Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#181

Post by milkshakes »

gtirloni wrote: post #168
standardUser wrote: post #132

Twitter was given a famously sweet deal by the city to occupy that troubled stretch of Market St. In the time I lived nearby (until the pandemic) the area never really improved. San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities, no just that it largely allows them, but that it allows them in and around the busiest and most publicly-utilized transit hubs and the city center.

> San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities When I visited SF for the first time in 2019, it felt really weird that such a rich place would have so many people living in tents in public spaces. Being naive, I saw dozens of tents in Sue Bierman Park and thought they were having an event or something. Then it dawned on me what I was seeing and it never made sense because certainly it doesn't take a lo…

I don't think it's a resource allocation issue. SF government alone spends almost a billion a year[1] on trying to improve the situation. That's not including the non-profit spending. Money won't buy the city out of this situation as long as there exist people who don't want to live in homes and play by the rules.

1: https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/budget/

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#182

Post by next_xibalba »

davedx wrote: post #158
standardUser wrote: post #132

Twitter was given a famously sweet deal by the city to occupy that troubled stretch of Market St. In the time I lived nearby (until the pandemic) the area never really improved. San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities, no just that it largely allows them, but that it allows them in and around the busiest and most publicly-utilized transit hubs and the city center.

What do you think the city should do with the tent communities?

Remove them. It is an abuse of the commons that creates a vicious cycle that will only exacerbate the problem. And for your next question, San Fran already spends $141k per year per homeless person. That’s 7x LA. It isn’t working because of the lack of accountability and oversight in the use of those funds and San Fran’s lax (even favorable treatment) of public drug use, public camping, and general lawlessness. Send them to a shelter, treatment, or jail. “Harm reduction” doesn’t work. Full stop.

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#183

Post by [deleted] »

gtirloni wrote: post #168
standardUser wrote: post #132

Twitter was given a famously sweet deal by the city to occupy that troubled stretch of Market St. In the time I lived nearby (until the pandemic) the area never really improved. San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities, no just that it largely allows them, but that it allows them in and around the busiest and most publicly-utilized transit hubs and the city center.

> San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities When I visited SF for the first time in 2019, it felt really weird that such a rich place would have so many people living in tents in public spaces. Being naive, I saw dozens of tents in Sue Bierman Park and thought they were having an event or something. Then it dawned on me what I was seeing and it never made sense because certainly it doesn't take a lo…

[deleted]

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#184

Post by tedivm »

standardUser wrote: post #132

Twitter was given a famously sweet deal by the city to occupy that troubled stretch of Market St. In the time I lived nearby (until the pandemic) the area never really improved. San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities, no just that it largely allows them, but that it allows them in and around the busiest and most publicly-utilized transit hubs and the city center.

It allows them because of a court case that said they can't take them down unless they can provide shelter, and they've refused to build enough shelter space.

The supreme court invalidated that decision, and so now they are allowed to tear the tent cities down again without having to actually find people shelter space. I imagine a lot of these encampments are going to be torn down (which will just cause them to relocate until they end up at a place where no one cares).

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#185

Post by moduspol »

gtirloni wrote: post #168
standardUser wrote: post #132

Twitter was given a famously sweet deal by the city to occupy that troubled stretch of Market St. In the time I lived nearby (until the pandemic) the area never really improved. San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities, no just that it largely allows them, but that it allows them in and around the busiest and most publicly-utilized transit hubs and the city center.

> San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities When I visited SF for the first time in 2019, it felt really weird that such a rich place would have so many people living in tents in public spaces. Being naive, I saw dozens of tents in Sue Bierman Park and thought they were having an event or something. Then it dawned on me what I was seeing and it never made sense because certainly it doesn't take a lo…

If the problem were literally that "these people want houses and just can't afford them," I think that'd work. But that's not the issue in San Francisco.

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#186

Post by citizenkeen »

nuz wrote: post #128
jsheard wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already cut about 80% of their workforce since Elon took over, I'm not sure how much more attrition they can take. Sure the site still mostly works in the technical sense, but the way it works now has led to a significant decline in revenue and active users.

They've cut out things like viewing who liked a tweet etc (for cost savings I suspect) so the site is probably dirt cheap. Can't imagine ads don't pay for the cost of running servers at this point, and a headcount reduction might bring it to profitability.

I will wager a box of donuts the like-hiding was due to some combination of politics and Musk’s embarrassment for being called out every time he liked some cringe porn-adjacent tweet.

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#187

Post by atmavatar »

gtirloni wrote: post #168
standardUser wrote: post #132

Twitter was given a famously sweet deal by the city to occupy that troubled stretch of Market St. In the time I lived nearby (until the pandemic) the area never really improved. San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities, no just that it largely allows them, but that it allows them in and around the busiest and most publicly-utilized transit hubs and the city center.

> San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities When I visited SF for the first time in 2019, it felt really weird that such a rich place would have so many people living in tents in public spaces. Being naive, I saw dozens of tents in Sue Bierman Park and thought they were having an event or something. Then it dawned on me what I was seeing and it never made sense because certainly it doesn't take a lo…

I imagine most in the US would be more interested in reducing homelessness by producing soylent green than by producing housing - especially the billionaires.

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#188

Post by dmix »

1oooqooq wrote: post #135
danielscrubs wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im there for finance news and compiler tech. It’s the only platform where I don’t feel like I am force fed Hollywood drama. You just have to follow people you respect instead of people you find amusing.

even for niche topics i only recall "influencers" left there by the time i left. i guess it's the new Facebook, social network for old people who will not open a different app ever, for some small groups?

Twitter has always skewed older, in terms of not having kids on it, but it's still mostly people in their 20s and 30s. And there's far less 50+ yr olds in 2024 than FB according to statista:

Twitters largest demo is 25-34yr olds = 36%, 18-24 = 34.2%. While 50+ yr = 7%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283119/age-distribution-...

Facebooks largest demo is 25-34yr olds = 24% followed by 35-44 = 19%. While 50+ yr = 24%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187549/facebook-distribu...

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#189

Post by kardianos »

gtirloni wrote: post #168
standardUser wrote: post #132

Twitter was given a famously sweet deal by the city to occupy that troubled stretch of Market St. In the time I lived nearby (until the pandemic) the area never really improved. San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities, no just that it largely allows them, but that it allows them in and around the busiest and most publicly-utilized transit hubs and the city center.

> San Francisco has an odd tolerance for the tent communities When I visited SF for the first time in 2019, it felt really weird that such a rich place would have so many people living in tents in public spaces. Being naive, I saw dozens of tents in Sue Bierman Park and thought they were having an event or something. Then it dawned on me what I was seeing and it never made sense because certainly it doesn't take a lo…

That probably works when people have no money and no place to go. I used to live near Portland OR, and in that case many or most choose to be there, they wanted drugs and ANY house they lived in would soon be trashed.

Re: Twitter kills its San Francisco headquarters, will relocate to South Bay

#190

Post by next_xibalba »

bdcravens wrote: post #141
blueboo wrote: post #35

Consider the savings to add 15hr/wk of commute time to the onsite workforce. Yikes

Does any employer factor this in? That's the employee's time/expense, not the company's. After all, SF is one of the cities with the worst traffic (to say nothing of the cost of living)

Yes, I’ve been at two companies that changed office locations and both took into consideration the effect of a commute change on employees.
Post reply on HN