interviews/james-altucher-failseries-interview/)

[http://mixergy.com/interviews/eric-ingram-redtagcrazy- interv...](http://mixergy.com/interviews/eric-ingram-redtagcrazy-interview/)

[http://mixergy.com/interviews/sebastian-replanski-search- to-...](http://mixergy.com/interviews/sebastian-replanski-search-to-phone- interview/)

This is with Chad who's posted I started with:

[http://mixergy.com/interviews/etzel-notifo- interview/](http://mixergy.com/interviews/etzel-notifo-interview/)

And, finally, if I were leaving New York, I'd listen to this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t4i7frhNUs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t4i7frhNUs)

Hope you're feeling better and looking forward to seeing you sometime 'round Fishburners :)

<comment><USER30> Here's one more.

Hiten Shah used to run a web hosting company.

[http://mixergy.com/interviews/kissmetrics-hiten-shah- intervi...](http://mixergy.com/interviews/kissmetrics-hiten-shah-interview/)

<comment><USER40> Sweet! Hadn't seen that one yet!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> _I take complete responsibility for this failure. Were other people involved in 99dresses? Of course. Was any of this their fault? Absolutely not._

I understand what you're going for here (and it's nice), but it's fair to let your team share responsibility for the defeat. Otherwise it never really feels like they were part of the successes.

<comment><USER8> At the end of the day, I am the CEO of the company. It was my leadership that got us here. Even if something wasn't executed right by one person on the team, that is still my responsibility. Furthermore, we were killed because we ran out of money - also my responsibility. That's the point I'm trying to make.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> >> You rarely hear the raw stories of startups that persevered but ultimately failed — the emotional roller coaster of the founders, and why their startups didn't work out.

I feel like I've read this sentence, or a version of it, so many times that it self-refutes. You hear plenty about people who failed. Not as often as the next big thing (since no one puts in the effort to send out press releases about how their failure happened - although that actually might be an interesting strategy for figuring out a next step if the post-mortem is honest enough), but it feels like once a week or so a post like this hits the front of HN.

<comment><USER3> Yes, because you're on HN, where a lot of startup founders hang out. Statistically, there will be a lot of failed startup founders in HN.

However, you won't hear about those guys in Forbes Magazine, on the evening news, or in your business school classes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Gotta hand it to OP. Sounds like she gave it her all as a very young founder. I suspect after re-grouping she could have a bright future.

The one thing that made no sense to me was why they didn't stay in Australia and go after local market. Does the concept not work there?

<comment><USER8> There are only 23 million people in Australia, and its a small population spread over a huge area. That means shipping is expensive, which isn't great for trading low value second hand fast fashion items. An item that can get shipped for $2.80 in the US would cost $7 at least in Australia.

Also, Australia Post doesn't have any APIs to automate shipping. Girls had to physically go to the post office to ship items, and there wasn't tracking either. This meant a lot of customer service headaches.

<comment><USER44> Hi Nikki

Consider one more roll of the dice, this time in the UK. We speak English and we have a postal delivery network.

Rather than chase the $$$ consider taking your idea to Oxfam - a British charity known for selling donated clothes. Your app will enable them to introduce a younger audience to the work they do. They also have people to pick up the phone, a marketing budget and that network of stores.

From a customer standpoint they really might be pleased to pay a premium to Oxfam if their clothes are going to a good home. It is a different 'doing good' proposition. Things that don't sell might as well go to the Oxfam shop as a donation - the app takes people half way there.

If not Oxfam then there are plenty of other charities that might be interested. You might not make money for the VCs of the valley but you will be able to make the thing work, perhaps to feed a few of those in The Global South as a spin-off benefit.

As far as acquiring new users, the idea of an 'Oxfam app' definitely has intrigue, people would do marketing for you by word of mouth. Plus they would 'excuse' themselves to get their next fashion fix.

Just to clarify, I think people should still get some money back, but with 10-25% or so going to Oxfam. Sure there would be postage to pay that might mean people are making pennies on outfits that cost pounds, but this would be psychologically okay if money is going to Oxfam.

You could also pimp the app to show the user/customer how many mouths they have fed through their trades.

This charitable outcome might also work well for those that have put money in your venture. To them they might not have earned $$$ but they will have done something for the greater good.

The UK market is small compared to the US but the geography is a lot tighter. Crack the UK with a partner such as Oxfam and then the other markets will follow, maybe with different partners. I should also say that charities do pay a living wage :-)

Regardless of what you do next, well done for giving it a go and I look forward to hearing about what you do next.

<comment><USER8> Thanks! Will look into it. I want to sell the assets if I can, but I think I'm just ready to move on and take a break.

<comment><USER45> Take a break for half a year or something anyway, and then have a look at the Oxfam thing, it sounds cool. You can also do that part-time, no need to force it. Good luck nikki!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Amazing read. And I recall when I first saw 99 dresses how much I recognized the need, where my wife has literally hundreds of dresses and doesn't wear much multiple times.

On mobile but will elaborate on this as I think the idea was amazing but could have also benefitted from something specific...

EDIT:

My wife as a great style sense - and also reasonable with her money. She would find amazing fashions at Crossroads in San Francisco where she could find desirable brands like D&G, BCBG and other smaller labels where women sold their designer clothes at a discount.

She picked up MANY amazing dresses from this place, as well as shoes. She hardly recycled dresses for events or dates and did it economically.

If 99Dresses had coupled with places like this where they had rental inventory as well, I am sure this would have been an amazing offering.

You could have had a daily rental price, as well as an option so that if the owner chose; a sell price.

A place like crossroads was actually pretty good at being discerning, yet well priced in their garments.

It would also had been an opportunity to provide brick-and-mortar fitting rooms... as well as local inventory. Connect this with a garment style ID and a "different sizes available via online at locations X Y and Z.

DISCLAIMER: Did 99Dresses have all this already?

I am amazed it did fail - I LOVED the BM and Idea.

<comment><USER47> It looks like they failed, because of a string of bad luck, despite having a good business idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> As a very wise man once said[1]

 _" It ain't about hard you hit, it's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done. Now if you know what you're worth, now go out and get what you're worth"._

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z5OookwOoY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z5OookwOoY)

</comment><comment><USER48> Thanks for being so raw and honest about this - even the less glamorous parts. It isn't easy to talk honestly about issues like gendered expectations and approaching VC, black hat marketing, or emotional manipulation for Visa, and a lot of people would have chosen to gloss over those aspects, but it takes a lot of guts to be upfront about the darker sides of running your company.

Reading this, it confirmed an important lesson that I learned in a completely different setting (grad school). It's much, much better to do an impossible project with an excellent mentor and fantastic coworkers, than an easy project full of low hanging fruits with colleagues you can't stand.

People who were in the former condition all flourished, even if it meant pivoting to a completely different project after having invested 2 years in a dead end idea. People in the latter camp burnt out completely and almost uniformly dropped out of grad school. The few that stayed were basically running on spite the entire time.

<comment><USER49> > Reading this, it confirmed an important lesson that I learned in a > completely different setting (grad school). It's much, much better to do an > impossible project with an excellent mentor and fantastic coworkers, than an > easy project full of low hanging fruits with colleagues you can't stand.

