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

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

Post by ryandrake »

runako wrote: post #244
tiahura wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you think it would collapse when he canned the 80%

Revenue is down by a larger percentage than the headcount, right? I think that counts as "collapse" by any reasonable definition.

I thought the company would collapse after firing 80% of staff, and for a long time I kept arguing that Twitter was still in the "Wile E Coyote ran off the edge of the cliff but didn't fall yet" phase where they were running on pure momentum. I must admit, as time goes by, it's harder and harder to argue that. I just can't believe that 80% of the company was really just not needed. Every company I've ever worked at was lean to the point where they almost couldn't get anything done due to lack of people. I can't imagine a company that could lose 80% of their people and keep on trucking.

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

#322

Post by dang »

All: can you please not post low-quality angry/snarky junk comments to HN threads? They're tedious and have nasty effects.

I realize this story is a cluster of divisive topics but that's why HN's guidelines say "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site to heart, we'd be grateful.

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

#324

Post by loceng »

JohnMakin wrote: post #87
loceng wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you have him blocked, and just not following him?

I don’t know if you’ve been on X lately but even if not following him you can receive push notifications from his tweets. Tested this on multiple accounts now, he’s unavoidable unless blocked and sometimes not even then because of all the bootlicker accounts that screenshot and repost his tweets. Frankly it’s made the platform unusable to me, almost nothing he posts is interesting or worth reading.

Should a person with the most followers in the world have more people seeing, to then be able to know what they are sharing or saying, to then have more eyeballs to scrutinize them?

Should they have more or less eyeballs witnessing them, and responding to them?

I'd rather see what they are saying directly vs. seeing other articles about him that are most likely propaganda nowadays with how corrupted the media currently is, hence partly why ELon felt compelled to buy Twitter-X to begin with.

But fair enough, blocking him then could make sense.

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

#325

Post by loceng »

llamaimperative wrote: post #111
loceng wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey dang, what exactly in my comment above warrants -5 (or more) downvotes?

Extreme sycophancy without much critical thought. Might as well argue he’s going to give all his employees time machines to go buy $AAPL in the 90s as part of their comp plan. Would also get downvoted.

"Extreme sycophancy without much critical thought."

A claim you make with no supportive arguments.

My comment is packed with critical thought. Maybe you're just lacking understanding to unpack it? Or are you too arrogant to not think that you know all?

And then ridiculous ad hominem that you think was clever enough to actually waste time to type out; what work do you have that you hate that you're procrastinating from working on?

I'm really curious if you know what sycophancy means, and if so, how exactly my comment is benefitting me? I think it's more likely you're jealous of Elon's success, have past trauma from personal work experiences you're projecting onto him, and taking it out on anyone who notes his successes and extrapolates to estimate where his projects will lead to.

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

#326

Post by kredd »

bdcravens wrote: post #134
xyst wrote: post #67

I’m surprised they haven’t fully jump shipped to a lower COL state.

Musk already moved Tesla, and is in the process of moving SpaceX, to Texas. It's surprising X isn't following suit.

According to my friend, Tesla engineering didn't move to Texas, and he doesn't want to give up the California weather, so unlikely to make the move. If you have a routine, and enjoy year-long pretty nice weather, California will just have a natural advantage.

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

#328

Post by brabel »

timeon wrote: post #301
anon291 wrote: post #273

Realistically, X is better than its ever been; community notes have been a game-changer in terms of fact-checking. Higher quality and much more balanced.

Nor really. It used to work for all people with browser now it is only for logged-in.

That was already the case before Musk bought it.

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

#329

Post by curiousthought »

timeon wrote: post #302
tacker2000 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> suburbia-type city Isn't this oxymoron? Isn't city the `urbia`?

Not all urbia's are equally urbie.

Imagine New York vs Dallas for example. I think it is fair to say that some cities are more spread out and low density, making them feel like a suburban sprawl.

Post reply on HN