Paul Graham may be right, but Chris Zacharias is righter - <AUTHOR> http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2012/12/paul-graham-may-be-right-but-chris-zacharias-is-righter/ <comment><USER2> Feels a bit like this whole issue is conflicting the management team with the investors - which is obviously very common in the startup world.

Need to take a step back and look at the primary purpose of acquiring investors: taking capital from them now in exchange for future cash flows to them later. To maximize this in favour of our business, we need to take the most money for the minimum amount of equity sold.

Now look at the primary purpose of the management team: to use the assets and resources placed in their care to create the highest future cash flows possible. This includes the tasks that Chris is conflating with investors: secure deals, find the best lawyers and accounts, getting meetings with difficult people. The management team is then compensated directly for their efforts.

The above is how it works in traditional companies. The investors invest capital and decide on the management team. The management team actually runs all facets of the business. In the startup world this relationship is not as simple, as the founders are both the primary shareholders and the management team itself.

What Chris is proposing is not as outlandish as it sounds - he is proposing joining the investors as part of the management team by selling shares to them for cheaper. If a share is worth $10 on the open market, but we sell it at $5 in exchange for valuable help from investors, then we are doing something very simple: we are paying these investors to be part of the management team, and in this case we are paying them $5 per share. This is a good option to take if the skills they bring are worth the $5, and a very bad option if we could hire better/more skills by taking the $10/share and then directly hiring on the market.

TLDR: Nothing to see here - you can pay people in equity or in cash, and the choice is as difficult as it ever was.

<comment><USER3> You would expect that investors would help your startup more if they had more equity from a lower valuation and were rationally trying to maximize the expected value of their holdings.

However, in seed stage investing in startups, investors do not end up looking at their equity stakes when they decide to help or not help a startup.

The primary determinants of whether an investor helps you are: 1) Whether they are the type that generally want to help the companies they invest in 2) Their relationship with the founders 3) How successful they perceive the startup will be and whether they feel they can contribute to that success

<comment><USER4> I have different amounts of equity in different startups. All else being equal, I prefer to help the ones in which I have more equity. I like to help companies that I invest in, but my time is limited. I've had to make that call.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Chris is doing something very smart: he's fishing in a smaller pool. There may be fewer fish, but he's got them all to himself."

This is the mistake. This pool is not merely smaller (that may not even be the case), but investors in it have a lower ratio of value to cost. Which is precisely the reason someone who fishes in this pool has it all to himself.

I.e. the argument here is not akin to "Since this restaurant is too crowded, I'll go to that other equally good restaurant that's empty, but rather "Since this restaurant is crowded, I'll go to that other one that is deservedly empty."

I find it odd to be arguing this side of the case, because I'm usually the one telling founders not to chase high valuations. But these arguments are simply fallacious.

<comment><USER6> Chris states repeatedly that part of his experiment was to see if he could find valuable (non-"deservedly empty") investors, and it seems that he has. This may not be a good general strategy that everyone can emulate, but it appears that it _can_ work in some situations.

He also marveled that he closed the funding round in just a few days. I constantly read here and elsewhere that one of the huge pain points when you're looking for funding is that you spend so much time dealing with fundraising that you have to drop the ball on developing your actual product for a while. Courting quality investors that tend to be priced out by many startups with high valuations could reduce that problem's impact.

Again: I recognize that this certainly isn't a general solution that every startup can pursue. But it sounds like you're dismissing it in general.

Then again, I'm just an armchair non-entrepreneur commenter who has never faced any of these problems. ;)

<comment><USER5> As I said earlier, there are also helpful investors who are willing to buy stock at high valuations. Which means those who aren't have a lower ratio of value to cost.

And lowering one's valuation is not an automatic way to make a round close faster. I've watched literally hundreds of startups both succeed and fail at raising money, and as a rule, if investors don't want to invest at a valuation of x, they don't want to invest at x/2 either.

All that's really going on here is that Chris is mistakenly generalizing from a single data point.

<comment><USER6> Makes sense. If you don't think a company is going to succeed at a particular valuation, you're not likely to change your mind for half the cost.

My assumption was that there's a group of investors that would love to invest, but just don't have sufficient capital to do so at the valuations companies are getting. But I guess that's too small a number -- especially when you consider that you want _quality_ investors, too, which shrinks that pool -- to be a general solution, as you say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think this is a well meaning but misplaced assessment of Chris's goals. I thought his point was more along these lines:

Angel Investors are helpful for the resources the provide. One is financial and two is non financial (intellect/network connections etc) It seems like Chris has decided that the focus at YC companies has become too much on the former and not on the latter. He seems willing to reduce the amount of value he receives via the monetary piece (not less dollars, smaller valuations) in exchange for much higher value on the non monetary piece. "I'll give you a lower valuation in the hope/expectation that you'll be much more vested in our success and thus leverage your non monetary resources towards our success."

In a nice reinforcing circle: by taking a lower valuation he creates, or perhaps reinforces, the right economic incentives to do that.

On a side note I thought he was extremely brave to challenge the system with his original post.

</comment><comment><USER8> What you talk about is a kind of "blue ocean strategy" applied to investors.

 _Red investors oceans represent to all the industries in existence today – the known Investor space. In the red oceans, investors boundaries are defined and accepted, and the competitive rules of the game are known. Here start-ups try to outperform their other start-ups rivals to grab a greater share of investment demand. As the funding market space gets crowded, prospects for high valuation and rapid investments are reduced. Products become commodities or niche, and cutthroat competition turns the ocean bloody; hence, the term red oceans._

 _Blue investor oceans, in contrast, denote all the industries not in existence today – the unknown investor market space, untainted by start-up competition. In blue oceans, investment demand is created rather than fought over. There is ample opportunity for high valuation and rapid investment. In blue oceans, start-up competition for funding is irrelevant because the rules of the game are waiting to be set. Blue investment ocean is an analogy to describe the wider, deeper potential of investor space that is not yet explored._

(Adaptation of Wkipedia article on blue ocean strategy for investment for start-ups)

In your article the "guilder-investing angels" are the blue ocean for investment in start-ups.

</comment><comment><USER9> The title of this article is on pitch to me. PG's comment does not come across as a "calling out." It comes across as a general conclusion based upon his experience and data.

On the other hand Zacharias's blog describes observing and responding to feelings that there was a disconnect between the funding features available to his YC class and his entrepreneurial gut.

As a "pre-cofounder" (I love the term) he was in a position to take a different course. He also enjoyed the advantage of friendships with potential investors.

I can't help but see what he describes as extending some of the fundamental YC processes beyond the point where YC kicks the baby birds out of the nest. YC works because of the trust founders place in the partners. It works because founders don't worry about the investor screwing them over, and it works because founders can spend more energy building rather than negotiating terms.

This appears to be what Zacharias did. He was careful about who he sold his company to and conscientious about the price of shares which are likely to be worthless.

It was a personal strategy - right for Zacharias. PG is right that it is poor as a general strategy for YC companies.

</comment><comment><USER10> That is true not just for angels, but for VCs as well - Elon Musk feels strongly about that - "Always Go With A High-Quality VC Even If The Valuation Is Low"

[http://statspotting.com/2012/12/elon-musk-always-go-with- a-h...](http://statspotting.com/2012/12/elon-musk-always-go-with-a-high- quality-vc-even-if-the-valuation-is-low/)

</comment><comment><USER11> _"...and get the very best of the guilder-investing angels in their round."_

I can understand the reasoning but are the 'best' of this pool as good as those from the dollar-pool? Wouldn't the really good/useful ones be trying to enter the dollar-pool anyway? (NB I'm not aware of the back-story yet)

Edit: Just read both pieces and I agree that they're both right. I see this as a difference between Angel vs VC. Angels sometimes get involved because they can imagine having a useful impact on their portfolio. If an Angel takes a tiny slice of a company which also has VCs and 'YC valuations' then they may feel they have no real 'clout' or ownership in the company (not everyone wants a board seat). Even though the economic argument may be to take-whatever-you- can-get that doesn't make it _fun_ or worth your time.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm not sure how the leaps from "price-sensitve" to "smart money", and "price- insensitive" to "dumb money" were made. I think it's much more accurate to divide it amongst "price sensitive" and "value sensitive" investors. Yes, there's still classifications such as "dumb money" and "smart money", but they're often misused when discussing topics like this. And I've yet to see any posts on early stage val's of the biggest companies in the past few years, which could explain how "smart" or "dumb" either is. I also haven't gone through the presos of funds of both types to see who's getting the best returns, but I can remember anecdotally that both classes of investors had had success. (Kauffman Foundation would have some good data on this.)

I will say that one nice thing about pricing on the higher side is it requires more conviction on the part of your investors. Thus, it will be those that are committed to your company, despite a higher relative price. (All investors are price-sensitive, it's just to what degree.) So by pricing it higher you end up with the same result as CZ and DS are seeking, except you keep more of the company.

