Ask HN: Logstash vs. Kafka? - <AUTHOR> Hi all,
I'm trying to build realtime data infrastructure for logging. For ingestion layer, I'm thinking about using Kafka / Logstash for logging ingestion layer and then after that I can store it in any database and I can easily change the store without changing the ingestion layer in the future.
Any experience using logstash or Kafka in production?
Also, additional question is, I concern a lot for missing data case  when we're sending data to logstash or kafka using kind of lightweight shipper like filebeat? Any experience for handling missing data at scale? <comment><USER2> Are you really ready to forego hundreds of megabytes of RAM for merely log shipping? Fluentd could be a cheaper alternative to JVM-based routers.

Also, what exactly is your question?

> Any experience for handling missing data at scale?

For _logs_? Missing logs _don 't matter_ (unless they're a required audit data). Your system should be prepared not to fall apart on missing hours or days of logs, similar to how it should treat missing metrics and other monitoring data.

And what volume is "at scale"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Dozzie,

Thanks for the answer.

Just for clarification,

1\. For my case (yea, they are kind of required audit data), I need the log to be able to not loss when sending to logstash or kafka, probably this should be handled in client side by buffering the data before sending to logstash?

2\. For volume "at scale", my point is just for clarify whether this logstash could be good to be used for production for big volumes. Maybe can be like 100GB per day

<comment><USER2> > 1\. For my case (yea, they are kind of required audit data)

What kind and required by whom? Most of such things are "if you have all, good, if half an hour is missing, we'll do without those", not something akin to transaction data in relational database where you cannot lose even a single byte.

> I need the log to be able to not loss when sending to logstash or kafka

What is "not to lose logs"? Is losing a single record OK? Is losing 1% of logs OK? How long network problems should be tolerated? What to do if such network problems are longer than anticipated and disk buffer is running out of space?

You have said _virtually nothing_ about what your logs consist of and what kind of reliability you require from them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Dozzie,

That's great question

> What kind and required by whom? Most of such things are "if you have all, > good, if half an hour is missing, we'll do without those", not something > akin to transaction data in relational database where you cannot lose even a > single byte.

So we will do log analysis from the data (counting, sum of the amount from the data, etc). So ideally need 100% precision and we will do the analysis in daily basis

> What is "not to lose logs"? Is losing a single record OK? Is losing 1% of > logs OK? How long network problems should be tolerated? What to do if such > network problems are longer than anticipated and disk buffer is running out > of space?

In my case, losing single record is significant enough because we will do calculation for those logs. For the network tolerance, I think that's very good question, I'll take that as my consideration too. But the network problems that I mean before is the intermittent one like < 1 minutes and with assumption the data buffered is not until making the server running out of space

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> We're using Kafka as a log delivery platform and are quite happy with it. Kafka by nature is highly available and can be scaled quite trivially with the log load by adding new cluster nodes.

We've decided to use journald for storing all of our application data. We pump the entries from journald to Kafka by using a tool that we open sourced: [https://github.com/aiven/journalpump](https://github.com/aiven/journalpump).

From Kafka, we export the logs to Elasticsearch for viewing and analysis. Some specific logs are also stored in S3 for long term storage for e.g. audit purposes.</comment>


GitLab's Global Compensation Calculator: The Next Iteration - <AUTHOR> https://about.gitlab.com/2018/03/23/gitlabs-global-compensation-calculator-the-next-iteration/ <comment><AUTHOR> The actual calculator in action, for a developer role: [https://about.gitlab.com/roles/engineering/developer/](https://about.gitlab.com/roles/engineering/developer/)

I have some trouble following their rent index by region approach, described in some more detail here: [https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people- operations/global-c...](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people- operations/global-compensation/#geographical-areas)

For example for Germany, the calculator still only list four major cities and an "Everywhere else" option, which has an extremely low index. I also couldn't find the raw results of their region analysis.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you consider "making it"? - <AUTHOR>

At what point in your startup adventure would you consider yourself successful?<p>The point where you can get off the ramen diet and start buying all those  toys you promised yourself you'd buy when you "made it" <comment><USER2> Short answer, never, particularly when you are still calling yourself a start- up. Once you've 'made-it', you aren't a start-up anymore, you're a big business, and big businesses still need lots of work to keep them successful.

Long answer - when your piece of art is complete. A great book, 'Finite and Infinite Games' lays out my feelings on this. Your first STEP in success is when you are really in the game. I've launched a few companies that nobody cared about. Got no traction. There was very little reason to keep revising the product/project because I wasn't in the game. Other times you hit on something that people care about, and that is making a difference. You work like mad to churn out new products and satisfy the demand. You are in the game. That is success level 1, and it goes from there.

I think the big problem with saying "how do you know when you've made it?", is that this isn't a sprint or a marathon. It's a life. You've never 'made it' in life, if you're done, then you're dead. When do you know when you have breathed enough? When you have eaten enough? If you stop working on your product/business, it will go stale and die.

You can 'get out', sell, hire others to take over the day to day tasks, but what do you do with yourself then? I think some of PG's comments regarding the 'artist' in programmers/innovators is just that. An artist doesn't stop painting once they have sold one painting. So your current project leads to the next, etc.

I would say to answer your question, that only you can decide when your current piece of art is done. If you're making great money, fantastic. If not, maybe you love this project so much that you'll continue with it anyway.

Basically, have an exit strategy, targets, goals, etc. But none of these are 'finishing lines', they are markers on the coarse. Like aid stations on a cicuitus marathon coarse. They let you know that you have reached a significant marker, but don't stop running, 'cause you are still in the race.

There are still things to do, problems to solve, art to build. The journey is the destination.

<comment><USER3> Great answer. It's the journey not the destination. In almost everything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Having the site/business pretty much run itself and grow slowly but surely. I don't care about the toys - if I could have 100k a year in passive income I'd be set. "Making it" for me has much more to do with disposable free time than disposable income.

Edit: Issuing dividends to our investors would be great, but probably isn't a requirement.

<comment><USER5> I have good news for you! You can easily live on $15,000 a year in many areas of the United States and you would have all the disposable free time you wanted (if that income was passive, like the $100k you mention).

<comment><AUTHOR> free time isn't all its made out to be. Boredom sets in after about a week.

