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

211–220 of 1001 posts

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

#211

Post by chuckadams »

htrp wrote: post #56
zknill wrote: post #51

I don't know US commutes, or US geography too well. But it seems these two locations are about 45mins-1hr drive from each other. Where do folks actually live in those areas? Is it that a 30min drive north to San Fran becomes a 30min drive south to San Jose?

More like the easy commute you had in San Francisco on muni (the bus and subway network of San Francisco) becomes an annoying hour and a half-long commute on bart (The regional train system) with 2-3 transfers

You need CalTrain to get to San Jose. BART should have gone all the way around the bay by now but CalTrain defends its turf like a honey badger.

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

#212

Post by ahuth »

dmix wrote: post #200
anotherhue wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

during one visit to those Zendesk offices an urgent slack message (verily) was sent out advising everyone to get away from the windows, as there was shooting outside. About 10 minutes later also via Slack the CEO announced not to worry it was simply one drug dealer shooting another drug dealer in the back. Everyone could return to their desks. I never understood why the company would put its employees in danger until…

[flagged]

SF certainly has its challenges. But in my 9 years of working in the financial district I never saw something like this.

Obviously others will have different experiences than me.

Point is, you can find crime and bad things in any city. San Francisco has work to do, but isn't the hell-hole people or the news make it out to be.

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

#214

Post by kjksf »

tedivm wrote: post #184
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 reloc…

San Francisco was ignoring this problem for at least 10 years before that judgement happened.

Not to mention the issue there wasn't exactly that the city was trying to do something but the fact that they were fining them and plaintiffs claimed the fines were so large that they were "cruel and unusual punishment" which is non-constitutional.

So no, it's 100% political and bureaucratic apathy over many years, not one court case.

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

#215

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

gadders wrote: post #169
acdha wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Twitter didn’t ban conservatives for their political views but for violating their terms of service. In Trump’s case that was continued calls for violence and election interference, more than a hypothetical concern after his followers made an unprecedented violent attack on the U.S. electoral process. As you can easily verify, most conservatives were never banned: the people who were banned mad…

[dead]

Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views!

Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?

Conservative: LOL no... not those views

Me: So... deregulation?

Conservative: Haha no not those views either

Me: Which views, exactly?

Conservative: Oh, you know the ones

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

#216

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

dmix wrote: post #210
silexia wrote: post #204

[flagged]

[flagged]

Last entry of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills."

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

#217

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

milkshakes wrote: post #181
gtirloni wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/

1 billion dollars / 8500[1] homeless people = 117 thousand dollars. The median household income in SF is 119 thousand[2]. I get that you wouldn't want to just pay them a salary because of second-order effects, but that kind of spend without even getting them sheltered strongly suggests resources are not being allocated well.

[1] https://www.sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-populat...

[2] https://smartasset.com/retirement/average-salary-in-san-fran...

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

#218

Post by lossolo »

silexia wrote: post #204

[flagged]

There is a thesis in your question. I'm not a terminated Twitter employee. I follow him on X and see exactly what he writes, the amount of disinformation he retweets, his manipulation tactics and what he does. That's enough for me to be "anti-Elon." It wasn't always like this—a few years ago, I was pro-Elon.
Post reply on HN