And as far as the price-sensitive, there are many reasons, aside from them just being "smart": a) they're trying to raise a fund and need lower valuations, "better" numbers, for potential LPs (since LPs are usually investors with a more traditional mindset on finance, and thus more price- sensitive), b) their existing investors want to see lower valuations, "better" numbers, c) they're able to get "good deals" (I'm not mocking this, I'm just noting it's a value judgement, not something concrete) at lower valuations, d) they care more about potential multiples on their own fund(s) more than investing in the outright best companies, and any number of other reasons.

Hunting for the cheapest relative startup isn't necessarily "smart" (nor is investing in say uncapped notes), and investing in "expensive" startups isn't necessarily dumb (nor is haggling over price).

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm now curious if there are a segment of investors who use valuation to drive their decisions, even if its irrational to do so (valuation in Chris' case was a 2x factor, whereas success vs non success is a 100x one). If they exist, it may be worth targeting them.

<comment><USER13> 2x on the note is the difference between 50x and 100x. Often such companies are 3x overvalued, and 33x vs 100x massively changes the risk/reward ratios. Capital is always limited, and even in the 2x case, that means one can invest in twice as many companies with twice the potential upside.

Suggesting pricing is not a rational factor in investment decisions is exactly the sort of irrational statement that indicates the peek of a bubble.

Furthermore, if you pay double, that means you've already lost 50% of your money. Valuation is essentially potential upside discounted by risk. If risk is not factored in properly, investors lose money and nobody wins. Investors expect most of their bets to lose, and winning bets to provide a significant return. That return may average out to around 20% annually for a very good investor. If that investor is paying double, that goes down to 10%, hardly worth the risk of angel investment.

<comment><USER3> Log base 2 of 100 is 6.6. That means you need 6.6 effects the size of valuation in Chris' case in order to have the same impact on your outcome as picking a winner. Can you explain why using valuation to drive your decision is preferable to using the startup's likelihood of being a winner?

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure why you are using logarithms.

A) 50K at 5M valuation is 1%

B) 100K at 10M valuation is 1%

If the company sells for $1B, the first investor gets 200X, the first investor gets 100X. The first investor can also invest 50K in another promising startup, increasing the likelihood of them making money with their 100K capital. Given that any individual company has a low chance of a $1B exit (if it had a high one, the valuation would and should be much higher,) diversification is important to investors.

Alternatively assuming a fixed investment amount:

A) 50K at 5M valuation is 1%

B) 50K at 10M valuation is 0.5%

If the company sells for $1B, the first investor gets 200X, the first investor gets 100X, and made a drastically different amount of money - $10M vs $5M (less investment). If the investor has a large number of investments, a 200X vs 100X can significantly change the overall outcome of the portfolio. This is less so when we are dealing with these ridiculously high numbers (very few startups exit with this kind of return), but with more typical $20-100M exits, the valuations of the investments makes even more difference.

The key point here is that the startup's likelihood of being a winner is a key component of the valuation. If a startup had a very high chance of exiting for $1B, then a $100M valuation may be perfectly reasonable. YC startups, on average, do not have a high chance of a $1B exit.

When a startup raises at $15M instead of a more reasonable $5M, it is riskier to invest because the upside, and therefore the expected value, is much smaller.

The idea of getting a piece of something no matter how small at any price is just bad investing and bubble mania.

This sort of unsustainable logic is what leads to boom busts cycles. It's important for everyone involved to maintain rational pricing in a market, because volatility breeds fear is ultimately damaging to the startup ecosystem.

<comment><USER3> It's more important to focus on whether a company will be successful than its valuation. Nowhere did I say valuation did not have an impact. Focusing on valuation and ignoring whether a company will be successful is a mistake.

I, and any other investor, would have gladly bought Google stock at any valuation before its IPO, whether at $5MM, $15MM or $100MM. Whereas it doesn't matter how great your terms are if the startup you invest in fails.

<comment><USER13> What kind of investor focuses on valuation and ignores whether a company will be successful?

You said "there are a segment of investors who use valuation to drive their decisions, even if its irrational to do so".

It is not irrational to use valuation to drive decisions, though it is obviously stupid to have that be the only factor. It is however, a major one.

Of course if success is highly probably, one should not be deterred by valuation, and in fact valuation should be higher. These days, many companies are not risk discounted enough, making many investments a bad deal for investors. Companies raise at $10M valuations and go out of business 6 months later. This is not healthy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't think either position is more right than the other. I think both have valid points. Chris' genius move isn't something that magically allowed him to find gold...it was merely a tradeoff of equity for the ability to handpick your investors and advisors.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think the title is backwards, it should be, "Chris Zacharias is right, but Paul Graham is righter".

</comment><comment><USER16> Guilders have been out of circulation since the euro was introduced.

<comment><USER17> Missing the forest for the trees.</comment></comment>


Herman Miller Launches New Aeron Chair - <AUTHOR> http://www.hermanmiller.com/about-us/press/press-releases/all/herman-miller-launches-new-aeron-chair.html <comment><USER3> I bought two Aeron chairs, $10 each at separate times.

The first chair was being pushed down the street by a guy who looked borderline homeless. He was about to go into the Bowling Green subway station. I said "Are you selling that chair", he said "How much would you offer?". I offered $10, he said "great, I didn't really want to carry this all the way home". I had a pang of regret and thought I had possibly walked into some type of high design sting operation. I asked "Do you own this chair?", he replied "My office was renovating and they were throwing it out." Good enough for me.

The second chair came a couple of weeks later. I was walking down Broadway by the bull, about 100 yards from the first place. One of the street vendors was sitting on an Aeron. I asked if he would sell me the chair, he said sure, $20. As I was inspecting it, a woman walked by and said "That's a nice chair, it's not a real Aeron like they have at my office, but it's a nice chair". The hydraulic cylinder was broken on this one, the chair only sat at the lowest position, when you would pick it up, the cylinder extended. I offered him $10 and he accepted. It was a genuine Aeron. I ordered a new cylinder for this chair and it is like new, the cylinder was around $90.

Both of these sales happened within my first 3 months of moving downtown. I have never seen another Aeron chair for sale on that street or any other. I looked.

<comment><USER3> I guess I should actually review the chair. I think the Aeron is ok, but I haven't sat in another chair that I think is notably better. I also haven't ever sat in an office chair that felt 100% right. I have short legs and a long torso. I'm 5'8" and I wear a 29" inseam pant. I do sometimes notice the front bar putting pressure on my legs. Most of the time I put my legs up on something. and have my knees slightly bent pushing me back into the chair, in this position, the front bar isn't an issue. I do like the mesh for the circulation.

I recently had trouble with stiff knees after a cross country drive. I saw a massage therapist who does structural integration/bodywork. A small amount of what he said was whooo-whooo, but he was very helpful with alignment, helping my flexibility and explaining how to use my body. He told me that when I sit down I should spread my cheeks and push myself firmly back into my chair. This has helped. Because of this, I think a wheeled chair might not be the best option. I want something firmly planted on the ground. The next time I setup an office for myself I intend to have a video chat with him, with a third party holding the iPad so he can help me with alignment and suggestions.

Another thing that I am interested in trying is the Esse Liberator [1], it looks comfortable and interesting to sit in alone. I'm just worried about my Mom coming over and saying "oh I like that chair where can I buy one", then I'd have to just give it as a gift.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Liberator-Sensual-Lounge-Espresso- Vel...](https://www.amazon.com/Liberator-Sensual-Lounge-Espresso- Velvish/dp/B00VGIK7EO/)

<comment><USER4> I know you are getting recommendations, but the Embody chair is what you would be looking for.

[http://www.hermanmiller.com/products/seating/performance- wor...](http://www.hermanmiller.com/products/seating/performance-work- chairs/embody-chairs.html)

<comment><USER5> Wow, this sounds so amazing. I have never spent any money on a desk chair and I have the worst neck pain + sciatic pain + shoulder pain every day now. This chair seems heavenly.

<comment><USER6> My neck and shoulder pain went away after I started kayaking. I am not saying it is for everyone, and I cannot say for sure even that it worked for me, but I suspect it did.

<comment><USER7> I started doing push-ups every day. I hate push-ups and I am not very good at them, to make it easier I do them on an incline and it has helped tremendously with my shoulder and neck pain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow, this is just full of people who don't like the aeron. I agree it's expensive. I just buy used ones on craigslist for $375. I just wait till there is one. I've got 3. I've had a work aeron since 2002. Love the things they work for me. I know plenty of people they don't work for. I used several other ergonomic chairs and they pinched the nerves at the back of my knees and caused the outsides of my feet to go numb. Aeron works great for me.