This really is a vital lesson, but can be difficult to learn. After the first startup I was in folded I helped found another with some of the same people, because I believed we were a good team that could go somewhere. Quite soon after we pivoted from an interesting problem to 'low-hanging fruit', and the team dynamics began to change rapidly, in a way that prevented progress (suddenly there was a lot of ego). It quickly became clear that things were untenable, so I left. Since leaving everything has pointed to it being the only correct choice. I still made the mistake of trusting them to tie up financials properly. Things can degrade faster than your loyalties account for, but you can pick yourself up and learn from it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> "Maybe its because most founders are men, and men generally don't like talking about their feelings. Maybe its because failure is embarrassing."

That would be regarded as sexist if it were arranged with such a blanket statement the other way around.

I've seen countless stories on HN where guy founders talk about the emotional side of failing and their startup going under. I'm not sure where she gets this notion. In fact, I see the emotional side written about more often than anything else. It seems like there's a few new stories every week on HN by some guy that failed, and he's discussing dealing with the substantial emotional fallout (how it affected his life, his savings, his family, his sleep, and how agonizing in general it all is).

</comment><comment><USER51> Bad luck. Though, where are all the expenses? Seems to just be an iPhone app with not much schelps, could your technical partner manage it part time?

<comment><USER8> I think it was a combination of bad luck, timing, and some bad decisions on my behalf. I learned a lot from the experience.

Actually, we had a team of 5 working on this. Running operations is really intense and time consuming. There is lots of customer service, community management and making sure items arrive at their destination. Then I was there to work on product and I had 2 developers as well.

I looked at the figures, and although it might be possible to cut out all the tech/product side and just leave operations, then we would really be in a zombie state. I thought it was better to cut our losses and move on.

<comment><USER52> Curious -- where did all the money go? How did you manage to spend $700k~ -- you hired 2 developers (full time, why?) and took care of ops over 3 years? How long did it take, four years?

<comment><USER8> 5 full time staff, an office, flights, marketing expenses - that all ads up. Apparently we were burning a third of what a startup at our stage normally is with our team size, and I even thought that was a lot.

<comment><USER52> Was your office in SF (SOMA?). What marketing expenses -- were you paying for user acquisition on mobile? Were you flying to Australia and back?

Lasting 4 years on 700k with 5 people and no income (or even 2 years) with some other minor expenses is relatively low burn, though. We budget 100k+~ / person / year. If your app involved shipping dresses to your office, unfortunately you need to run the ops for it and handle physical objects :(

<comment><USER52> Curious as to why I was downvoted ~

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> The "sky high heels" might invite more attention, but the patronizing comments part make me wonder whether it was the right kind of attention.

"99dresses was squarely focused on trading cheaper fast fashion (fast fashion is really hard to re-sell for cash)" I wonder how much demand exists for cheap secondhand clothes which go out of style quickly. Isn't it the point of this type of clothing that people can buy it new for not much money, and not worry that that it often doesn't hold up well? The clothes themselves are probably mass produced in third world countries for next to nothing. This seems like a very vertical online thrift store.

Does the world need another online thrift store?

</comment><comment><USER54> That is a really good and emotional post mortem. I think we need more of these. Great lessons are learnt from failures.

</comment><comment><USER55> M$ was founded in mid 70s and had not made a dent until the 80s. More so their killer product was launched in the 90s that put them as the definitive leader on the map. In a way, it took roughly 20 years for M$ "to take over the world." Not to mention Gates and Allen started off writing software for traffic systems and I don't recall that was a huge hit. "Innovation" does happen relatively faster these days. But it's really hard to do one-to-one comparison of companies that are mega successful (aka they make a lot of money) and those that relatively bring in lesser revenue. Besides this I believe one really has to derive the meaning of success on her own. I would not consider you a failure by any means as you gave your best to the startup. There is so much you can take away from this experience. For example, you can write a book about your experiences as you have got a good talent for writing. You can travel around and give motivational speeches at colleges and networking events. You have got a good story to tell and I bet many of us out there would be interested in hearing about it. Don't worry too much that you could not save up. I don't think this is any way puts you behind anyone your age. I bet most kids your age have spent lots on crack, booze, food, superfluous relationships, etc. Whereas you have built a pretty good reputation that really can take you far.

</comment><comment><USER56> Thank you for sharing your story.

My YC startup failed two years ago and it still has an impact on me. I learned a lot and wish I knew what I know now back then. My cofounders parted ways within one year of YC and I became a self made single founder. One of the biggest mistakes was not taking breaks. I thought I had to work twice as hard to compensate. It just went into this vicious cycle: depressed & tired -> not productive -> worked every waking moments -> depressed & tired.

</comment><comment><USER57> My uncle used to say that instead of having the handful of successful entrepreneurs come back to b school to tell their war stories -- they should sponsor at least one lecture of an entrepreneur who, in their most recent enterprise, failed. And I would tend to agree.

Very well-written. Makes your readers stronger in novel ways for reading it. Thanks for sharing.

It's all about knowing how to light up parts of the graph in life though. Now you know. Second time will go further.

</comment><comment><USER58> So I remember hearing about 99dresses in the Australian press, and this write up does leave me wondering the same thing I was wondering at the time:

Was the product ever successful in Australia?

Fully 20% of Australia's entire population is concentrated in Sydney alone - what was the expected total market (for a product heavily invested in shipping physical items) that didn't work here that there was a need to, apparently, move so quickly and wholly into the US?

</comment><comment><USER59> Hey Nikki. Have you thought about learning how to code? It's really never as hard as it seems to be. If you had a business model and some level of revenues then you might be able to sustain yourself financially, run everything yourself and keep it going maybe!?

Probably too late for that kind of advice though. But I believe a start up dies if you give it up. But you don't have to let it if you don't want to. Sometimes that's the most reasonable thing to do, but you don't always have to.

I'm in the same case as you. I had to let go of all my employees, Couldn't pay them anymore. And I'm now the only one on board doing all the code, design, marketing and everything. I'm just too stubborn to give up and I still believe in what we do 100%. (Damn I still say 'we' I mean 'I'. Just a reflex) I do feel your pain. But my best advice is to try to learn how to code and sketch things yourself. With all the skills that you accumulated you'll be able to create prototype rapidly, be less dependable and bounce back rapidly and next time you'll be fearless. Food for thoughts ;-) I wish you the all the best for your next adventures.

</comment><comment><USER60> Nikki, thanks for sharing your story. You definitely experienced alot!

It sounds like you hit 2 of the biggest issues startups can face. Co-founder disputes and Product issues.

Re Co-founder disputes - once money gets involved and the cap table is in your favor in the early days, the s __t will hit the fan. Raising money dilutes everyone and that too has a negative effect of the minority holders and can create some bad energy.

As you found out working with the right people is super super important. What I have found that has worked super well for me is working with people I have worked with before. One, you know they are good (the ones you choose to start a business with them) and the honeymoon period doesn't exist so its all about execution. I don't believe in cofounder dating events.

As you found out having a mobile product is a big deal. People are mobile creates. Even more now then ever. So being able to reach them via the computer in their pocket is an opportunity not to be missed.

Regarding the Visas, E2 Visa would have gotten you into USA. Or you could have setup an entity remotely in USA and through the company setup E3/H1B for yourself and your cofounder. There are some obstacles to jump but possible with the right legal/immigration team.

Finally, I didn't see in your story mention of an advisory board? I have found that getting the right people around you can open doors to investors, industry people, advise on technology, product etc... highly recommended if you can use them wisely.