<comment><USER6> It depends if you define "free time" to be "time you don't _have_ to do anything" or "time you _don't_ do anything".

<comment><USER4> Thanks Paul - that's how I was defining it. I'm not going to just sit on my ass and watch Southpark. I have a whole list of projects I want to work on, places I want to go, hobbies I want to try.

<comment><USER7> _and_ watch southpark

<comment><USER8> _swish!_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not a typical HN reader/user. I'm a one-man consultancy outfit, helping businesses sort out how best to use Internet technologies for internal and external collaboration. I also help untangle knotty workflow problems, you get the picture.

"Making it", as far as I am concerned is having a steady stream of people coming through my door through personal recommendation with really interesting problems - enough in fact that I can turn the less interesting ones away to other people.

I get to make money, I get to help people (I know it sounds sappy, but I love it) and I get to think about interesting problems.

It doesn't get much better than that for me, it really doesn't.

No. I haven't quite "made it" yet, I only started out as an independent a few months ago, but I've had enough of a taste of it to make me a very happy bunny.

<comment><USER10> Awesome, you are in a good place if you love your work. And because you love it, it'll continue to pay dividends for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> For me it's about making something a success in the eyes of the users. Built something people love using. Then make it a business that maximizes it's profits. Then move on to the next venture. I don't want any toy's and I don't need any recognition but what I do want is the sense of achievement once you've built a profitable business. Hence I hope to one day have created a million dollar company not for the money but for having overcome another challenge.

</comment><comment><USER12> $15 milllion net worth after tax, or $1 million yearly income, whichever comes first. Today's dollars, adjusted for inflation.

<comment><USER10> I'd say that is pretty accurate. We need a new version of "wow, he's a millionaire".

<comment><USER13> I have heard the term "deci-millionaire" throws around lately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> No matter where you are, "made it" is always one step above you.

</comment><comment><USER15> I see no reason to set the bar lower than National Sovereignty. There are just so many things you can't do without your own sovereign nation.

</comment><comment><USER16> I think you've made it long before you are buying all those toys you promised yourself. That is, assuming you promised yourself any toys. Me? I just promised myself that I would be my own boss, have fun, and make just enough money to not have to argue over who pays the left over dollar after dinner.

</comment><comment><USER17> At the point where the only thing to describe your feelings is "Content."

</comment><comment><USER18> Once you feel like you can do other things, any other things, without feeling that you're taking a risk in doing what you feel like.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think it's when you are doing it for the love, and it's also successful. The convergence of pleasure and productivity (in an economic sense).

By this logic, as a founder you may realize you've created something successful and fun but it's time to bring in different people to do things that you are no longer economically optimal to do.

Jeff Bezos is a great example of someone who clearly has a fun time every single day and whose creativity is still vital to Amazon's performance.

</comment><comment><USER20> Never having to wear pants again.

Unless I really really want to.

</comment><comment><USER21> Having created something that's made life (offline, RL) better for a huge, broad swath of people.

</comment><comment><USER22> "Making it" is a journey of several steps:

1\. Realizing you haven't been checking price tags on food or household items for a while now.

2\. Making money faster than you can find things worth spending it on.

3\. Being well-off without having to work full-time.

4\. Being well-off through actively-managed passive income.

5\. Being able to sail around the world and come back richer (through passive income, not sea trade nor piracy nor fortune hunting ;).

6\. Being able to do what you want, where you want, when you want, without the permission or approval of anybody.

<comment><USER23> I like this list :)

I'd be fairly happy at number four already, because I could just decide to go hang out in various countries for x months at a time without having to worry about money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Anybody who does work just so that he can one day not work, will find his contentment threshold pretty quickly. He will find a satisfactory job with enough free time and will stop dreaming.

</comment><comment><USER25> I have no illusions with myself about wanting to live a comfortable life at $100,000. Making it would be this:

Financially: $1,000,000/Year in passive income.

Socially: The Espada brand being universally recognizable and associated with my name.

Automotivally: Lotus Elise, Bentley, the biggest legal monster truck I can find.

Personally: Having no fear

Some might think this is superficial, though I know precisely what I want and don't apologize for it.

</comment><comment><USER26> Steadily growing business. Steady income that can provide me with the necessities and a few toys (about $50k/yr after taxes). Free time to deal start other projects and do what I want.

</comment><comment><USER27> When I felt I've really changed the world for the better.

</comment><comment><USER28> convergence; when i cease to have to ask myself which competing urgent task i will complete, i will finally have peace of mind. is it too much to ask to lead my own startup _and_ have only one job?

after that, i agree with others that it is nice be able to ignore money -- to me that again speaks to peace of mind.

</comment><comment><USER29> Net worth > $10 million</comment>


The 'Trophy Kids' Go to Work  - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455219391652725.html?mod=most_emailed_day <comment><USER2> While I sure there are a lot of "entitled" feeling people entering the work force, and frankly some of the examples they provided are simply idiots, I think the article is really missing the point.

The employment field has changed dramatically. You are VERY unlikely to work at the same job in the same company until you retire. Companies aren't supplying reliable pension plans. Many hot fields aren't unionized (I'm not saying unions in their current US form are good, but it's a big shift from the work my grandparents were doing) so you have much less job protection (this in many ways is actually a good thing, imho). You're also often expected to work in excess of 40 hours per week. Many fields have common 50-60+ hour work weeks, on the same salary. In short, companies are giving less, are less loyal, and are asking for more.

At the same time, in many new job fields, it's been discovered that you can work smarter, not longer. It's been proven that flex-time, working from home, lax dress codes, etc... don't always hurt productivity and success. In many cases it improves it.

It's not that I feel entitled to anything special. It's just that I've made a choice to not spend 60 hours/week wearing a suit in a grey cube under fluorescent lights, filling out TPS reports (I did that for a few months, and quit). Thankfully the employment field has supported my choice.

A lot of the requests make sense:

Waiting 6-12 months to get feedback on how you're doing at your job (as perceived by your boss and coworkers) is silly. Short iterations improve quality.

Having to dress a certain way if you don't interact with clients who are expecting a suit, is a waste of money and makes many people uncomfortable physically or with their appearance.

If listening to music while you work makes you happier and/or more productive, it would be foolish not to. If it (or anything else) makes you less productive then that's something for your boss to deal with you individually on.