Now what is missing from the comments is a good summary of the differences. I read the comments to I don't have to think for myself and so I don't have to digest the article. I think of the comments as the mturk version of AI article summaries. GET ON IT PEOPLE! :)

<comment><AUTHOR> \- More adjustable arm rests (they go back and forward too)

\- New mesh material which is apparently more supportive

\- New back support mechanism which is a combination of the two previous options (which you could not put together) - both the lumbar and the pelvis supports

\- Chair is angled 1.8 degrees further forward

\- Tilt mechanism causes the chair to hug your body more, with less latency

\- A new white-ish color option

Other than that it looks the same.

I'm in the middle of an assessment of both Aeron and Mirra 2, so yeah I've been in the details a bit too much this week...

...as a programmer I find it easy to make decisions based on facts, but when it's a decision based on how something feels, I lock up in panicked indecision and almost always make a choice I regret!

<comment><USER9> I have an Aeron and a Mirra 2. The Mirra is both better looking, better constructed and more ergonomic. There are more adjustments, and the mechanisms are very intuitive and integrated into the design. Perhaps the new Aeron will bring it up to par.

Besides, the Mirra 2 is beautiful, while the Aeron is... debatable. This is mine: [http://www.hermanmiller.com/content/dam/hermanmiller/page_as...](http://www.hermanmiller.com/content/dam/hermanmiller/page_assets/products/Mirra2_Chairs/design_story_mirra2_chair_2.jpg)

<comment><USER10> I have both as well and the Mirra 2, in my mind, is the way to go. For me, the Aeron has the edge of the seat part where the back of my thighs rest and it starts getting uncomfortable after 15 mins. The Mirra doesn't have this issue. The Mirra back also hugs my shoulder blades a little better. The plastic back of my Mirra doesn't bother me vs. the Aeron mesh.

I would recommend the Mirra for anyone looking at Aeron. They're usually cheaper too. I got my Mirra on Amazon for around $600 which the Aeron was going for, I think at the time, around $900.

<comment><USER11> I always get Aerons used on CL. In the Bay Area, if you shop around for a few days, you can get one for $300. My last one came from a dentist office. I sold my OK-condition size C for $280 and picked up a better-condition size B (which is actually my size, at 6'0 and 220# with a 44" chest and 36" waist) for $300 later that day. It was the second one I called about; the first person didn't call me back fast enough.

Agree that the lumbar support is more comfortable but PF does have some benefits. I like that they redesigned the arms which support the seat above the part which connects to the top of the gas cylinder. Hopefully this will have less tendency over time to wobble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've switched my recommended chair from Aeron to Steelcase Leap.

The problem with Aerons is the mesh seat. Because you sit on mesh there is a hard plastic rim. The front of that rim press up into your leg on your thigh. It restricts circulations which can cause outright pain.

The severity depends on your body and how you fit in the chair exactly. But it's bad enough for enough people that I recommend people avoid Aeron; with the Steelcase Leap being my current chair of choice.

[https://www.steelcase.com/products/office- chairs/leap/](https://www.steelcase.com/products/office-chairs/leap/)

<comment><USER13> I had the same issue with the seat edge, I believe that it's referred to as a waterfall edge. The rest of the chair was great, but I found that extremely uncomfortable after a few hours. Many people don't have a problem with it, however.

I also recommend Steelcase as a good alternative. I considered the Leap but eventually chose the Gesture, and am extremely satisfied.

<comment><USER14> I too had the same problem with the seat edge - and after a couple of hours it cut off circulation in my legs. Not something you want when you pay $1,300 for an office chair. I found the Mirra to be better.

<comment><USER9> The Mirra lets you adjust the tilt of the forward part of the seat, solving the biggest problem with the Aeron. It's basically an improved Aeron, in my opinion (I have both).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Ironically, a couple of articles below this one this headline shows up:

> The Tech Bubble Didn't Burst This Year. Just Wait (bloomberg.com)

Do others have this strong association with the first internet tech bubble and Aeron chairs? For me there is a strong visual link between the floundering tech companies of that era and the images of the seemingly ubiquitous Aeron chair in the offices being cleared.

Not to belittle the notion of good ergonomics — on the contrary, I love my Steelcase chair and hight adjustable desk — it's just that the brand seems tainted. I wonder if their market research took this into account and came up with a strategy for this association?

<comment><USER16> I used to buy cheap used iconic dot-com office furniture at Desk Depot [1] in Mountain View in the 90's (they've been there since '76). That must have been one of the most profitable companies during the dot-com bubble era, and I bet there's furniture that's been recycled through that same warehouse multiple times! The Desk Depot is a Silicon Valley cultural touch-stone, like the Haltek Surplus Electronics [2] [3] or Halted Electronics [4] of office furniture.

[1] [http://www.deskdepot.net/](http://www.deskdepot.net/)

[2] [http://www.mv- voice.com/morgue/2000/2000_05_05.haltek05.html](http://www.mv- voice.com/morgue/2000/2000_05_05.haltek05.html)

[3] [http://www.bluefeathertech.com/technoid/surplusmemorial.html](http://www.bluefeathertech.com/technoid/surplusmemorial.html)

[4] [http://www.halted.com/](http://www.halted.com/)

<comment><USER17> I think the giant of used office furniture in the 1990s was Curtis Trading Company ("Surplus Stuff") in Milpitas.

<comment><USER16> And there's also WeirdStuff Warehouse in Sunnyvale for more weird surplus electronics!

[http://www.weirdstuff.com/](http://www.weirdstuff.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For perspective, the original was a radical departure from convention.

Quote from Blink by Gladwell:

      "In late 1993, as they prepared to launch the chair, Herman Miller
      put together a series of focus groups around the country. They wanted
      to get some ideas about pricing and marketing and make sure there was
      general support for the concept. They started with panels of architects
      and designers, and they were generally receptive. "They understood
      how radical the chair was," Dowell said. "Even if they didn't see it
      as a thing of beauty, they understood that it had to look the way it
      did." Then they presented the chair to groups of facility managers
      and ergonomic experts—the kinds of people who would ultimately be
      responsible for making the chair a commercial success. This time the
      reception was downright chilly.
      [...]
      Before long, however, the chair started to attract the attention of
      some of the very cutting-edge elements of the design community. It
      won a design of the decade award from the Industrial Designers Society
      of America. In California and New York, in the advertising world and in
      Silicon Valley, it became a kind of cult object that matched the
      stripped-down aesthetic of the new economy. It began to appear in
      films and television commercials, and from there its profile built
      and grew and blossomed. By the end of the 1990s, sales were growing
      50 to 70 percent annually, and the people at Herman Miller suddenly
      realized that what they had on their hands was the best-selling chair
      in the history of the company."

</comment><comment><USER19> I've sat in Aerons for a few years across various jobs and they were always just OK - I felt like they could have been great if I could just adjust a few more things to fit my body better.

When it came time to get a "real" office chair for the home office I decided to go with the Steelcase Leap[1] and I have not regretted it. I had no idea a chair could fit me this well. Everything is adjustable and actually labeled - it's like they actually thought about how people use chairs.

The biggest problem with having a chair as good as the Leap to sit in 90% of the time is the other 10% of the time where I'm somewhere with a terrible generic office chair - I can feel it in my back and legs within a few hours.

Everyone is different but I really can't recommend enough at least trying out the leap.

[1][https://www.steelcase.com/products/office- chairs/leap/](https://www.steelcase.com/products/office-chairs/leap/)

<comment><USER20> How's the Leap with heat retention? I've found that most solid backed (and seated, though less so) chairs I've used annoy me with how much they hold heat in.

I find mesh backed chairs to seem more comfortable to me in that regards since they have much more airflow against my back.

<comment><USER21> > I've found that most solid backed (and seated, though less so) chairs I've > used annoy me with how much they hold heat in.

Hello, fellow warm-back sitter. I've generally had the same experience and bought a mesh-backed chair for myself years ago. I was even looking at mesh seating, though the chair I was eyeing apparently doesn't hold up long term.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I know the Aeron is extremely popular, but IMO the Embody is a better chair:

[http://www.hermanmiller.com/products/seating/performance- wor...](http://www.hermanmiller.com/products/seating/performance-work- chairs/embody-chairs.html)

<comment><USER23> I think it's seriously flawed, to the point of being a ripoff (especially considering the price).

Specifically, I think that the two, radical flaws, are not just due to my personal shape:

1\. the lower back support is very hard; anything around the waist will push against the pelvis/lower back. It took time to get used to, even using cotton trousers, I can't imagine people wearing a belt ever feeling comfortable.

2\. the upper top back is significantly concave; it pushes against the shoulders, leading to a severely bad posture, especially if you have a minimum of muscles in the back.

I think they reason why I originally chose it over the Aeron was that on a short try, the back support was adapting better; turned out to be a bad decision.

I don't complain about the materials (it looks like it will last for years), although I understand why some people would judge them as second class.