Overall I believe the experience you have gained at such a young age will only set you up for big success in the future. Don't give up and keep on going! Good luck!

<comment><USER61> +1 for the E2 visa, as an option to take into account (I'm an Italian in SF with a 5y E2 visa)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> _" Fail fast, fail early, fail often!" they all chant, trying to put a positive spin on the most excruciating pain any founder could experience."_

Is it just an impression, or did she get this sentence the wrong way?

The whole point of this saying is to make you realize that failure should actually _not_ be such a big deal. Failure isn't an dead end, it's a step forward on the difficult path of entrepreneurship. Therefore, saying things like _" I couldn't fail. This was my baby, and if it was going to fail it would be over my dead body."_ can only lead you, indeed, to excruciating pain in case of failure.

Resilience is an excellent quality, and I think the only way to give your best and surpass yourself is by facing real challenges, but please remember that you cannot in any way resume 4 years of ultra rich/challenging experience with the two words "I failed". Jeez, just having survived 4 years in her very first startup experience is already a success.

I sympathize with her pain; I just find it sad that she doesn't seem to realize the incredible experience and skills she gained from this adventure. Those years were absolutely not wasted; the chances of success for her next startup are incomparably higher than for her previous one, and I wish her all the best for the future.

Edit: A startup is first a human adventure. After it "failed", ask yourself the right questions: \- Did I learn something? Do I know better? \- Am I a different person? A better person? \- Did I help some people in any way? \- Did my social skills improve? Did my network grow? \- What about my legal/technical/managerial/whatever-ial knowledge?

If you can answer "yes" to any of these questions, than this adventure wasn't a failure at all. :)

<comment><USER63> I think in the article she does acknowledge that rationally, she knows that she did gain a lot of experience and skills, but she focuses on the uncontrollable emotions and feelings that she went through over the course of her last 4 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I understand the frustration and outright sadness at a startup dying. Its your baby while its there, and sometimes, you wake one day and its not. But that is the nature of startups. Like you said - the odds are against you from day zero. But we do it regardless for that 10% chance of "not dying" and the even more anorexic chance of "making it big". I think ultimately we're doing it for the ride. And I think every person going into a startup should be given a little laminated fact sheet explaining that he's joining an enterprise which will try to fight this statistic and nothing is guaranteed in this rollercoaster. Same way the banks have to warn you before you invest in a portfolio, that your investment might be buggered to hell, people should be aware the same applies to tech startups. If nothing else, that might cut down on the disappointment of letting your staff know its over.

Keep at it Nikki. Well done for your first round. Level up now and go at it again.

</comment><comment><USER65> Wow I am kind of jealous of getting an opportunity to fail so spectacularly. It is obviously very hard but Nikki is very young and decades ahead of her to try new ventures. I call this great learning experience a success if you haven't lost your arm or a leg and can still function as a normal human being. She is definitely a winner, its pretty obvious to me.

</comment><comment><USER66> I cringed at the description of "a lady who took an obvious immediate disliking to me" in the visa office. It made me sad to recall times that a woman has controlled my destiny and denied me for whatever reason when the men would have let me in. I'm so sorry that Nikki also knows what that feels and looks like. I hope my daughter never does.

<comment><USER67> It's not a gender issue, it's a U.S. bureaucracy issue. They're all little tinpot dictators who like making up rules on the spot - and U.S. bureaucracy design takes away many avenues of recourse, so they get away with it.

I've experienced them when immigrating to the U.S., at the DMV, when getting inspections for contractor work. The little $*(#@ get off on making you feel helpless.

Who picks on you seems to have to do with what vibe you give off. I did notice that both my partner and I attract a certain class of them, but thankfully we don't overlap. So by now, we know who gets to deal with which idiot.

<comment><USER68> "* it's a U.S. bureaucracy issue*" It's an issue everywhere, not just in the US.

<comment><USER67> In many other countries, you have the benefit of well-defined rules, and well- defined escalation paths. Both are notably absent in the U.S.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I've worked with a weirdly large number of female-run and female-focused startups and clients over the years. I could write a long, blunt tirade about this.

Basically the cards are stacked against these businesses from the day they are funded.

Male tech folks make a lot of false assumptions about female focused businesses. For investors it can mean leaving a complicated business model under-funded. For developers it means blindly taking a "cofounder" title in exchange for an equity-heavy compensation deal without thinking through what it means to work on a business you aren't passionate about, for years, at reduced pay.

In both cases, if there isn't an early slam-dunk hockey stick marker of success, guys don't have the stamina to tolerate a female-focused business for very long. They bail. The company never gets its next round of funding. The engineering talent runs for the hills. Its not cool to work on a company for girls, especially a struggling company for girls. So male talent will just split as soon as the going gets rough.

Each time the company has a setback, the guys all start to bail. So the company needs to find new talent and appease many people at every little bump in the road. This is hugely costly and results in a lot of unnecessary crisis moments, doubts, and subsequent pivots.

The sad part is that a lot of female founders leave startups for good after one failure. I have a linkedin network filled with former female founder superstars who work in humdrum non-tech management roles. Women take the loss on a much more personal level than men do. So every time a female founder is stunted, and then abandoned by her male support network, she may be gone for good.

What's the solution? I'm not sure, but I think it has a lot to do with adding more female investors and developers to the world. That and encouraging more former female founders to come back, mentor and try again

</comment><comment><USER70> Just don't let it stop you on whatever your next venture will be! The experience will stand for you.

I had a startup crash and burn almost a year ago now. We wrote a blog post about it too: [http://blog.piratedashboard.com/post/69595110761/out-of- the-...](http://blog.piratedashboard.com/post/69595110761/out-of-the-ashes) Basically, we made a ton of mistakes that ultimately led to a founder disagreement that prevented us from closing an investment deal which may have saved us. So we cut our losses and moved on. My new startup has evolved a lot from what is mentioned in that blog post and is doing well so far (but not yet at the stage where I feel secure).

Losing your startup is almost like losing a loved one. After putting so much into it, when its gone it sucks. Really bad.

But in the end, you just gotta move on and not let one failure stop you.

</comment><comment><USER71> Post-mortems like this are always really enlightening. I'd really like to know more about some areas the author glossed over, though. What were the grey/black tactics they used to get past the initial chicken-and-egg problem? And what change did they introduce that caused a near-revolt of their userbase?

<comment><USER72> My guess as to the grey / blackhat tactics they used to gain initial traction were: 1) Fake "sell-side" accounts to provide marketplace liquidity 2) Manipulating app store chart ranking through bot downloads or download services to acquire "buy-side" accounts

It sounds like the service basically stopped growing once they had to abandon the black hat techniques they were using (possibly because they grew large enough to attract scrutiny from the platform operators). If that's the case, there was never a business.

<comment><USER8> No, that's not it. I actually ended up talking about it my mixergy interview

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Quite a roller coaster of experience for 22! I'm sure we'll see great things from Nikki in coming years.

You kids doing startups in your early 20s have so much going for you! I wish I'd not waited until my 30s to get on this train, there's a lot more to lose (and less time to sort something out...)

</comment><comment><USER74> Hey there Nikki,

Nice story, I have a similar one myself. I remember that I followed 99dresses quite closely two years ago, I was the technical co-founder of a Fashion & Tech startup, and we were trying to do something really similar for a while. (I'm also foreign, got a lot of local press coverage, traveled to Silicon Valley to work etc.)

