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

311–320 of 1001 posts

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

#311

Post by jeffbee »

kentlyons wrote: post #285
citizenkeen wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The convex hull of San Jose also encloses a ton of junk that is not San Jose because of their unincorporated enclaves and incorporated exclaves. San Jose badly fails my test of whether a city is good or bad based on the geometric complexity of their boundary.

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

#312

Post by plorkyeran »

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…

Perhaps these situations just aren't as dangerous as you think? I can understand not wanting to see drug deals happening out in the open, but it's less of a threat to your personal safety than crossing a busy street.

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

#313

Post by ProfessorLayton »

anon291 wrote: post #269
consteval wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%…

>What really matters is average proximity to shootings

Social proximity. Less than 10% of homicides are from strangers [1]

[1]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

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

#314

Post by keepamovin »

jeffbee wrote: post #219
keepamovin wrote: post #159

IMO, San Jose has been nicer than downtown San Francisco for about 10 years.

Which would be relevant if Twitter HQ was in downtown SF.

Ha! :) smh. Nah, it's relevant. What, you don't think it's in Downtown? Embarcadero's the only downtown for you?

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

#315

Post by chengiz »

anon291 wrote: post #269
consteval wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%…

I think you must live in a city. Literally everyone in your 1000 people rural area would be affected by 10 shootings.

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

#316

Post by LightBug1 »

optymizer wrote: post #199
LightBug1 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Who cares? > They should know better and the best have already left or been culled. We should care, even if it's just a little. Some of them may not be able to leave for various reasons: health, family, immigration status, who knows. Maybe if more of us showed a bit more empathy towards each other online, the Internet wouldn't be such a sociopathic cesspool. These are real people you're talking about, not inanimate…

Of course, I agree with you at the individual level.

However, at the macro level, I'm more than happy to see jobs destroyed at insert sh1tty company for the good of both individuals, and the good of the nation/world. Short term pain, long term gain. And don't tell me the workers X/twitter can't get re-hired or land on their feet elsewhere ... so actually, I'm not that sympathetic. Sometimes you have to take a stand.

And that sociopathic cesspool you're speaking of? ... yes, that's right, you could be talking about X/twitter.

So, I appreciate your words of empathy, they're much needed in these times. But I'll be the asshole who dismisses them on this occassion.

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

#317

Post by 1oooqooq »

dmix wrote: post #188
1oooqooq wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

16-28 is the gold of demographics. all those numbers skew A LOT to the lower end of the age range to pretend they have that demographic when in reality they do not.

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

#318

Post by hn1986 »

miki123211 wrote: post #40
lrvick wrote: post #36

[flagged]

You might be right when it comes to employees, but definitely not when it comes to users. There's a lot of people using X, and the vast, vast majority of them don't care much for Musk or actively dislike him. THe problem with X is that it is (and always was) sort of an echo chamber, there's no average X user, everybody sees very different content based on what they follow. The average HNer probably won't notice the h…

Nah, no matter what you follow, you get pushed extreme right-wing posts. Being on there only helps support Musk and his now Trump following.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/comments/1ehq5ig/why_are_99...

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

#319

Post by Log_out_ »

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.

Eh, but if the incentives are set to roll & experience the dangerous subset dice, does your commentarys subject and the commentaries audience really overlap.

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

#320

Post by Log_out_ »

JohnMakin wrote: post #297
fosk wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF is a deeply challenging city, and you really appreciate this by traveling and visiting other cities. You are constantly on alert, in ways that simply you are not in other places despite the fact that there are “good and bad” parts of town everywhere else. Perhaps caused by the unpredictability in SF of often finding “bad” in “good” parts of town, with unpredictable drug addict behavior on top, which adds to the un…

These anecdotes aren’t unique to a city like SF though. I can find similar stories in my relatively small but dense suburb. The statistics just do not back up the claims that SF is uniquely dangerous or has worse problems than anywhere else of that size/density.

But what if you run out of air superiority and money to bribe those paying for this special party. And to have this is constant free adverisement for the right wingnuts..
Post reply on HN