<comment><USER24> I agree. The Embody is a great chair if you have pretty good posture. It is pretty rigid in the center (all the flexibility is on the sides), so that it forces your back into the 'proper' shape like a plastic mold. The problem is, it's a pretty hard chair, so if you have any 'irregularities', like, say, a bit of hunchback (thoracic hyperkyphosis), the hard plastic "pixels" will just dig into your back in all the places that stick out where they shouldn't.

There is a single adjustment knob for the back, but it adjusts the thoracic and the lumbar part at the same time. So if you have a rounded upper back, you'll adjust the knob to make the backrest a more deeply curved S shape to prevent the upper backrest from poking your shoulder blades. But then the lower part of the S gets deeper as well and it starts digging into your lumbar/sacral region. It's not easy to notice -- after 15 minutes in the store, I was in love with the Embody; after 1 hour at home, it felt like my lower back was covered in bruises from the hard plastic.

For this reason, I do not recommend the Embody to people with incorrect posture, or to people who don't like hard chairs.

Other things worth noting are the poor armrests (they have no back movement, so you can't move your chair close to your desk without lowering them) and the fact that you can't really recline very far in this chair because the back tension rises pretty fast after a certain point. Well, you can recline if you adjust the back tension, but it's a continuous knob, so it'll take you ages to go back your regular setting.

<comment><USER25> I summarize something similar to all this in a deep reply above to the top comment along with some other observations.

I will say that when I was first assigned an Embody at work, I went through a period of comfy->uncomfy->comfy-again, so sometimes sticking it out works. Going through the setup guide (think it came with a DVD even) and putting some work into making it just right helped. Ultimately it became such an important part of my workstation ergos that I dropped a few hundred on one so I could work from home in the same chair as work, and haven't regretted it.

But I totally agree with you--you either fit the profile for it or you don't. I think it's incredibly important that you test the Embody before buying it. _If_ it fits you it's going to be the best chair on the market, hands down, bar none. If it doesn't it's going to be a serious pain.

Regarding reclining, the tilt knob isn't _really_ for active reclining, if I recall their setup guide correctly, more to set the right resistance so you float at an ergonomic 110 degrees while allowing wiggle room to fidget. At the very least, that's how I set mine, and it works pretty well. I feel kind of suspended in the chair that way.

The tilt limiter is set so I don't have much room at all beyond that--that lets me push backwards against the limiter and then arch my (and the chair's) back to stretch.

The arms are crappy. I can't argue there. They sit too far back, and there's too much play in the spread adjuster joint. The height adjustment on them is excellent--they drop well below my elbows so I can use the chair "without" armrests--but the rest of the adjustment is poor.

(To the parent poster, btw, I wear a pretty thick leather belt with mine fine --really does depend on how you're shaped).

<comment><USER24> I agree that sticking it out can sometimes help. The Embody is very punishing if you slouch (the hard sacral part will just dig into your spine), so the first step would be to make an effort to maintain correct posture. But if you're sitting straight AND still feel discomfort, I'd say the Embody is not for you.

About the reclining, yeah -- Herman Miller would probably say that the chair isn't _meant_ for active reclining, but that's no defense. Sometimes I like to recline at more than 120° to relieve the pressure on my spine (for example, when I'm not typing but for example, watching a YouTube video). I prefer chairs that allow me to do that (e.g. Steelcase Think/Leap/Please, Humanscale Liberty). The fact that the absence of this feature was a design choice by Herman Miller doesn't really change my appraisal of the product.

Funny you should say that the armests sit too far back. I had the opposite problem: they were always bumping on the edge of my desk, so I had to sit further from my desk than I would have liked. And I'm not the only person who had this complaint. I guess everybody is different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> A question before my own story: What does everyone do as far as trying out chairs? It's crazy to me to base my buying decision on 10 minutes of sitting in a store. Are there stores out there that allow for in-home trials of these products?

One of the thing that always amuses me about "best chair" recommendations is that it's an entirely personal choice.

I am 6' 2" and 200lbs. Understanding even more than that about the size of a person is critical to understanding their needs in a chair. No matter how adjustable a chair is, it's simply not going to be best for everyone.

At home, I own a size-C Aeron chair that I purchased in 2007. I love it and the only thing I've ever considered is upgrading to one with the highest-end back support rather than the standard lumbar cushion.

At work, I sit in a Steelcase Leap. It's certainly a fine chair and I have no real problems with it. I find it very comfortable and I'm able to sit for much of the day in this chair without any issues.

My gut tells me that I prefer my Aeron; that said, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I've never questioned that assumption. The one thing I know is that I do prefer the breathable material on the Aeron.

<comment><USER27> I don't know if all or most stores will let you do this, but I went to a Design Within Reach store in Cambridge, MA and they let me bring in my laptop and work off their wifi for a full day. I'm sure they wold have let me spend a couple days there if I needed.

I doubt you'd be able to get an in home trial, though.

<comment><USER26> > I doubt you'd be able to get an in home trial, though.

It seems odd that every decent mattress store will allow you an in-home trial --some as many as 4 months. Maybe because the return rate on chairs would be a lot higher?

<comment><USER25> Probably. I imagine the sheer hassle of returning a mattress is friction for a lot of people, and that they don't get many returns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I bought an Aeron from the Arthur Andersen bankruptcy auction, and kept it for about a decade until I moved into an RV and didn't have room for it. I loved it, and miss it every time I have a twinge of back pain because of sitting too long on the sofa or at the dinette. I have frequently considered getting a bigger RV just so I'd have room for a new Aeron. I'm sure there are other great chairs, but the Aeron was the first great chair I ever owned (I'd gone through a half dozen or so cheapo office chairs before getting the Aeron).

In short, a chair is one of those things that it is well worth spending some money on. The nice thing about Aerons after so long on the market is how common they are on the used market now.

<comment><USER29> I inherited an Aeron from my dad who'd bought it in the Enron bankruptcy auction. I've replaced the base mesh that wore through, the arm pads as the foam crumbled, and the gas lift has been replaced twice. Wouldn't even think about buying another chair though. The availability of spare parts is key to that.

<comment><USER30> What about the warranty?

<comment><USER29> I think the warranty stopped in 2007 if I remember right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I have an Aeron, like many others, but I tried their new stuff (like the Embody and Mira) and they just felt plasticky and cheap (obviously they're expensive as all HM products). The Embody, their flagship chair, is complete trash in my eyes. It's absurdly uncomfortable during long periods, to the point a friend of mine bought one and sold it few months later at 50% off because he had back aches, and another friend just brought his to the company's office where it's left deserted among the cheap conference room seating, and bought something else to use at home.

It seems like HM haven't managed to top the original Aeron, and all they did since is making new stuff that's cheaper to manufacture. I suspect this new Aeron is yet another attempt at reducing manufacturing costs (replacing metals with plastics etc) but we'll see. If it's really better than the original, I'll pick one when my 12-years warranty ends in couple of years.

</comment><comment><USER32> I used to buy a $100 chair every year because it would break, I have had my miller for almost 11 years now.

<comment><USER33> I bought a $100 chair, and then I bought a Herman Miller Aeron.

The $100 chair is much more comfortable. For one thing, the seat pan is padded cloth instead of mesh. Even my coworkers prefer it, so we outfitted the office with the $100 chairs, and nobody wants to sit on the uncomfortable $800 Aerons.

<comment><USER34> The purpose of the mesh is to prevent your ass from sweating. Perhaps you don't have that problem, but it's an issue for a lot of people.

I lost weight down to a BMI of 22 and still appreciate a mesh seat.

<comment><USER35> I think it's also something you don't really notice until you've used the Aeron a lot - but once you do, you'll become quite aware of it on almost any other seat. Also depends how long you're sitting in a seat at one time.

My Aeron is still one of my favorite purchases (and I paid full price for mine over a decade ago, I don't regret it).

<comment><USER33> I sit in chairs for 12+ hours a day, I recently got a standing desk though. I can't sit on the mesh without putting a cushion underneath; it's one step above concrete.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Set aside the chair and just read this through as an amazing work of prose.

"The tilt mechanism delivers an even more seamless experience of movement (and stasis)"

"from intense upright focus to relaxed contemplative recline"

"a health-positive, more comfortable sit."

<comment><USER37> Also have Jony Ive read it in your mind.

<comment><USER38> It was written in his style, so I kind of did that automatically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Several people here mentioned that they hate the mesh fabric of the Aeron chairs because it tears over time, because it feels "like sitting in a hammock and putting pressure in unwanted areas causing numbness", and because the hard plastic rim under the mesh presses into your thigh.

For everyone who likes the basic Herman Miller shape but not the mesh, I recommend the older Herman Miller Equa and Equa 2 chairs:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=herman+miller+equa+chair&sou...](https://www.google.com/search?q=herman+miller+equa+chair&source=lnms&tbm=isch)

These pre-date the Aeron chairs, and IMO are much more comfortable. The downsides are that they are slightly less adjustable in general (e.g., on my _particular_ model, the armrests don't go up and down) and obviously don't offer the ventilation of the mesh (which I personally don't like anyway).

