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

281–290 of 1001 posts

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

#281

Post by nofash »

anon291 wrote: post #272
ianhawes wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 honestly think people like ahuth honestly don't see these sorts of things. I've found that a substantial portion of people who live in my lovely city of Portland for example, simply are not very good at observation, and will happily walk by incredibly dangerous situations and never notice. I've had to point out to my very progressive in-laws for example, needles in parks, drug deals in broad daylight, guns, etc, th…

[flagged]

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

#282

Post by ninininino »

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]

Because being scared because one drug dealer shot another makes about as much sense statistically as being scared because there was a car accident outside the office. Actually less so since cars kill far more pedestrians than violent criminals.

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

#283

Post by flippinfloppin »

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]

Just thinking about the day-to-day elevated stress that this would generate makes me glad I will never live in a place like that. It is weird to read people trying to downplay it as if it is nothing.

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

#284

Post by adolph »

maxerickson wrote: post #192
milkshakes wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Seems you need to evaluate the effectiveness of that spending to conclude that it can't be a resource allocation issue.

Maybe a problem could be on the allocation side rather than the resource side.

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

#285

Post by kentlyons »

citizenkeen wrote: post #194
ulfw wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are quite boring mid-size cities that are heavily overpriced for what they offer. SF is more exciting/prettier yet less safe than SJ.

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

The city of San Jose is spread over a huge area (a good fraction of Santa Clara Valley aka Silicon Valley). The downtown area of San Jose which you might think of as a city is rather small.

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

#286

Post by oceanplexian »

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.

> You're actually more likely, per capita, to die to gun violence in rural America.

Isn’t the vast majority of gun violence suicide? Because if that’s the case than your statement is disingenuous, you’re not less safe in rural America if you’re worried about being shot on the way to the office.

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

#287

Post by CydeWeys »

silexia wrote: post #257
CydeWeys wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. He's legitimately done a terrible job the last few years across most of his businesses.

Measured how?

You could start by looking at stock price. TSLA is flat since 2020, and their only release in a long time is the Cybertruck which is frankly terrible. They've also lost a huge amount of marketshare. Oh, and Musk's outspoken political opinions are toxic to most EV buyers and have massively turned off a large part of the fanbase that originally propelled him to success.

Twitter is a complete dumpster fire (revenue down 80% since he acquired it, and is now making only around 10% of the money required to even service the debt from acquisition). Basically every company he's involved with is doing terribly, except for SpaceX, which fortunately has Gwynne Shotwell at the helm. But even SpaceX isn't doing so well with their latest rocket, Starship; the upper stage is simply way too big and heavy for most uses, and will require up to 15 (!!) additional refueling in-orbit refueling launches to fully refuel a single Starship for missions beyond LEO, like the upcoming lunar missions. This is a huge liability that casts doubt on the overall architecture. Contrast with the Saturn V, a smaller rocket that could nevertheless do an entire self-contained lunar mission with a single launch.

I was a huge Elon fan for many years, but everything he's been doing recently has been a swing and a miss.

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

#288

Post by HeatrayEnjoyer »

z7 wrote: post #253
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You‘re right of course, I confused it with the move to Texas.

I wonder why the author omitted Musk's stated motive for the move. Wouldn't that be of interest to the reader? Like, why do this? I also notice your explanation has been censored.

Users flagging a low quality comment isn't

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

#289

Post by [deleted] »

michaelt wrote: post #161
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.

To me "revenue and MAUs have declined significantly" sounds like a reason they would want to reduce employee numbers, rather than a reason they wouldn't . At least in a conventional business that uses revenue to pay wages.

[deleted]

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

#290

Post by tacker2000 »

ionwake wrote: post #80

As a UK chap, can someone give me their opinion on if San Jose is a more pleasant place to live than San Fran these days?

San Jose is very much a suburbia-type city, very spread out, downtown is rather small and you need a car 90% of the time, whereas SF is much denser.

I assume the drug use/homeless issues are less prevalent in San Jose, at least it was that way 10 yrs ago.

Post reply on HN