"They want to be treated like colleagues rather than subordinates". Really? Who wants to be treated like a subordinate? I mean honestly, who WANTS that? If you don't have mutual respect with people you spend 40+ hours/week with, why would you want to be there?

<comment><USER3> _You are VERY unlikely to work at the same job in the same company until you retire. Companies aren't supplying reliable pension plans. Many hot fields aren't unionized..._

I think this is a key thing to notice. Without these benefits (and especially in an at-will employment arrangement) a job becomes more like contract work: a simple trade of time/knowledge for money that can be abandoned by either party at any time.

To the extent that this is true, it might make sense to compare this to other types of work-for-hire. It would be absurd, for example, to require that your auto-mechanic wear certain clothes or demand that they not listen to headphones while working.

I'm not sure how far this analogy extends, but it strikes me that many of the things large companies demand of their employees would be considered onerous in similar contexts.

Why is that so?

<comment><USER4> _I'm not sure how far this analogy extends, but it strikes me that many of the things large companies demand of their employees would be considered onerous in similar contexts._

It's the officer/laborer distinction. Theory: An auto mechanic performs work and is paid per hour of labor, at a rate proportionate to his competence and efficiency. By contrast, white-collar a professional is an officer. He's not paid for 40 hours per week of work. He's paid to fill a role, which requires attention to image, loyalty, professionalism and commitment that may extend outside of working hours and impinge on his lifestyle. A doctor makes housecalls at 10 pm, a CIA agent refrains from illegal drug use, a CEO refrains from posting offensive material on his non-work-related blog.

That's theory. In practice, most white-collar corporate workers are closer in role and status to laborers than professionals, and the only reason companies expect them to fulfill the extra requirements is because they can. They're exploiting tradition. Of course, corporate employees rarely get the autonomy and independence that are the upside of professional status, but American corporations are geniuses at serving up the worst of two worlds (such as, say, laissez-faire capitalism and bureaucratic socialism).

<comment><USER2> You're clearly hanging out with the wrong CIA agents:)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What an obnoxious attitude.

"They want to be treated like colleagues rather than subordinates"

"They would renege on a job-acceptance commitment if a better offer came along."

"Millennials also expect ... time for their family and personal interests."

None of that sounds like a sense of entitlement to me. This is the third or fourth article I've seen on this meme. Are corporate managers really that outraged that people in their 20s want to be treated like human beings?

<comment><USER2> This sums up my thoughts far better than my rambling comment:

"Are corporate managers really that outraged that people in their 20s want to be treated like human beings?"

Exactly!

<comment><USER5> My favorite part was about how "millennials" will move into entrepreneurship instead of working for people who don't respect them. Hope so!

<comment><USER2> I'm hoping that we see a big shift in the high-tech field away from big companies toward a network of small entrepreneur-driven companies that do one thing, and do it really well. Working with a network of people I trust, who are proactive and motivated to do a great job because they have skin in the game, is a real pleasure.

<comment><USER6> This won't happen, it's like the sweet dream of small, self-sufficient communities. Not all kinds of work can be done in such an environment.

But startup culture _will_ inevitably do away with a lot of inane bureaucratic megacorp policies. Especially if all the trophy kids stop swallowing the bullshit. Most large organizations would be much more efficient with a different structure for incentives, and they'll start realizing it when they get hammered by others. Outraged news stories like this one is the first indication that something is happening. You aren't outraged unless you fear something.

<comment><USER7> I would say that fear is the correct word, but suggest that you have the context wrong. It's not the top eschelon of the generation running away and creating their own businesses that we fear, it's the bottom tier thinking they merit top tier salaries with no proportional abilities to go along with them. I welcome the former, and the latter gives me nightmares.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm not sure about this article, I think we're getting trolled here.

Some of the quotes are questionable, but some of them seemed to sound like they came from larger "employees are people too" interviews. I don't think all of the people interviewed share the opinion of the author.

The "We keep treating them like crap but they keep LEAVING! What is going ON HERE?!?" temper tantrum is pretty bizarre. If you can legitimately hold that opinion and be an HR executive, it certainly implies to me that the problem has existed at least as long as that person has been in the business. Your feeling of entitlement isn't all that different from mine if you stand back a step.

If we're so dispensable give us another week off, what's it going to hurt? This is a pretty green field for any big company that would like to improve retention.

A fun business hack would be structuring a company so you could dial-a-salary: your salary assumes you work 95% of the year (2w PTO + 5 holidays), and you tell HR how much you actually want to work (down to say 80% of the year -- 9wk + 5 holidays, as a lower bound for benefits). I bet your retention would be invincible. Screw the money, I'd probably be at 85%.

<comment><USER9> Your last paragraph seems like such a good idea, its tough to understand why it hasn't happened. (I would definitely be at 85%, and I would accept a lower "base" to have to option!) I think the biggest reason is that time off is fairly disruptive. You need to coordinate that not everyone is off at the same time. If someone is waiting for you, your time off will prevent them from working. It takes time to "recover" from time off, etc. I'm not sure how significant these issues are, but I bet they get you to the point that you might have second thoughts. (Would you work 85% the hours for 60% the pay?)

That said, you'd think there are _some_ fields where the above isn't an issue, and they would implement it. I don't know any examples.

<comment><USER4> Here's the real reason Americans don't get more vacation: although large companies allowed to be notoriously uneven in terms of compensation, they still attempt to maintain a veneer of bureaucratic fairness. For example, each employee gets the same health package (although the CEO is paid well enough to self-insure, but never mind that) and all are treated as "equal" (sort of) in internal mediation/discipline matters. This also applies to vacation allotments, which are generally a single-variable function of seniority, with a few special cases that can be negotiated.

The problem is that every corporation has some component that is perennially understaffed, wearing its people down to the felt, and the VP representing it realizes that his division cannot tolerate the prospect of employees having a week or two more off. So any time an officer suggests increasing vacation instead of salaries, the VP vetoes it. At and above this VP's level, vacation allotments are irrelevant (they're either high enough that they can take time off whenever they want... or in pressure-cooker companies, high enough that they _never_ get time off), so there's no personal push from above on this issue. Occasionally the VP of R&D will point out that the company's meager vacation allowance is preventing him from getting top talent, especially from overseas; the CEO will quietly pull him aside and tell him that he can make some exceptions to "the policy" and no one will know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Another old people complain about young people story. Its bull. Never in my life have I had the luxury of feeling entitled, and my parents are well off.