<comment><USER40> I have a Herman Miller Sayl ([http://www.hermanmiller.co.uk/products/seating/performance-w...](http://www.hermanmiller.co.uk/products/seating/performance- work-chairs/sayl-chairs.html)), which is a bit cheaper than an Aeron and also, I think, more comfortable for those who don't like the mesh. They come in fairly cheerful colours - I have a white one with a bright orange seat. I'm not sure they're as ergonomically sound as an Aeron, but I've been very happy with mine for the last five years (I did tear one of the armrests in an office move, but they sent a replacement free of charge).

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I've had an Aeron at home for ten years or so. Both of the arms have broken off. It actually seemed like an improvement, so I never got around to a warranty replacement.

Arms aside, I'm not crazy about the chair. It's not really comfortable for anything besides sitting straight up at a desk. The Steelcase chairs I've had at work are more versatile, although I've broken one of those too.

<comment><USER42> I can't imagine what it would take to break a Steelcase, but I won't ask. My Leap is seven years old and other than the missing new chair smell and bit of grime on the rubber arm rests (easily cleanable) there is no discernible difference from the day I assembled it. It does take some effort to keep the kids from using it as a playground.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> When I switched to working from home full-time I went through a collection of chairs and finally settled on the Herman Miller Mirra2. It's a derivative design of the Aeron, but on the Aeron I had problems with the front lip cutting off circulation in my lower legs and putting too much pressure. The adjustable front lip on the Mirra2 was a godsend and after getting it adjusted professionally to fit me, I feel like the chair cradles me.

Now that I'm on the road traveling while I work, other than air conditioning on hot days the biggest thing I miss from the US is my Herman Miller Mirra2. Skip the Aeron, get a Mirra2 or an Embody. Both are amazing.

<comment><USER44> I have a very slender complexion and had exactly the same problem with my Aeron. I came to the conclusion that my 60kg/180cm was simply to little weight over to much area to make the foam lip curve enough.

Do you happen to be a featherweight also ? I would love to have a mesh chair, but one that works for my complexion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> The cynic in me thinks they are releasing a new chair so they can recapture revenue in this market. Aeron is somewhat a victim of its own succcess - <USER2> are incredibly well-made so there is a thriving secondary market that Herman Miller doesn't capture. This could be like a drug company subtly making changes to a drug once generics show up on the market. I suppose that's better than building in planned obsolescence.

</comment><comment><USER46> Not sure why people don't like this chair. I've worked for a large company where everyone had Aerons and I absolutely loved the chair. I've even bought the higher end Embody from Herman Miller and I love that as well.

<comment><USER47> I worked for a giant wealthy famous company and we have two choices in chairs. Both ultra cheap and painful. Ergonomics, not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Bought the Aeron this year. It cut off blood flow to my legs at the thigh area.

</comment><comment><USER49> How can you improve on perfection? I'm dubious. I've had mine for over 15 years and will never part with it. I had it refurbished 3 years ago and it's still great. It made a huge difference in my life. I had back problems and severe repetitive stress problems. The chair makes a huge difference for me. In particular, it allows me to have a tilting-forward position. Also, the mesh is extremely comfortable without trapping heat. It's pure genius.

</comment><comment><USER50> I was considering Aeron but I've read reviews that its adjustments are not very flexible, especially taller people were complaining that is is hard for them to adjust Aeron in a way that the chair is comfortable. Aeron has larger size, but it seems to be intended for taller and thicker, not for taller and thin. I ended up buying Hag H05. It isn't as popular, but I'm very satisfied with it (Using it for about 5 years now).

<comment><USER51> I didn't buy an Aeron as its back is too short for me to lean back against comfortably. So I got the next model down, the Mirra - which I've had for more than a decade and is absolutely awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I've been looking at buying an aeron for quite a while, they are not so common in Europe. They might be more common in London but I've never seen one or sat on one.

I can get them refurbished for around 350€ for the standard and 500€ for the executive model plus shipping to Sweden from either the UK or Germany.

If anyone knows a better way of getting one in Europe / Sweden let me know!

</comment><comment><USER53> Not sure why I don't hear more about Knoll's ergonomic chairs: [http://www.knoll.com/shop/by-category/ergonomic-desk- chairs](http://www.knoll.com/shop/by-category/ergonomic-desk-chairs)

Please comment if you've used a Knoll chair and can compare it to an Aeron or Leap.

</comment><comment><USER54> Shouldn't they have done this at the beginning of the bubble? ;-)

<comment><USER55> Or... They're the comfortable, ergonomic stallions of the apocalypse returning to us with the collapse of the bubble.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Shameless plug. At Autonomous, we just launched the $179 ErgoChair yesterday to compliment our SmartDesk.

$179 ErgoChair by Autonomous [https://www.autonomous.ai/office- chair](https://www.autonomous.ai/office-chair)

<comment><USER57> That's not much of a plug. Sure, it's cheaper. Beyond that, why do I want it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Used to have one at an old job but never liked them. I found the plastic leading-edge of the seat gouged into my legs uncomfortably. I did find one with a torn mesh seat on the street once -- repaired it and gave it to a family member.

For me - I've been sitting on a Humanscale Freedom for about a decade. The company replaced the gel seat once due to wear and tear - but otherwise it's been a great seat if you're okay using something that doesn't have a million knobs and levers to customize your sitting experience.

</comment><comment><USER59> I have drunk the cool-aid about expensive chairs and cheap tables. For years I wanted to buy an Aeron for my home office but I didn't want to do it until I test one (I live in a small town, so no opportunity). Finally this year I tested an Aeron during a business trip, for 10 days. Maybe it's my own body, but it wasn't as comfortable as I thought it was going to be, I was very disappointed.

The best chair I've been on was one during an EA interview (Montreal studio). I still wonder which kind of chair it was.

<comment><USER4> I might be writing this a lot for this thread, but the embody chair is by far the best office chair I have ever sat in:

[http://www.hermanmiller.com/products/seating/performance- wor...](http://www.hermanmiller.com/products/seating/performance-work- chairs/embody-chairs.html)

<comment><USER60> This activates my 'any one of these 10 million screws might pop and fuck me' phobia to the max. Is there something that provides similar comfort but without the 'sentient' aesthetic, something simpler in design?

<comment><USER4> It comes with a 5 year warranty.

You can go with a more industrial look, such as the Steelcase Gesture, but in reality most of what is done is just covered to look like there is less screws and such.

The difference is that Embody was made to deal with pressure points, but there are not as many screws as you might think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I wonder if the new mesh material is actually the same as Mirra 2's mesh material, which was always different from the (now classic) Aeron.

I've been trying both chairs out, and found some of the Mirra 2's features a lot better than the Aeron (notably it's forward tilt and it's more adjustable arm rests), but hated the softness of the seat mesh which felt like I was sitting in a hammock and put pressure in unwanted areas, causing numbness.

</comment><comment><USER61> I've had mine for 11 years now. The lowest end model with no lumbar support and nothing but the height is adjustable. The left arm rest now has a huge crack in the vinyl which digs into my forearms sometimes but overall it's better than all the other chairs I have access to.

</comment><comment><USER62> Where I work cast-off Aerons bunch up in abandoned cubicle tracts. Some people like them but others seem to move back to traditional ones. Personally, I don't like the hammock-feel very much.

</comment><comment><USER63> Can anyone tell me why chairs are so expensive though?

</comment><comment><USER64> Can I get it in True Black?

</comment><comment><USER65> Is it only me who thinks the design of this chair is aesthetically awful? It looks like it belongs to something like hospital not an office...

<comment><USER66> No, I find them really off putting. I much prefer the look of Haworth Zody office chairs, and they offer similar adjustability.

[http://www.haworth.com/products/seating/desk- chairs/zody](http://www.haworth.com/products/seating/desk-chairs/zody)

<comment><USER67> How is the Zody quality? Is it as high as Aeron and Steelcase? It looks somewhat easier to find at a decent price.

<comment><USER66> I've had one for about 8 years and the rubber on the armrests has started to degrade in the past 2 years, but other than that no issues to report. Replacement armrests run about 60$.

That said I worked in an office that had about 200 of them, and chairs subject to heavier individuals had problems with the gas height adjuster failing. This was about 5 years ago so maybe they've sorted it out.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dear design agency that is stuck in the 90s - <AUTHOR> http://joshmlewis.com/?p=342

<comment><USER2> I see where your heads at, but this isn't the most professional approach to inspiring your local community to do better. If anything, it'd be smart to get a job at one of the shops and try to influence their work. This is a bit bullish and will definitely be brushed off. Also, if you're going to attack, make sure your own skills are up to par (e.g. typography).</comment>


All the Texts on Financial Engineering You Could Ever Want - <AUTHOR> http://www.classiccmp.org/transputer/finengineer/

<comment><USER2> There were some excellent shows on recently. One was a documentary on PBS about the fall of Bear Sterns and then ended like an biography about Hank Paulson. It was astounding how much the _personalities_ of the key players involved effected the outcome of the financial mess.