I've been the leaving co-founder of a startup, mostly because I thought (and told) that my co-founder was incompetent and bringing zero value to the table. He took it pretty bad, but at least I was honest about that (and right).

You're very young, I'm 28... my biggest advice would be for you to get a stronger technical background. You can still do it, you are young, and it would greatly empower you.

If you wanna have a chat shoot me an email or add me on skype 'n_goles'.

Cheers!

</comment><comment><USER75> Wow. Amazing story. I have heard of 99 dresses a lot - though women's fashion is farthest from my interest area. So you did build quite a brand. I am also pleasantly surprised to see that you probably have set up this blog just to share this article?

I have been an entrepreneur 5 years now, and I can totally relate with the part of showing a positive face when you have none - its an occupational hazard. Good luck for the next set of adventures.

BTW, I am sure the Valley community will be open to welcoming you back. You are an entrepreneur through and through - so if its not the Valley, Bangalore's doors are always open :-). Best of Luck.

</comment><comment><USER76> Man, just reading the story gave me anxiety.

</comment><comment><USER77> You have achieved so much at such a young age. Your whole life is ahead of you. I am 50+ and working on my first startup, with hopes that I will make it someday ! Glad you shared your story. See this link - so many stories here, some very close to home for you. ([http://www.fastcompany.com/3029883/bottom- line/11-famous-ent...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3029883/bottom- line/11-famous-entrepreneurs-share-how-they-overcame-their-biggest-failure)). Take a break, clear your head, and come up with the next big thing.

</comment><comment><USER78> > I had to fly back to Australia to get a working visa as soon as the funding > paperwork was signed, and the next day my two "co-founders" decided to tell > me they were leaving the company without even a hint of warning.

Hindsight and all that. But still, don't just take on anybody as co-founder, easy come, easy go.

Super tough to read all this, I'm really sorry your hard work did not work out but you've done all that could be required of you and then some.

I very much recognize your trust issues, but over time even that will fade.

<comment><USER79> I have to agree. Co-founders suck. Everyone wants to talk and to have people look up to you. To imagine that one day you will rule the world.

The truth is that creating anything new in this world is a bag of hammers. Glory comes from the stupid, respect from the learned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Thank you for writing this. I've bootstrapped my business. For the first 2.5 years, cashflow was tight. You've described the fears I had of seeing it all crumble, not necessarily because the idea was bad, but because the friction was too great.

I hadn't heard of your startup before this post. But from reading the comments here, you and your startup are very well regarded.

I doubt it feels that way right now, but I think you have a bright future ahead of you. Take some time to process and relax. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER81> You will do well II time around.

<comment><USER39> This is true. I don't have some a scientific study that proves this - <USER2> every entrepreneur friend I have that is kicking ass right now as an example of this being true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> I had a big failure years ago. It was horrible, and in retrospect there were a lot of really screwed up things going on from day one. This included a business partner who turned out to be a delusional sociopath, etc.

Nevertheless I learned a tremendous amount. You learn things by going through it in the trenches that cannot be taught in school.

Currently working toward attempt two, which is probably much more likely to be successful.

</comment><comment><USER83> I like her _so much_! This amount of perseverance and strength is so overwhelmingly commendable and inspiring.

I wish Nikki all the best in the future!

</comment><comment><USER84> Come back stronger Nikki. Best wishes and good luck

</comment><comment><USER85> _You rarely hear the raw stories of startups that persevered but ultimately failed — the emotional roller coaster of the founders, and why their startups didn't work out._

Great post. However, when guys paint the other gender with a similar broad stroke as here, we go after them. I hope posts like this make it okay to state our general observations about the other gender.

<comment><USER86> That's because our culture is sick. Generalizations about gender has been the main stuff of art, literature, and personal correspondence for 500 years - only now are they offensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> Nikki, I know so many people that would give 10 years of their lives to experience the highs and lows that you just had. There are already enough cliches on here to keep you going. My hat off to you for giving it a real good go and I wish you every success in the future. You'll do just fine and will look back at this with a smile.

</comment><comment><USER88> I feel for the author, but in reading this detailed post-mortem it's clear to see there was a combination of bad luck, poor planning, and a number of incorrect decisions. Hopefully she learned from them, will correct what she can and ride out what she can't in her next venture.

</comment><comment><USER32> Too few female founders around. YC should shepherd this girl straight back into the game and support her.

<comment><USER89> She hardly comes off as the type of person that wants affirmative action. I'm not being a white knight here but that comment is kinda insulting to her.

<comment><USER32> Not in the slightest insulting. All I see in this girl is that she is following the fairly normal path that non-Zuckerbergian founders go through. She's smart and motivated and getting some good experience under her belt early. If she is not supported to rapidly pick herself up and dust herseld off then she might not be back in the game for years. A failed venture can take years to recover from financially etc. The lack of women co founders is a constant issue now in the industry so when we find good ones then they deserve some extra help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> Well if this is some kind a support I really don't know, but I think she should be proud, because with only 22 years old and doing all this (trip to another country, leading a startup). I wish you more luck on your another attempt.

</comment><comment><USER91> I know failure success. You just have to deal with it. Sometimes it's so hard that you have lock yourself in your room cry, and curse the world. That's fine.

That's just something you have to go through on your road to success.

</comment><comment><USER92> The author took many, many hits and still kept on going. I have an immense amount of respect for her and hope that she will embark on a new venture soon where she can apply everything that she learned.

</comment><comment><USER93> Just curious: why is there nothing anounced on 99dresses.com about this? Will the business go on after all? Are we in the final days and will it then just suddenly out of the blue shut down?

</comment><comment><USER94> The part that I really am not sure of is the difference between failing and giving up or the difference between failing and pivoting. Or is failing just when you have to get a full time job?

</comment><comment><USER95> The site is still up and you have a core group of people who love it. Can't you just keep it and the app running for now? The costs for the servers can't be that high.

</comment><comment><USER96> Even if i obviously understand why she felt that way, there is something really wrong in the way she thinks: she didn't fail. It was the startup that failed. She felt bad because she impersonified her project. But a person is not the things she creates or tryies to create. That is a misconception. And this wrong (even if understandable) way of thinking, may drive people to depression and other dangerous situations. Please, remember that we live once and that we are not the things we create: we, as people, are much more valuable than anything we can do.

</comment><comment><USER97> Ya'll too soft around here. Truth is all the youth and heart in the world won't save you if you don't know how to throw a proper jab.

</comment><comment><USER98> Hi Nikki, shame to see 99 dresses go down, wishing you the best post startup run.

If there were three things you would do differently, what would they be?

</comment><comment><USER99> I don't think I've ever read a story about failure that felt this motivating and inspiring. Thank you for sharing it.

</comment><comment><USER100> I wish you the best of luck in your next venture, whether it's a startup or not. Lots of people are serial entrepreneurs!

</comment><comment><USER101> Oh, the other co-founder was Dan Walker - he's a bit of a flake so this isn't at all surprising.

</comment><comment><USER102> > "I just knew I wanted to solve a problem I personally experienced: having a > closet full of clothes but still nothing to wear."

These are the kinds problems we are gunning for. These are the kinds of things investors are pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into. This is the scope of problem our industry is solving right now. This is why I'm often embarrassed to work in tech.