Its older than Christ, "Times change and men decay." Or at least thats what the old people think. Maybe I should go dig up the last twelve stories submitted here with the same ridiculous premise, and we can be done with this once and for all.

<comment><USER11> The fact that it was submitted yet again and hit the front page should be evidence enough that we'll never be rid of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "[Employers] are concerned about this generation's desire to shape their jobs to fit their lives rather than adapt their lives to the workplace."

God forbid.

<comment><USER7> Except that you have to compete with a generation in other countries that don't do that. Who's a better return on investment?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is the most outragous story I've ever read. It's insulting and definitely says something about corporate structure today. I wonder if any of these companies are on the "Best Places to Work" list...

I'm technically a millennial and I don't feel entitled to anything. The points this story brings up are actually things that have been shown to improve productivity if done correctly. Look at Google and numerous other successful high tech companies. People work better when they aren't forced into a suit, get to do non-distracting personal enjoyments at work, have time to sit back and just flat out think and relax during their work day.

What this article shows is that some companies really are full of stiffs who have a superiority complex and are forcibly conformists to their employees. It should be investigated why these companies are tetering on personal rights violations rather than why their employee's don't bow down to their boss's power.

<comment><USER14> I know that Goldman Sachs was regularly on best places to work lists'. They are mentioned in the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> A blog post from Mother Jones about the same article which gives a quote from _The Organization Man_ back in 1956 which says the same thing (but without quite as much snark): <http://www.motherjones.com/kevin- drum/2008/10/damn_kids.html>

<comment><USER16> By 1956 an economic boom had been going on for the best part of a decade. Sound familiar? It's only natural that graduates of an era where jobs are easy to come by will be more frivolous about where they work and the conditions they expect.

When I left school in 1988 it was very hard to get work - there were waiting lists for jobs at McDonalds for example. The "Gen Xers" I know have similar memories and are generally more cautious about quitting a job without something else to go to. Now that the economy's tanking I think attitudes will change. The article's assertion that "their sense of entitlement is an ingrained trait that will likely resurface in a stronger job market" looks pretty bogus to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> They said the same thing when the "X generation" was entering the workforce. They even had HR videos about how bad we where going to be...

</comment><comment><USER18> I'd rather dream of being "CEO tomorrow" than be content working as a subordinate the rest of my life.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't know if it's warranted, but I'd venture to say that there's an immense disdain amongst millennials for older generations for the state of the world as it is now.

The problems left to younger generations are of such magnitude, that, for better or worse, their attitudes towards "superiors" seems natural.

</comment><comment><USER20> I find it interesting that traditional media likes to complain about a shrinking consumer base while at the same time they write this story insulting the younger generation every couple of months. Have they ever thought that they would lose fewer costumers if they stopped insulting them?

</comment><comment><USER21> I think the underlying problem is we've been taught that if you work hard you should be rewarded but what older people mean by "hardwork" is in the sense of hard time as in prison.

In their view showing up at 7:00 and leaving at 3:30 each day with a 30 minute lunch is the epitome of a model employee. They expect that by putting in time irespective of their actual work product they should be rewarded.

Young people on the other hand expect to be judged and rewarded based on the quality of their work product itself and how much value it contributes to the company. Older workers are many times indignant to this idea because they spent the last 30 years racking up their seniority points.

<comment><USER7> I have to echo my comment earlier. When you say that young people want to be judged on the quality of the work (only), you're turning your work into a commodity and making it easier and easier for your work to be outsourced.

<comment><USER21> I don't mean quality strictly in the sense of workmanship I mean the the sense of the value it provides to the company, including things like efficiency, productivity, etc.... I also disagree that judging on quality would make the jobs more susceptible to outsourcing. Presumable oppisite is judging on chair sitting ability and since I'm 100% sure the one thing that cheap over seas labor has me beat on is their chair sitting skillz I choose to compete in all the other categories.

<comment><USER7> A fair point. If you have the talent, definitely avoid any job that can be commoditized. I think there may be as much as a 50/50 split between people who will be able to do so and those who cannot, so those in the bottom face some harsh realities. What I'm also finding, though is that a very large portion of the people I work with aren't able to accurately assess their capabilities. They're ready to be entrepeneurs with no math skills, for example. This is an obvious concern. I think that's why the article resonated with so many who read it on both sides of the fence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This article seems relevant to some of the comments here:

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16040492/>

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm not saying that I agree with the article, but it's pretty funny how all those commenting that it's wrong sound exactly like the people they are talking about.

</comment><comment> bjelkeman-again Maybe they read the Maverick by Ricardo Semler and realised that working in a company doesn't have to be shit.

</comment><comment><USER24> It's not that people are unwilling to make tradeoffs, they just aren't going to let some guy in a suit with a huge sense of entitlement dictate which tradeoffs they have to make.

</comment><comment><USER25> You know what, sometimes you ARE a subordinate. So suck it up.

<comment><USER5> Being a subordinate doesn't mean you shouldn't be treated with respect.

<comment><USER26> People who treat their subordinates like crap are sabotaging themselves, because their subordinates are drastically less likely to give them reliable information or enthusiastic effort.

Good managing isn't about indulging in power trips, it's about being able to ensure that a group of people are working in a way that makes sense in the big picture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's articles like this that make me fall in love with the tech industry all over again.

</comment><comment><USER28> Kids in the US and GBR are generally treated like shit, so they damn well should feel entitled. Children here have lots of material goods, but on every other quality-of-life measure they are basically neglected if not actively abused-- by parents, the school system, corporations, religion, the government, etc.

<comment><USER5> In what ways? Could you elaborate some?</comment></comment>


7 Rejections - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@bchesky/7-rejections-7d894cbaa084 <comment><USER2> These kinds of things are very easy to call out in hindsight, so, I do sympathize with the investors at least a bit.