Then last night I watched a special on CNBC that went into a lot of depth about many of the different investment vehicles. Basically the take home was that few people understood the underlying implications of all these esoteric ways of investing in the mortgage market. Even Alan Greenspan admitted that despite a strong mathematical upbringing and access to over 100 PhD's on a daily basis, he understood little about what was going on.

It didn't take much for smart people with less than stellar integrity to game the system.

<comment><USER3> I think that's a main issue. Many of these models are based on math that few people understand. I don't think it necessarily is an issue of integrity, but more an issue of traders and asset managers using the results of these mathematical models without fully understanding the implications and risks. They are, after all, probabilistic models and it seems like they weren't treated as such.

<comment><USER4> exactly, people were just saying "well the model says it will work", and didn't realize that the models they were using had huge assumptions hard coded into them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looking at that list reminds me of walking through the power tools section at Home Depot - full of tools I'd love to have an excuse to use someday, but don't at the moment. It's still always fun to look though ;)

</comment><comment><USER6> Very good collection, but wouldn't the value of this material have been much higher before the financial crisis? It seems like the theories and methods applied in these texts played a large part in the downfall of the financial system. Mathematical models != financial markets. A lot of good math and statistics for people interested in those areas, but it will probably be decades until "financial engineering" loses the stigma of failure.

<comment><USER7> It took decades after Chernobyl for nuclear engineering to lose the stigma of failure.

Sarcasm aside, I think that you are half right. Some of the financial engineering stuff was genuinely wrong, and financial engineers will have to figure out what.

<comment><USER8> I've always been fascinated by how that works. Hindenberg pretty much killed the Zeppelin industry, yet airliners crash all the time and no-one's afraid to fly. The Titanic didn't herald the end of sea travel either. What's the difference?

<comment><USER9> the hindenberg was a huge flying balloon filled with highly flammable gas

<comment><USER8> And an airliner is a metal tube full of highly flammable liquid. What's your point?

<comment><USER9> do you think people see airplanes as metal tubes full of highly flammable liquid?

not to mention that balloon vs metal is already very unbalanced</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Seeking an engineering mentor - <AUTHOR> Preferably free, but willing to pay $100/hour or more if this proves fruitful.  My ambition is within a 20 year horizon to create a technological product that is novel, useful, persistent, and prevalent.  Examples I feel meet these criteria include S3, Java, Autotune, Bittorent, Bitcoin, Blackrock's Aladdin,  HTCondor, RSA, Facebook, Dropbox, Tinder, Valgrind, Wikipedia, Wordpress, Google Maps, Snapchat, Spring, Slack, nginx, deep fakes, Docker, Super Smash Bros, Youtube, QNX, and more.  Please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.com or leave contact information or advice in comments.  Thank you. <comment><USER2> Saw your post and a day later I notice that you still didn't get any responses on HN.

Perhaps you could add some information about yourself, details of your skills and experience. Your examples are very expansive, but give no indication of what you might bring to the table.

BTW are you looking for a mentor to commit to 20 years of mentoring?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, I'm not looking for 20 years of mentoring at all.

I've just begun as a new-grad engineer at FAANG company, and have now realized that unless I get some guidance from someone experienced, that 20 years could go by really fast without you fulfilling any of the reasons that you became an engineer in the first place.

Maybe a different avenue will prove more fruitful.</comment></comment>


No upvotes? No problem. - <AUTHOR> http://diveintothepool.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/no-upvotes-no-problem/

<comment><USER2> This is true - when I post articles on HN I usually get between 5 and 30 click throughs, and it also does wonders for the speed of Google indexing.

Having said that, I ensure submitted articles remain relevant and of interest to the community. We're releasing three new articles this week - I'll certainly put one up here, but the other two are less relevant. They might garner traffic to my site, but I don't want noise on HN so why create it myself?

<comment><USER3> The google indexing is absolutely true. I've tried to time it, usually it takes only about 45 minutes from the moment it gets posted to being indexed. You can see how long it took by searching in google for the hn submission and then check to see how long ago it was spidered, versus how long ago it was posted.

The google bot must re-visit hn very frequently, 10's of times per day for the 'news' and 'newest' page.

<comment><USER4> The 'newest' page links all have rel=nofollow on them, though. Does it still index the targets despite that?

<comment><USER3> Good one. I don't know the exact implications of nofollow, but I think it might be that if google considers the destination to be legit that it will add the url to its crawl queue without giving it any 'pagerank juice'.

Only a googler could tell you for sure though.

I've seen google ferret out results that were _never_ linked through the toolbar or some other mechanism outside of the regular crawl process. (in that one case the toolbar was my only possible explanation, or it was through analytics).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What surprises me is how often old HN comments keep sending visitors. I made a comment about my JS/Canvas games 19 days ago ( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1281730> ) and I still get 5-10 clicks a day from it. It's pretty surprising actually. Reddit has a similar effect.

<comment><USER6> Same with upvotes. I'll post a response, get a few upvotes, post nothing for a few days, and usually get an upvote after the article is long off the front page. Guess people are a lot more backlogged than me! :)

<comment><USER7> I very often get backlogged, but still try to keep up. I submit comments as distant as 2 days beyond the original submission date. I vote no matter the age of a submission or comment; if something is worth reading, age almost doesn't matter (excepting newsworthiness, etc.). I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that browses HN with a little delay.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've long been suspecting that there is something weird going on at reddit. Frequently we'll post something and see it get nuked. Then a few days later one of a few familiar names posts it and suddenly it does very well, usually with a pass through another blog as opposed to a direct link.

I wonder if that entire system is silently rigged to control traffic.

<comment><USER9> No need for rigging the system, few simple rules and many individual actions can produce complex behaviors.

New queue on reddit moves very fast - currently the oldest item is just about 7 minutes old. It's very easy to go unnoticed by target audience (people who would upvote the submission) in such short time window.

Multiple submissions mean post has higher chance to get noticed.

Eventual downvotes come from people who want to decrease competition for their own submissions, giving them extra few minutes in new queue.

Also people may check submission queues of familiar users because they like their submissions, thus increasing chances of such submissions being noticed.

Similar thing already started to happen here on HN. Even with new queue being much longer (at about 1 hour) there are multiplicities.

Many times the same post (though not necessarily the same url) gets submitted multiple times and only later submissions get promoted to the frontpage.

Well, sometimes it even happens that in a span of few hours/days the same story appears on frontpage several times, with completely disjoint set of commenters not being aware of earlier discussions.

<comment><USER8> I fear the flag button may become the new downbote tool for people with flawed metrics for success.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is a big difference between users clicking and users reading. Not everything that causes clickthroughs is a net win.

<comment><USER4> There's also different metrics on what constitutes a net-win, that may come out differently for different kinds of traffic sources. For example, is the primary reason you want traffic (a) some sort of influence; or (b) ad revenue; or (c) signups for a service?

<comment><USER10> Exactly. The sort of writers who are excited by thirty clicks are probably interested in influence. For them, measuring RSS subscriptions, comments, or inbound links is better.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not actually sure what I'm looking for, it wasn't necessarily traffic. I wouldn't expect HN to lead to signups on my site and I don't actually monetize my blog at all. However I have gotten something great already; I got a comment to correct my spelling or grammar, I don't know which but I appreciated it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The thing with Reddit is that it seems biased against new users and accusations of linkspam are far too prevalent. Sites like Reddit are going to have to learn, eventually, that the nature of sharing content on the Web has changed and self-promotion isn't a bad thing. If it were, Facebook Fan Pages and Twitter accounts wouldn't exist.

In terms of submitting stuff and actually getting traffic from it, I'd recommend 2leep ( <http://2leep.com/> – disclosure: I helped with the site's layout, but I did it for free because I liked the idea and thought it deserved more attention), which at the very least is a consistent stream of traffic and gets your page in front of a lot of eyeballs.

I think that one shouldn't put all their eggs in traffic. Traffic is nice. If you have a good idea and good content, people will notice. I have a steady freelance writing gig from my work on <http://shortformblog.com/>, along with fairly regular mentions on The Atlantic's Web site and lots of awesomely random notices.

It's not major startup fund capital or anything, but I'll take it because it's exposure. And that exposure pays more than ads do when you're starting small.

My point? Do cool stuff and you don't need upvotes.

<comment><USER4> I actually sort of like Reddit's model on those two points. Essentially, that you should: 1) lurk initially, not submitting links until you understand the community and its culture; and 2) primarily submit links you think people will find interesting, not your own links that you're trying to promote (or at least, actively identify when it's your own link, e.g. "hey reddit, I made an X").

