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

481–490 of 1001 posts

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

#481

Post by curiousllama »

throw4847285 wrote: post #444
hintymad wrote: post #412

There is a famous paper about the location of company headquarters: they get as close as possible to the residence of company CEOs. If we don't consider the CEO's influence, I'm actually curious if the location of company headquarters has to do with the average age of the employees in the Bay Area. As the employees start to have families, they most likely move to the south bay for better or for worse, and I have a ha…

Just in response to your second point, I do think that's specific to you and your circles. I know multiple retired or semi-retired people who have moved towards the center of a city. Without work to keep them occupied, they want the hustle and bustle, which means something to do. And driving has become more of a hassle and a barrier to the kinds of lives they want to live. These are east coast or midwest cities, so m…

Cities' attractiveness feels u-shaped

Young adults love it bc they have the time to go to bars/restaurants/clubs

Middle aged folks hate it because they're so busy - they can't take advantage, and other people get in their way

(some) Older folks like it again bc they have the time to go to restaurants/theater

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

#482

Post by jacobolus »

asveikau wrote: post #464
beacon294 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did you mean by "move to south bay for good for worse"? I just couldn't parse your meaning.

They seem unaware that a lot of SF based people go to the east bay. But it's not inevitable that families move to suburbs either. Commenter is partly perpetuating a 1960s era "white flight" kind of stereotype, where cities are said to be terrible for families. I happen to have two kids in SF. Additionally, a lot of what drives people out of SF specifically is the expense.

SF is a great place for kids of all ages. But housing is indeed very expensive, as is childcare. Families in rent-controlled apartments who want more space without significantly higher expense don’t have a lot of options; several such families we know ended up moving out of the city (sometimes to elsewhere in Northern CA but often across the country to be closer to family). I don’t know anyone who moved because they thought their kids were having a bad time in the city.

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

#483

Post by tarsinge »

aqme28 wrote: post #346
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…

My first week working in a finance firm in midtown Manhattan there was a significant shooting. These things happen everywhere (edit: in the US) unfortunately. I'm not convinced that a more suburban location that forces people to drive would actually be any safer.

Not "everywhere", as an European that grew up in a big city (Paris) that's unthinkable.

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

#485

Post by anon291 »

chengiz wrote: post #315
anon291 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No area in the United states has crime rates as high as in my hypothetical, but many rural areas of the South have homicide rates on par with a city.

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

#486

Post by jandrese »

rabuse wrote: post #449
jandrese wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4Chan was run by like one guy using the change he found in the cushions of his couch. Getting the pixels on people's screens is the easy part. Keeping the Nazis and bots at bay is the expensive part. You have to do the latter if you want to keep the advertisers on your site, which is why X switched to a more for-pay model and still loses money hand over fist. Being able to pay to have your voice amplified has been a…

I much prefer the Twitter of today. Since I'm a grown adult, I can handle some mean words being seen by my eyes, and just ignoring what I don't like. It's nice seeing a balance of both sides of an argument now, rather than only seeing the left biased information.

"You and everyone like you should be rounded up and executed" is a just a mean message, but it's also dangerous. People will believe that stuff, and then try to do it. This isn't a theoretical danger, it has happened time and time again throughout history. These sorts of seductive messages that target out-groups and provide a sense of community have lead to real life horrors.

X has also gotten very bad about amplifying misinformation, especially on white supremacist topics. Just yesterday (maybe the day before?) that bullshit old paper that said sub-Saharan Africans had an average IQ of 55 made it to the top of the feed with no community notes. The comment section was full of great replacement theory blue check guys all agreeing with one another and making it sound like there was a consensus. People see stuff like this and actually believe it. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Elon himself re-Xed it at some point.

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

#487

Post by jrflowers »

wisconsiway wrote: post #470
nimbius wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i concur. I think a lot of this is just sound business acumen. Twit-er...X, isnt raking in cash like it used to. Musks changes like reinstating hate speech accounts and the blue check fiasco had a direct negative effect on advertising revenue and accelerated already downward subscriber trends. Leaning out the physical side of the already agile digital side was a good idea im not sure twitters old guard would have con…

[flagged]

“You mentioned that bringing back nazis killed the site but curiously you did not at any point in any way imply that it is the world’s biggest platform… The argument you’re making solely in my head isn’t very consistent!”

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

#488

Post by anon291 »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #313
anon291 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.-...

Again, when judging danger in a situation, you as a random by stander are unlikely to be the target. However, again, a targeted shooting in a spread out locale is less dangerous than one that happens a few feet from you for the simple reason that the bullet can miss

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

#489

Post by julianeon »

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?

They are very different propositions.

San Jose: your average American city, in terms of looks, but considerably more upscale.

San Francisco: an NYC-style "world-class city." It's trying for that title in terms of tempo, density, architecture.

Doesn't always succeed of course, but the cities are fundamentally going after different goals.

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

#490

Post by slashdave »

fabian2k wrote: post #31

Doing this on a few weeks notice seems rather insane to me. Unless you have very good remote work options this is very disruptive for employees.

Disruptive for employees? Have you been reading about the recent history of this company?
Post reply on HN