Live data from Hacker News

Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

sfchronicle.com

381–388 of 388 posts

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#381
post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Seriously? Yes, seriously. >I have a relative who lives in CA and bought a pair of AR-15s a few years ago, just because... No you don't. AR-15s are illegal (felony) in California.

Yes, I do. He purchased them specifically before the law against purchasing them went into effect. I'm no in CA, but I'm quite sure he still has them (or at least did while I visited after the law was in effect) and that the law did not require confiscating previously-owned firearms, i.e., they were grandfathered in.

>Yes, I do.

No, you don't.

>He purchased them specifically before the law against purchasing them went into effect.

The California Assault Weapons Control Act was passed in 1989, not "a few years ago". So no, they did not buy them "a few years ago". QED.

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cope.

[flagged]

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're for or against.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#386
post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I do. He purchased them specifically before the law against purchasing them went into effect. I'm no in CA, but I'm quite sure he still has them (or at least did while I visited after the law was in effect) and that the law did not require confiscating previously-owned firearms, i.e., they were grandfathered in.

>Yes, I do. No, you don't. >He purchased them specifically before the law against purchasing them went into effect. The California Assault Weapons Control Act was passed in 1989, not "a few years ago". So no, they did not buy them "a few years ago". QED.

Well, I've been there, in his living room in California, about 5 years ago checking them out, which he'd bought a few years prior. He's an executive and very conscientious and law-abiding, not some scofflaw with nothing to lose.

No, I didn't check the laws, serial numbers, registration, etc. But your comment did make me do a quick search which turned up many references to "California-Legal" AR-15s.

The 1989 law was basically a list of products, so it was easily evaded by making similar products and slapping a different name on them. California tried to tighten up the law in 1999 by specifying features, which was then worked around by adjusting the features. The 2016 San Bernadino shooting provoked another tightening, and I presume he bought it before that went into effect.

Here's a key quote: "In 2016, California enacted a law to provide a statutory definition for the term “detachable magazine” to clarify that firearms outfitted with bullet buttons are restricted. People who lawfully obtained these types of guns before Jan. 1 2017 could retain them as long as they registered them with the California Department of Justice in time." [0]

The article found after a quick search indicated that he needn't have been so worried, as the manufacturers also found quick work-arounds to that set of restrictions. It also mentioned that there were something like 189,000 currently registered... so yes, obviously extremely possible to have one.

QED was nothing, except that you know almost nothing about the topic; perhaps consider refraining from posting stuff about which you are obviously ignorant and then doubling down. Sheesh

[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/california-assault...

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#387

So whenever you hear about how "remote work doesn't work" try to imagine how some real estate groups might have a veiled interest in it

Bingo.

I've been calling the same thing for the past 8 months:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32746966>

(And I'm hardly the first.)

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#388
post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think so no. I’m curious what you think is a better source of data than the FBI who has a standardize definition of hate crime and collects it from all 50 states? I’m not sure how much more comparable you can get, and if we go along your logic then the original point of this thread, which is that some people feel threatened in red states (apparently) because of their sexuality or similar, then there is no dat…

if there are no reports of “ anti white crime ” in California however it’s not uncommon in Texas is it more likely that white people are never the target of hate crimes in California or that is’s under reported there (or over reported in Texas)?

Having lived in both states, probably all of the above
Post reply on HN