<comment><USER103> First, this stuff isn't small potatoes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing_economy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharing_economy)

Second, if that kind of thing isn't what you want to work on, fine, don't. No one is trying to push you into that. Knock off the hating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> Yeah, you failed... but you put yourself out there... that's what really living is all about.

</comment><comment><USER105> Literally, the best thing I read today. Well thought out and written. Keep rocking Nikki!

</comment><comment><USER106> _This is what failure feels like. I hope it helps._

It does help. Keep writing. Welcome to the club :)

</comment><comment><USER107> Great write up. I look forward to when she is recharged and build the next great thing.

</comment><comment><USER108> Maybe I missed it, but how did the author get going with 99dresses as a non- technical person with no college degree?

EDIT: Nevermind. Found the answers. Turns out to be a pretty cool story actually: [http://wpcurve.com/y-combinator/](http://wpcurve.com/y-combinator/)

</comment><comment><USER109> I think your startup was doomed to fail because your business idea just sucked.

</comment><comment><USER110> _I just knew I wanted to solve a problem I personally experienced: having a closet full of clothes but still nothing to wear._

Maybe her real problem was picking a big "problem" to solve that wasn't.

<comment><USER111> A problem is a problem if enough people think it is. There seems to be a large amount of people who agree with her.

</comment></comment><comment><USER112> Great article!

</comment><comment><USER86> The crazy thing is that people go through this experience and want to do it again. A failed startup leaves you burned out, emotionally wrecked, and financially crippled. Why take another ride on that roller coaster? Pride? Status? Money?

<comment><USER113> For the same reason you ride a roller coaster: For the thrill of the ride.

You also get to work for something you care about.

And yes, there's the possibility of high financial rewards, but that's unlikely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER114> I've developed a survival guide for creative geniuses. It's called Die Penniless, and people can sign up here for first access: [http://diepenniless.com](http://diepenniless.com)

</comment><comment><USER115> "It got to the point where I had to call the consulate hotline every single day and split test different types of crying…"

"for some reason a 5'11 woman in 7 inch heels commands more talking time and attention from investors…"

"As a woman going out in NYC my nights were normally cheap because cute guys would buy me drinks, but I am not the kind of woman who expects that."

Why did YC ever bet on such a dud? Like honestly good on you for trying and all but you sound very immature. I don't mean that in a negative way I mean that in having read your post that's how you come across. Your cofounders decided to leave you and you are calling them out - I wouldn't blame them at all - they made a choice and their equity would not have vested. Cofounder's have walked away from much larger startups than yours and its for the reason that they did not believe in your vision. Seems kind of immature to call them out. No one wants to be led by someone who responds to their problems by sobbing.

Its a shame YC bet so big on a non-technical founder because you give non- technical founders a bad name. They got you in Forbes, Business Insider, The Wall Street Journal, and numerous other publications. The Stripe brothers had a billion dollar company before even getting half the notoriety you got. For a two-sided marketplace that's like getting to start a mile race with a kilometer lead. Any startup that gets such a ridiculous head start (global publications covering you before you get to 100,000 members) comes down to a failure to execute.

<comment><USER116> She's being ultra honest here about her feelings and opinions. You can agree or not but before you judge too hard, think twice how hard is it to tell your startup story when it fails. We are all young and naive once, hence we learn and grow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER117> Good story. On a completely unrelated note, this girl is very beautiful, so that's rather positive

</comment><comment><USER118> "Aussie Nikki joins Silicon Valley millionaire factory"

Y-C = Millionaire factory? Who knew!

</comment><comment><USER119> Is this what HN has become? A fail-blog? :(

<comment><USER120> Would you prefer survivor bias?

<comment><USER119> I'd prefer to read HN and not get depressed as fuck.

<comment><USER36> It's all a matter of perspective. I don't think the article was depressing at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER121> Stopped reading after the fourth misspelling of "it's".

</comment><comment><USER122> My TL;DR: a founder ran into some painful but survivable bumps along the road, plus one killer.

The latter being there are people in the US government who would rather burn down the whole economy than share any of it with a dirty immigrant. Even a white, English-speaking one!

</comment><comment><USER123> "...I was going to go big or go home"

Ms. Durkin I think you just need to go bigger next time. Don't just solve a small problem, solve a dire one that we all (man and woman, black or white) have in common.

Why disrupt a market when you can create a new one while simultaneously destroying four others? You know, that sort of thing.

Good luck!

<comment><USER76> Please point me to said markets so that I can become a billionaire!</comment></comment>


"Ugly" Sites that Make Millions (and What We Can Learn from Them) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kissmetrics.com/ugly-websites/

<comment><USER2> It's worth noting, that all of the sites shown share another thing in common.

They were all established / founded in the early web. I'm not saying that there was not competition, or that their success was because they were first - they still gave superior products which beat any rivals at the time.

However, trying to draw parallels with these site's design and success today is not totally relevant. If you launched either of them today as they were / are, they may not succeed (despite as we know, the core product / service / functionality being great).

Rob Walling writes in his book that these days: 'It's Market(ing) First, aesthetics second and functionality third'.

Firstly you need to have a market for your product and hopefully be able to market it well enough to get people to 'want your product' / know you exist.

Then when they look at your site, you need the aesthetics to give a first impression of your product and gain trust from your customers in your product. It doesn't matter if your service / functionality is brilliant. If you can't get the user to even try you over any competitor, then you've wasted your time.

Then thirdly, if you're lucky to achieve the top two - give your customers a good user experience / functionality they want, so hopefully they pay / keep coming back.

The reason the sites given in the example can happily remain ugly, is because they already have the user's trust and are a known 'experience'. Therefore the aesthetics don't need to work as hard to make an impression as say a newly formed start up today.

\- EDIT... I'm not saying that a site which is kept basic in design can't be successful. Infact, I agree quite heavily with the principle of keeping things simple and have blogged about it in the past.

Perhaps the original author should've done the article on one of the many great sites over the last few years, which have embraced this 'Keep it simple and clean' attitude. Hacker news being a perfect example.

<comment><USER3> You're using a site right now that wasn't established early in the web, doesn't have great aesthetics or marketing, and seems to be doing okay.

<comment><USER4> But it isn't making millions.

<comment><USER3> You got me there, but I am not sure it matters. Like hacker news, Google and craigslist (and to some extent the other two) make their money from having a large number of users who don't directly pay anything for the service. Are you arguing that if hacker news were somehow monetizing it's traffic people would no longer be willing to tolerate the design?

In other words, do you think a free service that was created recently and isn't especially pretty can be successful, but if the site is generating revenue from those users the design becomes problematic?

(btw I think ebay is the only truly ugly site in that article, and I think hn looks just fine).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You don't have to make millions either, if you make 100's of thousands or 10's of thousands with an 'ugly' site (tarnsap not all that long ago was a nice example of an 'ugly' but money making website, my own site is another one).

Why limit the lesson to an arbitrary monetary cut-off. Ugly does not mean that you're going to be burning cash without a return, and the fact that there are such sites that make millions make it perfectly clear that there need not be an upper limit to what you can achieve with an 'ugly' website.

Design is important, but you can overcome a bad design with a customer need.

The question to ask then becomes, what could you do if your site looked good _and_ you had a customer need?

