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

San Francisco Bubble

blog.larrold.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 393 posts

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#281

Post by YuriNiyazov »

bduerst wrote: post #252
YuriNiyazov wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, whether a startup is silly or not is an opinion. I happen to have an opinion that adtech is evil. Whether it has a side benefit like allowing "content" to exist is tangential. I usually keep that opinion to myself because it's not a popular one, but in this particular subthread we are not discussing the article, we are discussing the author who volunteered his "I am very hypocritical" comment. Elsewhere in this…

I don't get it - are you arguing that because you think your opinion is unpopular it's okay to be facetious?

No, I am stating the following (maybe unclearly):

1) In a thread where the author shows up and says "I am very hypocritical", standard rules like "discuss the article, not the author" do not apply. The author is fair game for discussion.

2) I don't usually crap on other peoples' industries, but not in this case, because (1).

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#282

Post by lubesGordi »

Part of the whole venture capital startup game is diversification if investment. VC's expect a lot of their startups to fail (angel investors too), while a few grow and maybe if they are lucky one of them takes off.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#283

Post by restalis »

pgodzin wrote: post #248
stvswn wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what are the problems? "Everyone rides an Uber" is great for the Uber drivers. "People spend too much on organic produce" is great for the farmers. "Even bad engineers are in high demand" is great for the mediocre engineers. Housing is a problem, but this post didn't mention it. So before we start making changes, what are the problems in your opinion? And, then, what changes are you proposing?

Well the problem is the people who haven't been included in the tech boom and are living on salaries that can't afford those things and are being forced out of their neighborhoods. You can say it's just free markets again but there is a huge human cost.

"the people who haven't been included in the tech boom" ...are living on salaries that are supported by the people who have been included in the tech boom. It's exactly their expensive offerings to the tech people that is supporting their good income, BTW!

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#284

Post by FussyZeus »

babygoat wrote: post #243
FussyZeus wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you said but this: > then it will force government organizations to re-think their planning. Made me lol. As if any Government has ever changed it's offerings based on the market. They'll just keep paying public workers absurd wages to continue to suck because status quo is way more important than customer satisfaction when it comes to public entities.

Ever? Your bias is showing. http://www.twincities.com/2015/12/31/mark-dayton-wants-100-m...

How does a politician wanting money to start a service defeat my point in any way? He's not fighting a status quo, he's adding a new service which is extremely sexy for a politician to do, especially in the leadup to an election. Not to mention he isn't actually doing anything yet, he's demanding funding to do something, which is also way easier to do then actually doing it.

A Government entity has no competition, or if they do (like the USPS for example) they can rely on subsidies from the Government and run at a total loss if they need to. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, but if you have a worker who knows their performance is tied to their ability to deliver a product and another worker who knows they're pay is coming whether the customers are happy or not, one of those is going to be motivated to make sure customers are happy and the other one is not, and they will act accordingly.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#285

Post by varelse »

seiji wrote: post #84
varelse wrote: post #64

If you hate current day SF, you'll looooovvve NYC...

I moved from The Bay Area to NYC. Things I miss about The Bay Area include: meetups where the attendees are actually useful people you want to talk with, more similar developers (NYC developers tend to have +20 years on SF developers unless you're at a we-only-hire-22-year-olds startup), developers more plugged in to current trends instead of just getting on board with what was introduced 5 years ago, in NYC every ot…

What do you like about NYC? I spent a couple weeks there recently, to which I was really looking forward since I had never been there, and after about a week I loathed the noise, the garbage everywhere, and the lines at all the stores. Shortly thereafter, I caught the Norovirus from delivered food and I was knocked out physically and mentally for almost 2 weeks.

What did I like? Seeing a few famous landmarks, a couple of the restaurants, and my rental apartment had free NetFlix.

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#287

Post by azinman2 »

mantas wrote: post #216
azinman2 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were trivial then they'd have been eaten up by competitor now.

They're technically trivial. But execution ain't.

Just because they're not google search doesn't mean their technically trivial either. Have you worked on either product or do you just assume?

Re: San Francisco Bubble

#289

Post by shostack »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #224
api wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangent but: I doubt the rate raise will stick. They'll probably have to cut it again. I see a "planet Japan" scenario in which global central banks are zero-bound for decades, if not "forever". Rapid growth is over. There are no more frontiers and birth rates are stabilizing. From an ecological point of view the stabilization of birth rates is good, but it basically breaks all the economic assumptions of the past 25…

0/Near 0 interest is the end-game of fractional reserve banking. Consider the alternative: Rates climb back to 20%. You (and everyone else borrowing) now need to somehow collect an additional 20% (ignoring compounding and early payments) money each year. 1) that's not going to happen unless massive amounts of money are borrowed by lots of people 2) that money must move fast enough (and be continually reborrowed) to m…

Do you see a potential solution?
Post reply on HN