Based on a collection of screenshots I put together of Airbnb's homepage over time (using content from the Internet Archive) I wouldn't have invested either in early versions of Airbnb:

[http://www.startuptimelines.org/startup- timelines/airbnb/](http://www.startuptimelines.org/startup-timelines/airbnb/)

Fred Wilson got his email from PG, I believe, in January 2009 and if you look at the Airbnb homepage then - the site is no where near as promising as it is now.

<comment><USER3> I don't agree.

The fundamental business model of Airbnb didn't change through all those homepage iterations—those were just redesigns of the exact same concept. In fact, for the time I think Airbnb's original designs were quite current.

<comment><USER4> Yeah that is exactly what I thought as well..

its not like they pivoted... maybe the homepage pitch changes...

All this episode should highlight is that founders should not think that VC's have some sort of wisdom when they reject...

They follow only one wisdom and that is traction... if you got that and in huge spades, then everything can be explained in a wise manner.. and we will marvel at their wisdom.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How did they get such clear "No" answers?

That list of rejections was very, very unlike my experience trying to raise VC, which was more like 7-10 VC firms giving meaningless "yes, soon!" responses until we gave up.

<comment><USER6> They said "no" because they didn't want to waste time meeting with such an obviously unpromising startup :)

I was one of the angels who simply didn't respond, in part because I was busy with my own startup, but also because the idea of a marketplace for renting out air mattresses just didn't sound very appealing...

<comment><USER5> Then let me reframe the question:

"How would I go about presenting my company in such a way that it'd seem so unpromising that only smart investors would give me the time of day?"

It feels like maybe there's an "uncanny valley" between "no plausible way this team is getting funded speculatively" and "no-brainer straight- to- partner- meeting".

<comment><USER7> I've pitched to 30+ investors and got rejected....a lot. Here's my generalized conclusion: VC funding is like dating. Easy money goes for the hot sexy blonde at the corner of the bar in the west village, but it doesn't mean the slightly less attractive brunette sitting in the corner isn't the best catch. No one would dare miss out hitting on the blonde, and no one is going to fault anyone for not hitting on the brunette "she's uninteresting". My only advice is to understand first what the investors' thesis is and play your pitch to those strengths. For example - what markets, what they look for in teams, and what their fund's goal is. I've had a fair share of VC's be brutally honest with me on the last point with an answer of "we need just one billion dollar business in order to return our fund, so we take as many bets as we can to ensure we get one".

<comment><USER8> You could easily have made this point without degrading women.

<comment><USER9> Well, you got that completely wrong. What would have been correct is:

"You could easily have made this point without degrading men."

In his story he generalizes men as playing the fool and makes no generalization about women.

<comment><USER9> Yikes! To correct my straight bias:

There was no generalization made at all. He never made reference to gender of the person walking into the bar. It could have been a woman walking into a gay bar.

My apologies.

<comment><USER8> If you wanted to tie yourself in knots, you are succeeding.

The degradation that I saw was that, in the analogy, women are sexually objectified. Women appear in the story exclusively in a sexual context, where there is no good reason for that. The context makes it clear that this is normal and expected within the (male) OP's world.

"No one would dare miss out hitting on the blonde". There is a clear generalization here, that everyone should find blonde women most attractive, or at least be socially required to act as though they do. Perhaps women are also expected to find the blonde woman most attractive, or perhaps women's opinions aren't really worth considering.

You might re-examine your own gender and sexuality biases in this context.

<comment><USER9> >If you wanted to tie yourself in knots, you are succeeding.

I'm actually being sardonic. The political correctness police are a bit tiresome. My point is that, if one wishes, they can analyze any statement to be as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc... Including yours.

>The degradation that I saw was that, in the analogy, women are sexually objectified

If women are 'sexually objectified' by other women is it a problem?

Why did you overlook the completely racist message in his analogy? Assuming most men prefer blonds assumes white culture, which is racist since I doubt black and asian men feel the same. I don't know, maybe I'm racist for doubting that assumption?

Also if a character's gender isn't identified in a story, is it sexist to assume that character's gender is the same as the storyteller? I was guilty of that one too.

This where the P.C. police trip over their own logic and fall into the pile of B.S. they've created.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For Brian:

On Dec 13th, 2012, I wrote the following email to you, after having applied for a "Head of Community" position at AirBnB. I didn't get any reply either. Note that I cannot claim I became the big success that AirBnB has after these "rejections", but it still surprises me that you or your org didn't even wanted to talk to a Technology Evangelist from AWS. I guess you did a similar type of mistake with me.

"Hi Brian, I know you're busy, therefore I'll keep it short.

My name is Simone, I work in San Francisco for Amazon Web Services, and I'm interested in becoming the Global Head of Community at Airbnb.

I think I have what it takes to be successful in that role, and I'm a big fan of Airbnb.

Let me know if we can discuss, or if you want more details.

Have a great day,"

<comment><USER10> I'm wondering why the downvotes - can someone care to explain? I'm honestly curious on why.

<comment><USER11> Just my guess.

You were sorta putting your situation on a par with investors missing out on investing in the early stages of a company now worth $24bn. That is to say, them not paying attention to you is equivalent to missing out on an absolutely mind boggling amazing opportunity (in hindsight).

Now, you might truly be as awesome as that but people tend to vote down comments where people are blowing their own trumpets, for better or worse.

<comment><USER10> And what about this sentence then? "Note that I cannot claim I became the big success that AirBnB has after these "rejections""

<comment><USER12> Why do you think they owe you a response? Your comment sorta sounds like you think you're something special, maybe that's why people downvoted?

<comment><USER10> Thanks. I think what you say makes sense, as far as how my comment might be perceived.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Reminds me of BVP's anti-portfolio: [http://www.bvp.com/portfolio/antiportfolio](http://www.bvp.com/portfolio/antiportfolio)

</comment><comment><USER14> > Next time you have an idea and it gets rejected, I want you to think of this > email.

The winner of a lottery could go around telling people not give up buying lottery tickets...

<comment><USER15> I don't think that's quite applicable in this case, as getting a business funded is a far cry from winning the lottery -- plenty of people frequenting this site were able to obtain funding under similar circumstances (a lot of rejections amidst a couple yes's).

The reason this is the exact opposite of winning the lottery, is that the lottery is the equivalent of saying, "Please, a higher power, change my life by granting me all that I want.", whereas someone getting their company funded is more akin to saying, "I want to take full responsibility for the failures _and successes_ of my own life, and to even become responsible for the livelihood of others.".

