Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)

pulkitagrawal.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 91 posts

Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)

#61

Post by dfraser992 »

I was in the Bay area during the first bubble, so that's my basis for my comments. An anthropologist I knew described the Bay area as a place where 'adolescents go to retire', which made a bunch of sense. A sense of the 60s was still around, with the general wackiness and Folsom Street Fair and the alt-cultures around. The tech scene was merely the latest incarnation of the gold-rush mentality.

But now, given everything I have read about the Bay these days, I don't think I'd want to live there. Apparently all the artists have left, Burning Man is a corporate event soon to be shut down permanently (given what I've heard about the cops), money, money, money... too much wanna be zillionaires all hoping to best buds with Zuckerberg someday. IT culture is not what is was 'back in the day'. And get off my lawn!

And I have lived in London for seven years, more than I did in SF. I greatly prefer London. Good public transport, it feels like a place you can live, it's a real city, not a bunch of suburbs (but now the rents... well, being used to SF rents when I moved, it was similar).

My take on the article is the guy projects a lot onto the two cities. The tech scene has all these romantic associations with it and good lord, I am getting tired of hearing about them. At the end of the day, it just a job for most people and few startups actually matter (Uber matters because they are screwing up so much). "Changing the world" only equals working on social problems like establishing UBI, not running the world's largest BBS so your grandma can read fake news that is written in Romania or feeding the ADD of adolescents who like to take pictures of their food. As for financial, that will always matter until capitalism crashes.

Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)

#62

Post by acchow »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #50
twblalock wrote: post #24

I grew up in the San Francisco area, and I know a lot of people who are a much closer match to what the article describes as London-type people: they work for large, established companies for a regular paycheck, they have been here a long time, they are embedded in local professional networks, etc. Some of them even have to wear suits to work! I guess the author never heard of the established, large companies in the…

> The proportion of foreign-born people is higher in the San Francisco area than anywhere else in the United States with the possible exception of New York City. Unless you combine San Jose and San Francisco into a single metro area (which I wouldn't, and the Census doesn't), then Miami, San Jose, and Los Angeles all have San Francisco beat, by quite a large margin [1]. If you're talking combined statistical areas, I…

Proportion foreign born isn't a good proxy for "cultural diversity" anyway. If I a city's foreign-born population can be attributed largely to immigration from 1 or 2 countries that is hardly diverse...

Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)

#63

Post by adrianratnapala »

hueving wrote: post #45
tensor wrote: post #36

My view of San Francisco culture as an outsider is actually quite negative now. For years I thought it was a culture very in line with my own, but after years of watching and interacting remotely with people from that scene my mind has changed. I now feel it's largely dominated by arrogance. Everyone wants to "change the world" but what they really want is fame and fortune. A San Francisco startup is hilariously not…

>It's ludicrous extremes like having pingpong tables and games and coffee baristas at work. This is not living "frugally." If a pingpong table and games are a major expense in your company, you're already dead. A barista is wasteful, unless he/she is serving coffee to hundreds of employees that would otherwise waste company time by leaving the office for a coffee break. As an engineer, I avoid companies like the plag…

Hmm, I work for Google now, and they are the first company I have worked for with either baristas[1] or ping-pong tables. These are definitely luxurious perks and not "basic niceties".

But Google is not a frugal startup. It's a giant company offering a big complicated benefits package.

[1] Free ones that is. Not counting big plants with cafes that charge market prices and seem to break even.

Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)

#64

Post by CM30 »

olivermarks wrote: post #4
pmoriarty wrote: post #2

"San Francisco contains a large number of start-ups with small teams where employees feel like they can have greater impact. Many people found their own businesses to pursue their passions or are part of larger teams working on causes they relate to. This leads to a culture of creating impact on others and of doing something that’s has wider benefit than to just oneself." This is more startup and corporate hype than…

There are also an alarmingly large number of Trustafarians in San Francisco who are playing at 'being in a start up' rather than admitting they are just dossing about on a trust fund...