Not every site has to be like that, but it seems fine for some sites to be that way. The fact that Facebook fan pages _exist_ is different from saying that everything on the web has to go in similar directions.

<comment><USER11> I guess, to me, there's a difference between what you're saying and vigilantes calling you out because they think you're a link spammer. To a degree, it discourages growth in the community because it scares people off.

And it does feel, to a degree, double-standardish. For example, the dude from The Oatmeal submits tons of his own links but seemingly nobody bats an eye.

<http://www.reddit.com/user/GiantBatFart>

Just sayin'.

But either way, that doesn't get away from my original point, which is that you shouldn't freak out over getting upvotes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The only comment on the HN submission is 'is your site down?', that can't be good news. Maybe it was unreachable for a bit right after posting, that's a surefire way to scroll of the new page without upvotes, which will effectively kill your post.

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually cleared that up with the commenter directly but thanks for checking in. I saw that comment and was worried it was down too and had to check everything out immediately.

<comment><USER3> I've had my site go down _because_ of submitting. Dumb, dumber, dumbst.

Never figured on the number of people that would make that click...</comment></comment></comment>


"I'll eat my hat if that isn't Einstein" (Einstein as seen by another scientist, Norbert Wiener) - <AUTHOR> http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/wiener-letter/index.html

<comment><USER2> 'Renewed war in Europe, he predicted, would pass the "leadership of civilization...to America and ultimately to Asia ."'

That is an astoundingly accurate prediction for 1925.

<comment><USER3> I know, he's a regular Einstein.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Personally he is simple, direct, unaffected and rather winning. His enormous intellectual energy, his clear vision and sense of physical reality, and his enthusiasm strike the most casual observer. He is aware of his great position, but not in the least conceited. He does not expect relativity in its present form to last many decades, and hopes that further work will soon go beyond it._

A good example of how received opinions can effect our assessments of people. Had Einstein been an important but un-famous scientist, no one would ever write shmaltz like that about him on a casual meeting.

<comment><USER3> Actually that's fairly indicative of personal letters of the well-educated of that era. People often used such terms when writing about those they had met who they were on friendly terms with or admired. The world was smaller then, and every person you met took on more significance.

It is not at all surprising that a prodigy and professor of mathematics would have a high opinion of another professor or scientist who impressed him with his intelligence or character, whether famous or not.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Proton Mail or Gmail? - <AUTHOR> A friend of mine [no really] is ditching their cable ISP based account. They asked me about Proton Mail. My gut reaction was for most use cases it's not worth fooling with due to everyone's familiarity with Gmail and the higher blacklist potential for just about every other email domain. <comment><USER2> Most commercial email services are not going to get blacklisted: Staying off blacklists is their job. That concern largely only exists with "spin up your own mail" type concerns.

I personally use FastMail, which is a paid provider that I highly recommend to people who value good email service. ProtonMail is really good for privacy, but there's challenges like the lack of normal IMAP support, that can frustrate the average user.

I personally strongly recommend against giving an ad company your data, and could not recommend Google, but it depends on what your friend's values and concerns are.

Note that _regardless_ of the email provider they choose, they should consider buying their own domain and using it as an email alias, so they can easily switch email services later.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Since I've pointed my friend to this thread. It's probably worth asking for a bit more detail what you mean by "good email service"...because that can mean different things to different people depending on use cases.

<comment><USER2> I've heard all too many stories about people get their Google accounts locked out, sometimes for unrelated events on other Google products/services, and having no recourse unless they happen to know a Google employee who can champion their cause internally: Google offers no customer support to Gmail users, and help forums are often of little use.

IMHO, email is the _most important service you have_. Every other service you use is tied to it, and your email is more often than not the master key to your entire online identity. You'd be shocked how many other accounts you have that you may just not be able to recover if your email account disappears.

One of the key things I get at FastMail is real, human support. I would strongly discourage entrusting your email account to anyone who doesn't have good customer service, and generally, that is something you do have to pay for.

This is also why I feel owning your own domain and using it for your email address is so key: Even if I were to have an issue with FastMail, I could always redirect my email address to a different provider, and regain access to my services.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I have three email addresses. One Gmail for financial stuff (because Google Authenticator gives me easy 2 factor authentication) and two Yahoo addresses I've had for years (one for family and friends, and the other for everything else). Yahoo is changing their terms of service, and after trying to plow through pages and pages of legalese, I'm planning to drop Yahoo, and replace it with Proton Mail.

I doubt if I really need the level of security Proton Mail provides, but I've just gotten tired of advertisers stalking me everywhere I go on the internet. Proton Mail may not be as easy or convenient as the other email providers, but I'd just like to get a little bit of my privacy back.

[edit] spelling.</comment>


Collateral Damage - <AUTHOR> http://textslashplain.com/2015/06/10/collateral-damage/ <comment><USER2> Those who would class this move by Apple as the first volley in this war fail to have noticed the ad creep - sites are _only_increasing_ the amount of space per page allocated to advertising. When was the last time a site you visited reduced the number of ads?

The way I see it, ads are trying to do two things: 1\. Monetise content 2\. Drive sales/brand growth

Advertisers have tried to make up for ineffectiveness by increasing quantity rather than quality. If the focus was quality, everyone would win.

There's probably more to it, but more and more obnoxious advertising is a poor user experience; I don't think the audience will tolerate it for much longer.

<comment><USER3> There is absolutely nothing worse than a site that pops up a full-screen ad over the page content on a touch device. Especially when using a mobile browser that's resource constrained as it is. I feel like more sites are using these pop-over ads even though I've never seen it described anywhere in any good terms.

Possibly up there with auto-playing ads that make any kind of noise (I don't necessarily mind the ones so much that don't expand unless you mouse over them).

I'm not against ads, I don't use an ad-blocker. I don't even mind ads on YouTube. I mean, after all I'm getting all this content for free and they have to be paid somehow. Some of the YouTube ads are actually quite clever and I've ended up watching many of them on purpose. Still glad Apple is doing this, but it's a shame that designers/developers couldn't show some restraint to let it get to this point in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > If you thought that websites' "Install our app" prompts were annoying > before, imagine what's going to happen when the only way to reliably show > ads is via a native app.

I don't understand. If I get linked to a website that requires me to download their iOS app, I'll just close the tab. It's an annoyance, granted, but it's not some new unfathomable horror.

<comment><USER5> What if you really wanted to access that content? Previously you could click on the "no thanks" link and keep going. Now you'll be forced to install their app.

<comment><USER4> I don't really want to access that content, by definition. I've always said that. I use Adblock, and it's trivial for websites to detect that and make it difficult to view the content. I fully support their right to do so, and if they do, I'll just close the tab as soon as I realize there's no content there. It's really not a problem.

<comment><USER6> Someone at work sends you a link to the WSJ asking for your comments on it (a thought piece on a competitor? who knows). The WSJ is now available only through an app. How do you deal with this?

A hypothetical, but your web experience could become collateral damage as well.

<comment><USER7> Sending links to protected content is considered bad manners, even if only registration or login via Facebook required. I would ask that person to send me printed PDF copy of that article instead of link.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Very good analysis. In the end, this combined with Spotlight having more and deeper search results displayed, means that Google is under threat to both the search and ad business. Game, Set... match?

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't understand the logic behind this. Google still allow Chrome users install extensions like ABP, right?

<comment><USER10> I agree: my understanding is that Apple is releasing just an API, and allowing ad-blocking EXTENSIONS, basically putting Safari and their mobile web browsing (almost) on par with desktop browsers (including Chrome, as you say).

I don't see how the "most users" that are tolerant towards ads, which usually do not install adblocking extensions on their desktop browsers, although they have the possibility, have will feel the need of doing so in their iPhone/iPad.

About the users that ARE bothered by ads and before they didn't have a choice, and now they have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't get the point. Ad-blockers are available for Android and most non-tech people don't even know that ad-blockers exist. So for the large majority, nothing will change unless Apple ships with ad-blocking on by default (which they won't).

I also think that blocking ads is everyones right just as it's your right to record stuff on TV and filter/fast-forward ads. If business models based on advertisement don't work out anymore because of blockers (which i highly doubt), companies will adapt and start monetising their content in another way.

Apples search integration is a different story, though.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't like ads but I don't block them. What I really hate and like to minimise is cross site tracking/profiling so I use NoScript and don't allow common analytics and ad serving scripts to run. I'm really looking forward to having options to do this sort of thing on iOS.

NoScript does stop many ads but that is a side affect from my point of view.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think this is pretty insightful, especially since many web sites have already started to go down this road: one example is ultimate-guitar.com, usually the top Google result when searching "<song title> chords".

If you enter their site on iPad or iPhone, they display the chords but pop up an ad for their native app (which is limited as a free version) that is nearly impossible to click away and often automatically redirects to the App Store. It is infuriating to see the results I want underneath an ad but not be able to reach it.