</comment><comment><USER6> Amazon has one of the most cluttered web UI's I've seen and yet they succeed because they deliver something real that people want: you can buy stuff there and they mail it to you, and the web functionality at least allows you to do that. Ugly and busy as heck UI though.

<comment><USER7> Maybe I'm in the minority, but I've been impressed with Amazon. What eCommerce sites are doing a better job? If you are looking at the US you have Amazon, eBay, Walmart, and Target (based on Quantcast traffic). Throw in Overstock and a handful of others, but Amazon still seems to be way ahead of everyone else.

<comment><USER6> I'm also impressed with Amazon. They kick ass. They innovate. They execute. They provide something that people actually want. Etc. The only thing I don't really like is that their website design is very cluttered, like cognitive vomit, very distracting. I'd love to see a more simplified, use case-oriented UI wrapper around what they do. Make all the side noise go away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> People who use Craigslist and eBay are usually looking for cheap deals, and a site that's too slick and colorful probably wouldn't give the same "bargain hunting" feel.

</comment><comment><USER9> Anyone consider the idea that they might be successful _despite_ their 'ugly' design?

<comment><USER10> Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the point of the blog post, was it not?

<comment><USER11> It's sort of however you want to look at it. The post is suggesting it's "because of" not "despite" the ugliness. I take the above comment to mean that these sites could perhaps be even more successful if designed more aesthetically. Dunno how much I agree with the sentiment (although I don't think it would kill craigslist to use a splash of color), but that's how I take it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Google is simple. That's not the same as ugly.

<comment><USER13> I prefer Google's simplicity. Doesn't make my life complicated. Simplicity isn't ugly either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's important to understand that the minimalistic design of Google was a response to AltaVista, Excite and other search engines of the time. I mean, those were really ugly and cluttered, and Google's minimalism made it really feel different from the others.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is something you end up discussing every so often. But I think its not about the fact they have ugly interfaces or that they are successful inspite of the ugly interface. I think its about the fact that they were a certain way then they gain critical mass of users, who got used to using these sites in a particular way, knew what to find where and the familiarity with the interface - however it was - grew stronger and stronger. When this happens, if you decide to suddenly change the interface to make it better/sexier/etc, you might be shooting yourself in the foot. I think its important to understand this aspect when you consider such case studies.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd nominate reddit as a fifth, more recently-made one.

I actually don't think it's ugly--but I'd argue that it's as spartan as Google (considering its different functions), which did make the list.

<comment><USER17> Reddit is somewhat different from the others in that it's not insanely profitable. That itself is largely down to the deliberate design decision not to clutter it with ugly ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Everyone is forgetting that each of the example sites is also fast, even eBay. That counts for a lot in return-ability. One of the amazing things about Google in the early days was how damn fast it returned results. It was easily 2-3x faster than the competition at first, or at least appeared to be so.

</comment><comment><USER19> So design follows function and function follows the needs of your customer. A bit obvious, but true.

</comment><comment><USER20> This article forgot to mention ugliest of all - Facebook.

<comment><USER21> I wonder how you define ugly? To my eyes, Facebook ranks relatively well amongst the major sites on the Internet.

<comment><USER20> Well, I'm using it for few years now and UI is confusing, it got better, but still confusing. Conceptually, it's a mess: wall-to-wall, message, feed, notification, boxes. Visually, well, it's just doesn't look that nice. And why or why do they show events that I already declined?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Design matters when there is great competition.

<comment><USER23> Design always matters - but good design does not necessarily equate to "pretty"

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Most of these aren't ugly, just minimalist.

</comment><comment><USER25> Stupid fucking article with no concept of design or what makes websites successful.

</comment><comment><USER26> Wrote in some detail on this subject a few months back (and wound up in HN Monthly thanks to you guys upvoting!):

[http://conversionvoodoo.com/blog/2010/04/increase-your- conve...](http://conversionvoodoo.com/blog/2010/04/increase-your-conversion- rate-by-making-your-site-uglier/)

</comment><comment><USER27> anyone with even an elementary understanding of conversion testing and optimization knows that "great" design != great conversions/sales/success

</comment><comment><USER28> <http://www.jeopardytickets.tv/></comment>


Ask HN: What would be your minimum requirements to consider moving to Mars? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Working magnetosphere, compatible atmosphere, highly reliable transportation back to earth, exempt from all future taxes for being the first test subject, the ability to choose my team that I go there with.

In all seriousness, anyone considering this should first spend 6 months in death valley in a space suit. No cheating, you must use air tanks and atmosphere controlled living chambers the entire time. No cell phones. If there is an emergency, you must be self sufficient. You get MRE's to eat and only the water you brought with you to drink.

<comment><USER2> I forgot to add, all the astronauts in I.S.S. that have been deployed more than a few months start experiencing permanent brain damage. Within 3 to 5 months, they have to start taking medication from glaucoma. Their brain starts expanding and puts pressure on the optic nerves. The condition is called SANS [1]. That bad part is, this condition does not get better when they return to earth.

To get to mars will take about 220 days. Unless we find a way to prevent the brain damage, anyone going there will be blind before they ever land.

[1] - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7005826/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7005826/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> That the journey be accessible to someone who does not possess the vitality of an astronaut.

</comment><comment><USER4> Not dying trying to get there. Especially not dying to stroke a narcissistic billionaire's ego.

We can barely handle living on this planet. Mars is a fantasy now and for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER5> N generations have lived there and died reasonably old and healthy, including N-1 generations born there.

I am not an early adapter.

</comment><comment><USER6> livable atmosphere</comment>


Ask HN: If you work for us we own everything you come up with? - <AUTHOR> I am looking at a consulting contract with language that sounds like I'd be doing two things if signed:
1- Give away the rights to anything I come up with --even ideas, which I take to be stuff in my brain that I don't even talk about-- in the course of a limited time contract that isn't even that lucrative.
2- The mere act of using any of my own trade secrets or proprietary information automatically grants them a non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid, irrevocable, perpetual, (...etc) license to the IP
In other words, for the "benefit" of taking on a short (about 5 months) contract with reasonable but not incredible pay I would risk giving away anything in my brain and anything I've created in the last 15 years of my career.
How do you guys deal with such contracts?
I there language I can present that is more benign for all involved?
Have you ever negotiated such changes?  How does it go?
I understand that if these guys hire me to design something for them they need to own it.  That makes sense.  However, to extend that to owning my ideas, perhaps things I thought about but never put into the design and go beyond that.  Frankly, not sure how to process this.
Then there's the part of owning any of my IP that I might put into the design.  To me that means I could not use it for my next client.  How would that work?
Just looking for some feedback on how to handle such things.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I don't think we have enough information to give you actionable advice, even if we _were_ lawyers. You're summarizing what is presumably a lot more text, which by definition you don't understand so we can't really trust your summary (no offense), so I don't think we have a great view of things.

Speaking very generally, #2 may be less horrifying than you think. The idea there could be simply that if you bring something you've built before and owned, and use it in their solution, you don't get to come back later and claim that they don't own the thing you built before. There's nothing particularly wrong with that. Note all the hedging words in this paragraph; I'm more making a general point, I have no particular confidence it applies to you.

#1 depends on all the details.

<comment><AUTHOR> Understood. It's obvious a lawyer has to be a part of this if I decide to go forward. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Two options:

1) Go hire yourself a lawyer, and pay them to write language that would meet your criteria. Negotiate with the client to change the contract.