In short, they are worlds apart as far as mentality goes. Regardless of the success of the company after the funding, going forward with a company in the face of such utter rejection by those who the author viewed as "smart people" takes a mentality that is shared by pretty much all of those who have achieved similar success.

<comment><USER16> Or maybe the "smart people" are exactly that and that's as far as they will go as we've seen throughout history when smart people get together decisions become more about maintaining ones ego rather than actual results. Taleb terms so called smart people as "empty suits". 50 cent is a successful venture capitalist, but do people picture him first when they think smart people?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Reminds me of Stephen King's rejection slips: "By the time I was fourteen the nail in my wall would no longer support the weight of the rejection slips impaled upon it. I replaced the nail with a spike and went on writing."

Like Guy Kawasaki once said, "Don´t Let The Bozos Grind You Down".

<comment><USER18> With Stephen King (or any book author) it's a little different. It's not like they get rejected and keep selling that one book they just wrote. Most authors write bad books when they are starting, they get rejected and they continue to write more books, usually better books.

<comment><USER17> "It's not like they get rejected and keep selling that one book they just wrote." (1) just because you're selling doesn't mean you're making profit. (2) Airbnb wasn't profitable when they were getting rejected, so in a sense "they kept writing". Hell, they even sold cereal boxes to stay afloat before Ycombinator picked them up! [https://www.airbnb.com/obamaos](https://www.airbnb.com/obamaos)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Marc Andreessen talked about passing on AirBnb's initial investment round at How to Start a Startup. It helps put these rejections in perspective: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFX95HahaUs&t=29m11s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFX95HahaUs&t=29m11s)

</comment><comment><USER20> These rejections are a testament to why you shouldn't give up just because smart people give you a hard "no", but also why storytelling is so important. These investors clearly did not understand Airbnb, and I think the Airbnb guys would admit that's in large part because they did a bad job explaining it.

Explaining why something that is small today could some day be huge is so hard.

<comment><USER21> To be fair, their original idea was to rent out a couch for people to crash on, much like couchsurfing. I don't know if even Chesky imagined it would grow to it's current state. Uber was similarly silly when it started: expensive limos on-demand for rich guys in SF. Investing at this stage is just like signing a new band, it's just a lottery ticket.

<comment><USER20> Totally - see my comment at the bottom of this thread.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Much like tech hiring, investors prefer to optimize for false negative over false positives. Especially because the power dynamic is still skewed in their way, which allows them to say things like "call us back when you get to a series A" \- none of the risk, all of the upside. Kind of like that girl who rejected me in high school but said "if in 10 years we both haven't found someone, maybe we can get together".

<comment><USER16> Yeah that one really irked me. Hey, call us when you are a billionaire and we'll talk about investing. Yeah I'll marry you when it's in the prenup.

I'd immediately pull out my funds as an investor out if I found out the names of the people writing these rejection letters. It would also be bad for street cred. "hey these guys missed out on the deal of the century, who else did they reject?"

150k is like peanuts to these firms with millions of dollars to throw. Hell, I'd bought out of the money put options near expiry if it meant there was a slight chance it would have potentially unlimited returns.

<comment><USER23> > hey these guys missed out on the deal of the century

When you figure out how to determine that _before_ the fact I'm sure there are plenty of VC firms who would love to hire you.

> who else did they reject?

They rejected countless startups that have since failed (and surely some other that have succeeded). VCs are human, you can't expect them to have the clairvoyance required to only invest in eventually successful companies and only turn down eventual failures.

<comment><USER16> >When you figure out how to determine that before the fact I'm sure there are plenty of VC firms who would love to hire you.

My email is in my profile (if anyone wants to hire me). I've described a strategy that involves making small bets across large number of startups and not focusing on making judgements or even attempting to figure out how much this startup is going to be worth (as you say VC are human, why introduce that inherent bias to a numbers game?) because like we witnessed with the guys who rejected Airbnb, their own bias towards safety incurred a huge opportunity cost.

> They rejected countless startups that have since failed (and surely some > other that have succeeded). VCs are human, you can't expect them to have the > clairvoyance required to only invest in eventually successful companies and > only turn down eventual failures.

Exactly, which is why I feel like they should ignore their own instincts and thought processes. Even if they were able to land a few successful ones, how can we be certain that it was not the work of dice rolling? Studies show that most money managers perform no better than buying the index or throwing darts, what makes you think VC's suddenly have improved odds?

<comment><USER24> Wait -- so you'll invest in a startup blind, regardless of fundamentals, without trying to ballpark its valuation?

Give me an hour to come up with a business plan, and I'll shoot you an e-mail :P

<comment><USER16> If that's what you got then no, I think you should check with your local donation institutions because I'm not running a charity. Another red flag actually, because I checked my email and I didn't find a business plan in my inbox and 2 hours has passed. If you were serious I would've read it and rejected you because the first thing I would do is not read the business plan but talk about your experience and see if you have a history of being non punctual or any thing that would suggest dishonesty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The only thing to be warned about here is the blowback effect. This is a form of confirmation bias, whereby the victim uses rejection as a means of confirmation.

<comment><USER15> I was curious to what he meant by the blowback effect, and so my googling eventually led me to The Backfire Effect[1] which is when "in the face of contradictory evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger".

I don't really see that applying in the sense of obtaining venture capital, as it is well known that you aren't going to immediately walk in to an office and hand them a check for the valuation you asked for. It's going to take a bunch of both hard and soft rejections, but a person isn't usually going to be in that room pitching to these VCs if they don't already strongly believe that their startup is fundable.

[1] [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect)

<comment><USER25> Ah yes, I meant "backfire effect".

This pertains to the conclusion (and thus the premise) of the blog post:

"Next time you have an idea and it gets rejected, I want you to think of these emails."

The message in my comment is, don't allow yourself to fall pray to the backfire effect when people reject your ideas (whether VC, colleagues, etc.). If people reject your idea, it might mean it's not a very valuable idea, as opposed to being an indication that you're on to something that's so radically new and different, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "It's not in one of our prime 5 markets...you would be better without us...but Hey call us when you're doing your series A".