I fear ad blocking will cause this effect to be all the more stronger rather than weaker: sites will entirely move away from displaying content to users on iOS and will force users to download their app.

The thing is that most users will become angry with the individual sites, but very few will put any blame on Apple themselves...so it really is a pretty brilliant evil plan on Apple's part.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is a great announcement for regular users.

And think about: On the iOS, Apple has the control of annoying/fake/phishing ads. On the web does not have. Even if ads will be shown on native apps, the experience will be more pleasant for users and will reduce abuses.

<comment><USER15> Regular users simply don't care.

<comment><USER14> I'm sure regular users care about their browsing experience and security, even if they don't know/want to express their feelings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Apple need to be careful, I'm surprised they haven't had an antitrust lawsuit already.

</comment><comment><USER17> Will the adoption go beyond the "tech crowd"? Most of my tech friends use adblocks but those not linked with tech don't even care, they actually like it! The ads that is.

<comment><USER18> That was true a few years ago, but apparently ad blockers hit the mainstream recently, especially amongst younger people. According to surveys a quarter of all web users and 40% of 18-29 year olds are using ad blockers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Another point is the fact that mobile Safari wont allow the use of plugins. A wild guess is that ad blockers are the most common plugin that people use, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to add this in the browser itself as an opt-in feature.

I don't really see the difference from using an ad blocker in the form of a plugin, and blocking ads by turning on the feature in the browser itself. Ad blocking is also a feaure built into the latest Firefox release.

<comment><USER20> But Safari in iOS9 doesn't have an ad blocker, it provides an interface for extensions to efficiently implement content blocking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> _All is fair in love and war._

Up until now, building a web app seemed a viable alternative to being caught up in a mobile platform you don't own. If you're ad-financed, that way is blocked now.

The Internet used to be a means around those market access controls that were exercised by the powers that be. It's not really a surprise that someone finally found a way to grab this control for themselves, at least for one revenue model.

</comment><comment><USER22> This would be a huge win if the DOJ brings an anti-trust case and somehow forces Apple to treat ad-blocking to be treated equally in Safari and in native. i.e. The consumer can choose ads everywhere or ads nowhere, but it's not possible to opt into ads only in native apps. It would be double-plus-good if enabling ad-block also prevents advertising that a native app exists.

</comment><comment><USER23> On the other hand, it might lead to users preferring web sites over apps, because only the later would have ads.

</comment><comment><USER24>
       This could backfire on Apple. Instead of asking people to install app websites can just show that this website is not supported in Safari on Ios and they should install chrome or Opera to view it. Just like they stop you from viewing a page if you have an adblocker installed.

<comment><USER25> You can't have an alternative browser (engine) on iOS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> We don't even know if it's an ad-blocking API yet, or simply used for things like tracker blockers. It's a big question mark- how will Apple police what ad blockers can do inside Safari? Yeah, the API exists, but we have no idea what Apple is going to allow app developers to actually do yet.

Anyway, the premise that it's all "positive collateral damage" is reaching. I agree some ad companies abuse it, but in general advertising has gotten better, not worse, in my opinion. Most people -- non-tech folks -- simply don't care.

The consequence of universal ad blocking could be that it becomes harder to access quality content for free. I don't know what that consequence will be, but it sure seems like a lot of content will just be paywalled or bungled into native apps, which users will be forced into downloading to view what they wanted in the first place.

I doubt we'll actually get to a point where the majority of the general population utilizes ad blockers, however, and I'm skeptical about what this change is _actually_ for.

</comment><comment><USER26> If a site gets its money solely from ads, then it can restrict its content delivery to those who runs IOS/Android/whateverOS & browser AND displays the ads. An ad blocker may determine displaying only of a partial content...

</comment><comment><USER27> The argument that this is a move against Google is just dumb.

"The open web? Collateral damage." Also dumb.

Here's the thing. Actually _using_ the web is getting more and more difficult from the phone. I have simply lost count of the number of content sites I visit that completely destroy the ability to _actually read the content_ by placing ads.

There are ads popping in once the page loads. I can see the content, then its covered by some thing. Or there's a badly placed share bar or buttons covering something. God forbid you visit a local/regional news site. If you don't get hit with a "Click on the bottom to add us to your home page" button you're luckier than a Russian playing roulette.

Like many other readers, I also spend a lot of time on reddit. I've noticed in the last few weeks that Imgur is now hosting the _extremely_ annoying ads that bounce you out of Safari and to some promoted app in the App Store. Imgur is the primary source of image hosting for reddit and they're beginning to do some shitty, spammy tactics. In many subreddits, and yes I'll cop to some of them being porn related, its a literal crapshoot to tap on a link and not have it do the same thing.

Apple's only responsibility is to its customers. This invasive ad stuff has gotten so bad that its negatively affecting the ability of Apple's customers to use their products in a good, user-friendly way. Its not Apple's responsibility to guarantee some marginally successful monetization tactic (advertising) that way too many companies try to use, poorly. Apple needs to make their platform good for the people that paid them money for their products, and those are the steps they're taking in this case.

Another point, Google has a dominant share of the mobile market with Android. Why isn't Android the dominant source of mobile web traffic? Because its a bad experience compared to mobile Safari. Google needs to improve their native experience, and in turn you'll find them eventually building in similar ad- control mechanisms with their browsers. You have to go to where your customers are leading. Period.

Last thing is about the "open web collateral damage" thing. Advertising in itself is fine. There's a huge need for people making and selling products and services to let people hear about them.

Again, its not the responsibility of browser makers to let 3rd parties do abusive things to their users, however. Advertising has gotten _out of hand_. This utter drive for cpm has been driven to the extreme and its at the point that companies have forgotten that their users and visitors are people, not aggregated dots in a plot chart in Google Analytics. Spam/scam advertising is not a viable industry long term, in the same way that patent trolls and record labels suing their customers hasn't been.

</comment><comment><USER28> Google always has the option to change its ranking algorithm. The more your pay, the higher your ranking. Someone clicks on your link, you pay.

It used to be Google that was different from the other search engines by putting its advertisings next to its search results instead of the search results being the advertising.

<comment><USER29> False. You can't pay to get your page to show higher in organic results.</comment></comment>


A VC: Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2008/11/barack-hussein.html

<comment><USER2> Flagged. Far too much politics on the front page already, and while this may be by "A VC", the VC-ness of his perspective really doesn't really come through in the article.

<comment><USER3> Why is this getting modded down? He's got a legitimate gripe. This is just some random person's thoughts on the election results. Does the fact that he is a VC somehow make this on-topic for HN?

I could understand this being posted here if it was an opinion on how the election will affect startups and small businesses. Or maybe if, as a VC, the author could offer some kind of insight that might be relevant to HN readers. The article offers none of that.

There are plenty of election discussions on Slashdot, Reddit and Digg. I think it's perfectly understandable to want to keep these discussions off HN.

<comment><USER4> Fred Wilson isn't just "a VC", he is "The VC" in NYC:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Wilson_>(financier)

<comment><USER5> No, he's a VC. He's done a great job of promoting himself and his company through helpful blogging and twittering but he's not the one and only authority that we need to hear from and especially not about US presidential politics.

<comment><USER4> _but he's not the one and only authority that we need to hear from_

He's certainly not the only authority (who said he was?). However, he certainly is one authority whose opinion I am interested in if the community so decides.

<comment><USER5> > He's certainly not the only authority (who said he was?).

You. You said he was "The VC".

<comment><USER4> Ah, I meant to say that he's the most important VC in NY, and so has more authority than just "a VC"... but these are just semantic details of a meta- argument, no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> the calmness factor is definitely a huge deal, you can't have a guy who shoots from the hip in charge of the red button

<comment><USER7> Teddy Roosevelt: Shot from the hip, and was the antithesis of a calm man. He had one of the greatest American presidencies.

<comment><USER8> Obama's no TR. But I think that he has the potential to be great in his own way. And I'm slightly _happy_ that it won't be in the "override Congress and do what I want" way.

Not knocking TR. The man had class like no other. But he wasn't exactly the most checked and balanced president we had.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Please, less politics on HN. Obama won. We all think it is great. Now please can we take these endless political posts and arguments off HN?

<comment><USER5> > We all think it is great.

Don't assume to know what I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Good Article.... I completely agree with Fred's positions and beliefs in this article. I especially agree on points 1,4, and 5. In government especially, and as President of the United States, its critical that you surround yourself with intelligent people. The President is not the sole authority and there is no way one person could handle all that. It's important that you surround yourself with "the best in the business." In all fairness, it works much the same in business. As a founder/owner and CEO, its important to surround yourself at that level with qualified people to manage the technology, to manage capital, etc.

</comment><comment><USER7> Just because a VC is saying it doesn't make it apolitical.</comment>