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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by labcomputer »

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…

> the city had this situation about 20 years ago and what they did was buy a bunch of cheap land in the outskirts, build small houses and relocate these people.

That will never work in SF because it involves moving the homeless someplace else involuntarily and moving them all to a singular place.

So the homeless “advocates” will accuse you of being a Nazi who is trying to create a literal concentration camp.

It doesn’t matter how nice the community is, nor that the people would own their space, nor anything else about your plan.

As a meta-consideration, part of the problem is that many of people who work “for” the homeless really enjoy living in SF. Threatening to move their jobs to someplace less desirable is the reason they will call you names.

Also, if you fix homeless, you no longer need homeless advocates. That goes to the core of their identity, so of course they will fight you.

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

#262

Post by ben_w »

dbbk wrote: post #259
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.

> Sure the site still mostly works in the technical sense They just auto-banned everyone who downloaded their new Mac app so... no

Oh? I missed that news.

Edit:

This, I guess: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/x-kills-its-mac-app-ac...

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

#263

Post by VancouverMan »

ianhawes wrote: post #228
ahuth wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thats odd because SF _has_ been the hell-hole people and the media have described it as in my own experiences. It would seem to me that Chicago, NYC, LA do have "bad parts" but they're distinctly separate from the "good parts". San Francisco's bad parts and good parts have evidently merged. I do not understand why people who live in SF have to effectively gaslight themselves into believing that the breakdown of certa…

> I do not understand why people who live in SF have to effectively gaslight themselves into believing that the breakdown of certain basic tenants of society is part of the culture of their city.

That phenomenon isn't isolated to San Francisco, nor even to the US. The same mindset is also widespread in "progressive" Canadian cities like Vancouver, Toronto, and Ottawa, for example.

From what I can tell, one of the main pillars of the "progressive" ideology that's prevalent in such cities is that certain specific groups of people are declared to be "victims" or "disadvantaged", and these people are put on a pedestal and held in high esteem for some reason, no matter how awful they behave in public.

I suspect that most "progressives" inherently know that these sanctified people aren't the "victims" they're ideologically portrayed as being. Even if the "progressives" don't openly admit it, they themselves don't like dodging human feces on the sidewalk, nor the stench of urine emanating from building walls, nor used needles left in parks, nor addicts overdosing in bus shelters, nor smelly unwashed hobos sleeping on public transit, nor aggressive panhandlers demanding money from passersby, nor crucial retail stores closing due to rampant shoplifting, and so forth.

Yet, these "progressives" seem unwilling to admit that this main pillar of their ideology is fundamentally wrong. Perhaps they know that if they admit this, even to themselves, then the rest of their belief system will inevitably come crashing down because it, too, isn't built on reality.

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

#264

Post by rahimnathwani »

presentation wrote: post #238
citizenkeen wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 17th largest city in the US is mid-sized?

From my perspective living in Asia I’d place it on par with a small rural village

After I moved to Beijing, my first job was at a company opening a network of village banks. The villages had a population of around 1 million. SF has 850k people.

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

#265

Post by gadders »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #215
gadders wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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

[flagged]

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

#266

Post by gadders »

acdha wrote: post #202
gadders wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

Look, we all know you’re making that up but if we take you at face value, you just defined conservatism as the beliefs bad enough to get Twitter’s famously hands-off moderators to act. Nobody got blocked for advocating for smaller government, business-friendly policies, or talking about their religious or family values – it was threats of violence, slurs, targeted harassment, election misinformation, etc. None of the…

[flagged]

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

#268

Post by mistrial9 »

runako wrote: post #249
kryptiskt wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ads may pay for the servers and reduced headcount[1], but there is no way that they pay for servicing the $10B of high-interest debt that the company was saddled with. [1] Though with the NYT reporting that the American ad revenues was down 80% to $114M/quarter since the acquisition it might not be so obvious.

> American ad revenues was down 80% to $114M/quarter since the acquisition Debt service was estimated at ~$100m/mo, with the likelihood that rates on some of the debt could increase substantially since the financing was initially booked in mid 2022. If these numbers are directionally accurate (and they do not report, so we don't know for sure), this thing is probably closer to losing a billion $ annually than to brea…

> Debt service was estimated at ~$100m/mo

source?

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

#269

Post by anon291 »

consteval wrote: post #224
dmix wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Because in reality, as in statistically, SF is actually not that dangerous. People say this about any vaguely blue city, which is almost all of them. But they forget Urban areas are very dense. You're actually more likely, per capita, to die to gun violence in rural America. It's just very hard to see that because the coverage isn't there and the actual amount of deaths is lower.

Per capita is such a stupid way to measure shooting danger. What really matters is average proximity to shootings (which does measure danger, since proximity to the bullet could lead to you getting killed, or the shooter aiming in another close direction). Obviously, this is higher in dense areas, hence the higher perceived danger.

Case in point, if you have a rural area of 1000 people and there are 10 shootings (1% shooting rate), the likelihood that any of the 980 people not involved was near any of those shooting is very low.

On the other hand, a 4 block stretch of a city with a 1000 people with ten shootings, you can bet that all 1000 heard / saw / were affected by the shootings.

Cities need to be safer than other places in order to feel safe. And until people get this obvious fact, cities will always have this reputation.

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

#270

Post by ImJamal »

acdha wrote: post #71
ThunderSizzle wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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…

They did not ban Trump for "continued calls for violence and election interference".

Look at the two Tweets they used as a justification of his ban [1]

> The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!

And

> To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.

Of course, in the blog post, Twitter claims to have "assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy"

If those two tweets are glorification of violence, then your post is calling for genocide.

[1] https://blog.x.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension

Post reply on HN