This ranks just below my favorite answer:

"We love that you have 1M users, but we need to see 10M before an A round. (Month passes). Oh, really 10M users that's great but we like to see 50m before doing A rounds now. Come back later!"

Of course, you won't need this chump change fund's money when you reach that point.

</comment><comment><USER27> Airbnb is an example of a company that is nothing more than just a brand, because anybody can build a booking website in a matter of a few weeks.

So, this is just gambling. I'm not sure of what interest that would be here, but that is of course a personal opinion.

<comment><USER28> > Airbnb is an example of a company that is nothing more than just a brand, > because anybody can build a booking website in a matter of a few weeks.

Many people have, and some (Roomorama, FlipKey) are reasonably successful. Heck, there's entire sub-sector of vacation home rentals (HomeAway, VayCayHero) that has publicly traded companies operating in it.

The problem with two-side marketplace is the trust. Bait-and-switch and similar scams have plagued marketplaces like CraigsList. You arrive at a place, and it's not what the photos look like. You make a reservation, and are told at the last minute that it got "flooded" a night before, and now the host gives you an option to switch to an inferior place or pay up more for a better-looking option. You arrive and find out the place is not for rent, and the photos have been taken by some scammer who thrives on taking small deposits and just repurposes same photos across multiple sites. Then it degrades into horrors like this one [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205794/Rape- horror-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205794/Rape-horror- tourist-used-couchsurfing-website-aimed-travellers.html)

Building a trust network and keeping a reasonably clean two-side marketplace is very hard, and is a major asset.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> An oldie from Fred Wilson where he calls himself out for missing on Airbnb.

[http://avc.com/2011/03/airbnb/](http://avc.com/2011/03/airbnb/)

</comment><comment><USER30> > We were attempting to raise $150,000 at a $1.5M valuation. That means for > $150,000 you could have bought 10% of Airbnb.

This is completely off-topic but since the $150,000 is going back to the business, wouldn't that mean that the valuation becomes $1.65M? The word "bought" makes it sound like someone is taking the money and selling their share.

<comment><USER31> This is the distinction between 'pre-money valuation' and 'post-money.'

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre- money_valuation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-money_valuation)

<comment><USER32> So this means 1.5M was the post-money valuation, correct?

<comment><USER31> You know, I originally had a hard answer and edited it away because I think OP is ambiguous.

>for $150,000 you could have bought 10% of Airbnb.

Does that mean for $150K I can buy as many shares as constitute 10% of the current outstanding number? Or that after I pay $150K, I will own 10%?

Since new shares are issued, in the former case I end up with 9.0909...% (1/11th) of the company. That gives us a post-money valuation of... $1.65M! (and $1.5M pre-money) But in the more probable reading of the phrase, I own 10% of the post-money $1.5M company, giving us $1.35M pre-money.

So, your choice. Someone more in the VC loop might be able to say that the phrasing definitely means one or the other; I've just got the math.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It looked like an awesome team, but investors didn't see the opportunity. I read that one fund (I think USV) took the miss as a lesson not to base investment decisions on whether their partners would use a particular service. The consuming proclivities of 50-year-old millionaires not being indicative of a larger market. Seems terribly sloppy as an investor (or prospective employee, for that matter) to be influenced by such a personal bias. But maybe the founders didn't fully expect such an amazing success, either?

<comment><USER34> In general you have to use your own life experiences to make investments.

It's nice to think that you could put yourself in someone else's shoes well enough to make stock purchases based on what you think they will want, but investors learn very quickly that that doesn't actually work. "Buy what you know."

It means there are great opportunities for people who are a minority in the investment world -- like ladies.

Look at ETSY stock right now. It's insanely cheap I believe (at 1.771B valuation). Despite being cultishly popular with 20-something women, who will soon be entering the demographic that spends the most, it's been crashing through the floor. A male-led investment world is not putting their money there. Ask any young lady what they think of Etsy and you'll see why that's dumb.

In 2008, when Starbucks was priced at $3.42 a share, asking any woman what business they think will grow in popularity would have elicited the reply of "Starbucks, duh", but investors didn't see the opportunity. In 2009, Lululemon was priced at $2.25 a share.

It's a good thing for minority investors. They just need to get in the buying market, and take some risks.

<comment><USER33> Buy what you know is certainly a good heuristic. If I were a partner at a fund that invests in Internet-enabled networks of engaged users, I would be very alarmed if companies like AirBnB and Etsy started to drift outside the scope of "what I know". Also, what I know probably shouldn't be so limiting as _what I use_. For example, one of Warren Buffet's best investments was Blue Chip Stamp -- a discount coupon book publisher. I doubt Warren Buffet ever licked a discount stamp (other than as a stunt). But he does understand businesses that generate float. He is the master of investing float.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Yes, follow your dream. but don't follow too hard that you loose all your money and savings because "the airbnb guys got rejected too". sometimes it's good to be realistic and understand that if you get rejected all the times maybe it means you're in the wrong direction. posts like that will encourage people to keep hoping and might causing them damage by not being connected to reality.

</comment><comment><USER36> I remember watching an investigative journalism piece that showed that professional traders on Wall Street can barely outperform a monkey.

I think given these kinds of statistics I can't understand why there's not some public fund where average citizens can invest toward. That fund would run a lottery every year and accept 'x' # of companies depending on how much was invested the previous year. Each of those companies would (depending on current cash flow) provide a % of ownership to the fund.

Noone tells them how to use the money. No investor has authority to interfere whatsoever.

Of course I imagine there would be reporting requirements, and require certain levels of transparency into their books and such in order to create at least some hurdles to prevent people who are just out to scam the system from applying.

Maintaining the status quo just perpetuates the "rich get richer" paradigm.

</comment><comment><USER37> Investors who missed out on great products aren't to be sneered at. Indeed, Airbnb of year 2008 would've looked like merely a toy to most people — something that in no way could become huge. There were too many risks. Even if it grew, it still seemed would not be anything to write home about. That's why people who invest in toy-like products are usually family or friends of the founders. I wrote a blog post about this.

[https://medium.com/@sungmoon/the-next-big- thing-53ae218c4b6d](https://medium.com/@sungmoon/the-next-big- thing-53ae218c4b6d)

</comment><comment><USER38> If I was at the same stage as they were at this time. How would I have contacted these investors - or similar ones?