2) Find a better prospective client.

</comment><comment><USER4> Go ask a lawyer who specializes in this field, and (if possible in your jurisdiction) write it off against tax.

This is for much the same reason you wouldn't come to HN with questions about a health problem, you'd go and consult a doctor :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I figured I'd have to do that but I wanted to do some homework first. I'd love to read some language that is more benign to have an idea of what might be possible.

Is this a situation you've personally dealt with?

Can you point me to what might be considered a benign contract somewhere?

<comment><USER4> Yes, I've dealt with this very issue several times while working as a contractor.

Usually, employers are just re-using a boilerplate contract. Several times we just agreed to scratch the offending terms, signed the amended copy, and moved on. Others were more involved; in one case I ended up working with HR and Legal to modify a contract that was drawn up years ago with authors in mind, and which applied poorly to software.

In terms of pointers to a benign contract, I'm afraid I can't help. I presume they _do_ exist though, as I know of several sites that sell boilerplate legal documents for re-use by small companies. Surely at least some of them must be good.</comment></comment></comment>


Vitamins Found to Curb Exercise Benefits - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/health/research/12exer.html?em <comment><USER2> This is off-topic, but am I the only one to find all nytimes articles utterly useless? They're all very well written and interesting, but after reading them I never know more then I did before. I've made a habit of not clicking them, but then I find some interesting title and click... only to again waste 5 minutes.

<comment><USER3> I'd say that I like the nytimes. Comparing it to other newspapers the articles seem a lot better written and more informative (possibly with the exception of the multi-page spreads that local papers sometimes produce).

At the minimum it seems to be of the same level of quality of any other decently sized newspaper. I can think of an independent newspaper that has some extremely well written articles, but it seems to me that the problem is more with the format rather than the nytimes. So what newspapers are more informative?

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure if there are any _newspapers_ that are more informative. Perhaps the Irish Times, probably not the Seattle P.I.

Harder news sources like scientific and technical journals, and a very few websites and the occasional magazine like the Atlantic monthly and the economist are about the only things that come to mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What a terrible title. The researching doctor clear states:

 _antioxidants in general cause certain effects that inhibit otherwise positive effects of exercise_

It's like claiming "food found to cause heart disease," based on a study of cholesterol. It's true, but totally overblown.

</comment><comment><USER6> Considering exercise (especially resistance training) increases your metabolism and overall oxygen intake for many hours after, if you aren't getting antioxidants you will be slowly killing yourself. They don't have to come from vitamins, though. Green tea, blueberries, and purple corn are all excellent sources.

<comment><USER7> > Considering exercise (especially resistance training) increases your > metabolism and overall oxygen intake for many hours after,

This is popular knowledge that seemingly everyone believes is important (along with the belief that gaining muscle mass increases metabolic rate by an important amount), but the magnitude is tiny.

From one source ([http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/anatomyandphysiology/a/rm...](http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/anatomyandphysiology/a/rmr.htm)):

> Exercise of the intensity and duration commonly performed by recreational > exercisers (e.g., walking for 30- 60 minutes or jogging at a pace of 8-10 > minutes per mile for 20-30 minutes) typically results in a return to > baseline of energy expenditure well within the first hour of recovery. The > post-exercise calorie bonus for this type of exercise probably accounts for > only about 10-30 additional calories burned beyond the exercise bout itself.

20 calories.

In practice, exercise also makes you hungrier. It is far from clear that it's even a net win for weight loss at all, when you look at studies and data.

<comment><USER6> This is why I said "especially resistance training."

The metabolic benefits from aerobic exercises like walking, running, swimming, etc. are rather short (1-2 hours.) Intense resistance training gives a benefit for 12-36 hours (until your sleep, generally.)

This is why resistance training in the morning helps weight loss.

<comment><USER7> How many extra calories does intense resistance training (say for 1 hour) burn, beyond the training itself? I believe the answer is something small enough to be practically insignificant. (I'd appreciate if you can prove me wrong with data.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Don't panic! Read

"Most Scientific Papers Are Probably Wrong": <http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915></comment>


LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner Gives $14M in Stock to Employees - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2016/03/02/linkedin-ceo-jeff-weiner-is-passing-his-14-million-stock-grant-to-employees/ <comment><USER2> I wouldn't by default assume some sort of sinister ulterior motive here. There's a fairly good chance this is exactly how it appears: A CEO taking the rather exemplary step of donating an entire year's worth of comp to his employees, in an attempt to offset external impacts that are only nominally within his control.

Sure, there's the possibility this act is purely for optics and employee retention. But if that's what drives people to be good human beings you won't catch me complaining.

And the "worth noting" section in this article is curious as well. Why does any amount of personal wealth degrade the value of this act? It's like the writer is saying "don't be impressed folks, this guy is still rich."

We should encourage and support acts like this, not couch our praise in snark and envy.

<comment><USER3> > Why does any amount of personal wealth degrade the value of this act?

It shows how much of his own lifestyle he is potentially sacrificing. To take it to the extreme: if he was giving up _all_ his wealth to his employees, you would treat it differently to if he was giving 0.01%.

Edit: I think this is the most controversial comment I've ever made on HN. It keeps going up and down between -2 and +8..... I wonder why it's so polarising?

<comment><USER4> Probably polarizing because people believe so differently about giving.

Some believe that "good" giving means giving a large portion of what you have, not a small fraction.

Others believe a gift is good gift, no matter how small.

Others believe a $14mm gift is good because of how large it is, regardless of whether or not it's 0.01% or 100% of his net worth.

Others take offense when people try to dictate theirs or others lives by claiming a kind or charitable act is insufficient because it doesn't put out the giver as much as they should like.

And there are probably other ways to look at it as well.

This sort of debate _always_ crops up when rich people donate money.

<comment><USER5> But up/downvoting isn't supposed to be based on how you feel about the comment but whether it adds value to the site.

<comment><USER6> Who says?

<comment><USER7> Common sense, convention, HN rules?

<comment><USER6> What HN rules?

<comment><USER7> My bad, like Six Sigma above said, the guidelines do not include such rule. Since HN evolved /co-evolved with reddit and follows many of the conventions even more strictly, I thought this is also an HN rule. Intuitively, it also makes sense - 'upvoting', or irl aknowledging things you disagree with is how you would aknowledge that you see the opposing argument as valid, and will address the disagreement in a response. As opposed to downvoting, or irl ignoring, comments that fall so far out of scope of civil debate and are not constructive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Say what you want about LinkedIn as a product, they treat their employees really well. When I interviewed there a few years ago, their interview process was extremely supportive, as opposed to other companies. It really felt like they wanted you to pass their interview, and it impressed me. I didn't take their offer, but I also wonder if that was a mistake or not.

I find it surprising that they can treat their employees so well considering their revenue per employee is relatively low, ~$300,000 if I remember correctly. Regardless, Weiner's behavior does mesh with the feelings I had from the company in general.

<comment><USER9> That's low? Man. I gotta crack the whip at work.

<comment><USER8> Well, Netflix is $3 million, FB is $1.7 million and Google is $1.3 million (it turns out LinkedIn is ~$400,000), so relative to its peers it's low.

<comment><USER10> How are these numbers calculated though? I want to know how what percentage of these companies' total workforce is outsourced to contractors that are not included when coming up with the above figures. A company may be off loading a large chunk of the work to third parties while getting sweet gains and producing relatively higher per employee revenues.

<comment><USER11> If you factor in the people-hours behind the AWS services Netflix uses, I'm sure their number looks a lot different.

<comment><USER12> Do you mean to say that we should include the people who make the products consumed by Netflix?

That's a very odd way of looking at it. Is that because there are entire teams at AWS supporting Netflix, which makes them more like contractors?

<comment><USER13> The logic is that if you outsource your ops team to AWS you have less people but your revenue is still the same, you're just paying AWS instead of salaries.

So if we take the revenue per person number as anything significant then netflix skews that by using AWS.

Ultimately it's a number without much meaning.

<comment><USER14> Well, then, couldn't you subtract the cost of their AWS bill (or some fraction of that cost) from their revenue, to adjust for the lower headcount?

<comment><USER15> It would be difficult so no one bothers. How many "people" is monthly use of S3, DynamoDB, RDS, Route 53, etc. equivalent to? Its not easy or worthwhile to estimate. Revenue per employee can be a bit of a vanity metric.

<comment><USER16> well, the obvious solution is using profit/people rather than revenue/people, isn't it?

EDIT: ah, as another commenter mentioned, it is also true that you might be growing fast with low profit so I guess both measures make sense (or not) in different contexts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This was a very kind gesture. But there is no way this gift would remotely make up for the value loss experienced by the employees.

According to LinkedIn's site, they have 9,200 employees:

$14 MM stock grant/9,200 employees = $1,521 per employee

In order for this grant by the CEO to fully make up for the amount lost by employees in their recent stock crash, they would have had to have no more than $3,804 of LinkedIn stock ($1521/.40). This seems quite low.

According to LinkedIn's 10-K, LinkedIn has 6.1 MM RSUs outstanding, implying 663 shares per employee. The average amount lost per employee would therefore be: ($272(LNKD high) - $119(current stock price))*663 = $101,439

In other words the CEO's stock gift to employees would only make up 1.5% (1521/101,439) of the total loss from the recent crash.

There are many reasons other than money to work somewhere: how rewarding the work is, how much you enjoy working with your team, and the impact you are having on the world. Those are things that this kind of analysis would not capture.

<comment><USER18> Not all positions have stock grants, e.g. Sales.

<comment><USER12> That skews the numbers even more towards huge losses for employees with stock grants.

<comment><USER19> but the loss (from the stock tanking) would be the same regardless of how many employees had options though, no?

<comment><USER12> Loss per employee would go up, since the number of employees with options is less than originally assumed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This money is going back into the option pool which is used for new grants, its not going directly to the currently employees.

With a 15.7B mkt cap the 14MM represents ~8.9bps, I haven't kept up with his ownership but I remember looking at the S1 and I believe he used to own 4% of the company.

This is an important but mostly symbolic move.

<comment><USER21> It reads to me he's talking about the pool of equity allocated to this year's grants. At companies like LinkedIn, you receive new grants every year to layer your equity and keep you there past your 4 year mark. Everybody does it differently, but it's usually something like "We have $x in equity comp available, lets do some magic calculation based on base pay and annual review to allocate this between our employees."

Also, I can't speak to this personally but I've heard that LinkedIn offers are heavy on cash, less equity.

<comment><USER22> I received an offer from them early last year (declined) and cash compensation wasn't any higher than the other offers I had at the time, but the equity was substantially higher.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It would be cool if more of the senior management with >$5M options did that. If the company prospers they could easily negotiate high rewards again. Its normally the rank and file who get standardized bit-sized options.

</comment><comment><USER24> Quote:

 _That's because, according to a LinkedIn spokesperson, Weiner is forgoing his annual stock package so that employees can have it instead._

Huge kudos CEO taking responsibility (even though its probably not his fault) while making sure employees don't get impacted.

</comment><comment><USER25> Does anyone know how this $14M compares to what employees lost recently?

<comment><USER26> That would be a depressing number to find out.

<comment><USER17> see my comment above

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This gesture gives no indication of distribution. It could got to the top 14 execs. Back scratch back style.

<comment><USER28> Wikipedia tells me LinkedIn has ~9000 employees.

So even if it's fully distributed that's about $1500 per member of staff.

Is that exciting? I mean, if you were on minimum wage it might be. Otherwise it sounds like inflation (5% on $30K). How much do LinkedIn employees earn?

<comment><USER29> $1500 is certainly exciting for a lot of people! Really, if someone gave you $1500 off the street, would you be like, "is this exciting?"

Applaud him for doing something good. $14m is a lot of money for any individual to shell out and $1500 is "exciting" to most normal people.

<comment><USER30> Does it come with the catch that I have to join his professional network? Do people working at LinkedIn have to use LinkedIn? I always wondered the same about Facebook, some awesome engineering challenges but many techies I know, including myself, have zero desire to have a facebook profile

<comment><USER31> I imagine they check but I also imagine you won't be disqualified because you don't have a profile.

Why does the YC application ask for your HN username?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The guy does a good thing and recode is trying to justify that hey it was not a big deal because he already is rich and has a lot more stock!

At one end journalists cry out aloud about how big CEOs are hoarding cash and stock without giving much to employees, and when someone does the opposite you try to justify.

</comment><comment><USER33> I am not sure what the complete implications of this act are.

Were these options exercised? Does Jeff benefit from not having to pay taxes on the paper gains he would have realized had he kept these to himself?

Jeff is a great guy but I personally do not think that this act really means anything substantial for the employees.

</comment><comment><USER34> Definitely a kind gesture from this CEO considering that some people won't even leave a tip when they're served wild caught fish by a minimum wage employee at their favorite restaurant, however, this is a first-world donation. Sure, we shouldn't judge his donation on how much he sacrificed personally, but IMHO it would have more impact to human progress if he actually sold the stock to help refugees that actually are in need of housing, bread, and water.

If what I wrote above doesn't make sense to you, perhaps the following quote will resonate with you: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little." -Franklin D. Roosevelt

<comment><USER35> If the CEO is not sure where to donate to 'provide enough for those who have little', then giving to those that 'have much' and having them make the decisions might actually be a good choice.

I never felt too positive about piling up of money for years/decades to donate it later instead of distributing it among the people in the organization now.

Sure, if you believe in an impactful plan that needs lots of money. But even then I could see arguments against it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> To everyone criticising this or unimpressed by it - let's hope none of you ever becomes a victim of such a despicable act, and let's hope as well that the rest of us don't become less likely to either give or recieve in response to your comments which I find rather misguided.

</comment><comment><USER37> Maybe someone will fix the web interface then.

</comment><comment><USER38> I would sell that stock ASAP.

</comment><comment><USER39> Totally anecdotal and totally objective, but he's one of the hottest ceos in the game</comment>


Fanouts and Percentiles: Visualizing Latency in Distributed Systems - <AUTHOR> https://paulcavallaro.com/blog/fanouts-and-percentiles/ <comment><USER2> Looks very interesting! Could be nice to get links in the body of the article for further reading and definitions of technical terms.</comment>


Carrier will let basically any competent criminal hijack your phone number - <AUTHOR> https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/01/14/princeton-sim-swap-hijacking-phone-numbers-paper/ <comment><USER2> Should say "Carriers". 'Coz all the carriers they tried did.</comment>