I have no idea how to start the process of asking VCs for a small sum in return for a share of the company.

I would really appreciate and answer.

Thank you.

<comment><USER39> The "traditional" answer is to identify the VCs you're interested in, and network your way into an introduction if you don't know them yourself. Accelerator programs can also be a way to become involved.

Have a clear, clean pitch deck. Know your unique value proposition, understand your competition, be able to demonstrate that there's a market and that it's significant. Show traction, team, and ability to execute.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Every investment opportunity has risk, and many possible outcomes. There will always be investors who gained. There will always be investors who missed a chance to gain. Alternatively, there could be investors who lost, or those who dodged the bullet.

This one had gains and missed opportunity. No one lost anything except time reading a post that appears to be 'prodding the losers' when there weren't any. In fact, some of the investors probably made more elsewhere in something closer to their realm, so it can't readily be said that an opportunity was missed.

</comment><comment><USER41> It's obviously easy to critique in hindsight but I think it's interesting that a theme of the rejections is "not our type of marked". It seems like the investors are somewhat conservative in sticking to what they know which is a little disappointing (I like the response that the investors can't really help because they don't know much about the market). That suggests that you'll get filtered out pretty quickly on variables like market type which seems pretty unfortunate.

<comment><USER42> Keep in mind that this can also be code for "we didn't get a good vibe from you, but since it's hard to explain intangibles, we'll say it's not our type of market." Investors also aren't necessarily above hand waving to spare feelings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> It's really hard to tell the success of an idea and I think one investor mentioned in the email that they don't understand the market so it would make it hard to nurture such products.

They simply cannot invest in all ideas, just because Brian got lucky doesn't makes it applies to all startups

</comment><comment><USER44> > _The other 2 did not reply._

OT, but I applied to be a contract photographer for AirBnB a month ago and did not get a response either -- not "no", not "maybe later", not anything.

I did get an automated email thanking me "for pressing send"; after that, zilch.

So I guess it goes both ways.

<comment><USER11> That's ultimately the lesson IMHO. You gotta keep hustling and doing what you think is right but not get hung up about any particular connection or rung of the ladder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> This, in itself, means nothing. If you need to read things like this in order to understand that not everybody is going to love you or your idea and to help deal with rejection, most likely you are not be cut out to be an entrepreneur. Every investor has stories of ideas that they passed on that they shouldn't have (in retrospect of course) and every entrepreneur (or guy dating in high school) also knows of investors or dates that they felt made the wrong decision.

Pushes all the right buttons, but keep in mind that those investors also rejected vastly more ideas that most likely never went anywhere. That was their take on airbnb at the time.

With respects to Airbnb, Fred Wilson of USV passed on the opportunity as well and posted emails showing where Paul Graham personally spent quite a bit of time trying to convince him otherwise.

[1] [http://www.paulgraham.com/airbnb.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/airbnb.html)

</comment><comment><USER46> Good lord, I needed to see this.

</comment><comment><USER47> I am surprised that they only got 7 rejections, I would expect a lot, lot more NOs

<comment><USER48> 7 rejections after a meeting with 7 potential investors, not 7 rejections overall

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> is this post the airBnb version of the godadday commercial? \- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIBfctISM9M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIBfctISM9M)

</comment><comment><USER50> This is evidence that:

Investors and VCs are not smart/do not have enough information/experience to make smart decisions generally

The only way to escape working for non-smart people (bosses, VCs) is to bootstrap

</comment><comment><USER51> Sorry, but this looks like humble-brag, because everybody knows what happened in retrospect. Those VCs, probably can give CEO of ABB dozens of examples, how they rejected some 'promising' startups which have failed, and a few which they accepted and made them nice cash.

Also to this day ABB to me looks like Couch-surfing for money, unless you get full apartment. And usually only advantage you get versus hotel is that you have a kitchen and/or washing machine. IMHO, there are lucky people who own apartments near city center, and are collect month's worth of rent from 4-7 night stays. That's how ABB looks to me after I tried it.

</comment><comment><USER52> Survival bias, much ?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)

</comment><comment><USER53> refusal happens in life, nothing new? But at least most of that email had a clear reason why, some also gave advice. I think they were lucky to have such responses.

</comment><comment><USER54> Made me really, really want to see the yes email.

</comment><comment><USER55> Now show me the e-mails from investors of the hundreds of start-ups that get rejected and fail.

</comment><comment><USER56> Even in 2008, was this a reasonable way to try and raise $150k? I would think that level of investment should/would be procured from friends & family, not cold-ish intros to angels/VCs?

</comment><comment><USER57> Saw some VC tweeting this link with the caption, "VC is hard." ...I think he missed the point of the article.

<comment><USER58> His point is entirely consistent with Brian's point. Brian's saying "consistent rejection doesn't mean you should give up" and the VC is saying "even consistent VC rejections can be wrong because VC is hard".

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> This was when Airbnb was pre-YC

</comment><comment><USER60> Wish he showed the names.

</comment><comment><USER61> 7 is out of what? How many VCs gave them offers for money, and how many did they take?

<comment><USER62> It says right in the very first line of the article:

> On June 26, 2008, our friend Michael Seibel introduced us to 7 prominent > investors in Silicon Valley.

Therefore, the answer to your question is: in this particular encounter they talked to 7 VCs, got 5 NOs and 2 no-answer's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > for $150,000 you could have bought 10% of Airbnb.

Ouch. Ego can get very expensive. Consider this, had they invested, Airbnb might not be where it is today.

</comment><comment><USER63> Ha. You know the same concept applies to talking to girls?

I'll never forget the day I went out exclusively to meet a girl. I was rejected by maybe a hundred girls I approached. The worst one's were the ones that just stared at their phone, like I wasn't even human.

I was tired. It was 8PM... around that. I go up and approach girl inside of a clothing store. Please God speak english. She opens up with perfect english, smiling. We went on a date right there. Huge confidence booster.

Frankly, people are a complicated bunch. You don't understand their learned behaviors, position and internal politics. There's no way you could understand the whether a girl is grumpy, just broke up, open to meeting someone new until you come up to her.

We need more posts like this. Not just for VC's, I'd like to see comeback stories for freelancers scoring gigs / job interviews.

Good job OP</comment>