There seem to be a rather large number of those people in London too. Though in their cases, it's often more playing at 'running a company' in general rather than a startup.

Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)

#65

Post by jernfrost »

twblalock wrote: post #24

I grew up in the San Francisco area, and I know a lot of people who are a much closer match to what the article describes as London-type people: they work for large, established companies for a regular paycheck, they have been here a long time, they are embedded in local professional networks, etc. Some of them even have to wear suits to work! I guess the author never heard of the established, large companies in the…

"The proportion of foreign-born people is higher in the San Francisco area than anywhere else in the United States"

Doesn't really change anything. The point is that like most of us Europeans will point out. Americans are rather insular in general. Doesn't matter if you live in SF or not. Americans don't pay much attention to what is going on outside of their bubble. Also they tend to lack curiosity about the world outside.

Even foreign born Americans seem to end up like that. I've met Americans originally born and raised in Sweden but where utterly clueless about what Sweden is like in general or is like today.

At least in northern Europe which I know best, discussing politics and world affairs at the lunch table is rather common. When bought by an American company it was obvious things were different when one of the instruction was "don't talk politics or religion at work!"

Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)

#66

Post by CM30 »

JDiculous wrote: post #26
twblalock wrote: post #24

I grew up in the San Francisco area, and I know a lot of people who are a much closer match to what the article describes as London-type people: they work for large, established companies for a regular paycheck, they have been here a long time, they are embedded in local professional networks, etc. Some of them even have to wear suits to work! I guess the author never heard of the established, large companies in the…

I've never lived in SF or Europe, but as an American who's lived in the suburbs of DC and now NYC, it seems to me that Americans in general are less internationally conscious than Europeans. Most Europeans I know speak 3+ languages, have studied and lived abroad, and have traveled extensively. Americans in my experience tend to be more insular and less cultured. And it makes sense because Europe has so many different…

> Most Europeans I know speak 3+ languages, have studied and lived abroad, and have traveled extensively.

This is very much specific to what country in Europe you're talking about and what field of work you're in. Over here in the UK, there are a lot fewer people that speak multiple languages than in say the Nordic countries or Germany.

Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)

#68

Post by dustinmoris »

JDiculous wrote: post #26
twblalock wrote: post #24

I grew up in the San Francisco area, and I know a lot of people who are a much closer match to what the article describes as London-type people: they work for large, established companies for a regular paycheck, they have been here a long time, they are embedded in local professional networks, etc. Some of them even have to wear suits to work! I guess the author never heard of the established, large companies in the…

I've never lived in SF or Europe, but as an American who's lived in the suburbs of DC and now NYC, it seems to me that Americans in general are less internationally conscious than Europeans. Most Europeans I know speak 3+ languages, have studied and lived abroad, and have traveled extensively. Americans in my experience tend to be more insular and less cultured. And it makes sense because Europe has so many different…

As an European who speaks 3 languages I can agree to that. I live in London and even though British people may not speak as many languages as the average continental European person, but most Europeans and especially British people have literally traveled the world.

I don't even mean that Europeans travel more because they jump a few European borders. Most European people I know have taken a whole year out after university to travel the entire planet, trying to see and experience as much as possible, from far Africa, to Asia and even America. I travel a lot myself and whenever I cross continents I always tend to meet the same people: Europeans (English, Swedish, Germans, French, etc.) and Australians. I rarely meet an American. Mostly I came across Canadians in South and Central America, but that was it.

Re: Differences between San Francisco and London (2014)

#69

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

CM30 wrote: post #66
JDiculous wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never lived in SF or Europe, but as an American who's lived in the suburbs of DC and now NYC, it seems to me that Americans in general are less internationally conscious than Europeans. Most Europeans I know speak 3+ languages, have studied and lived abroad, and have traveled extensively. Americans in my experience tend to be more insular and less cultured. And it makes sense because Europe has so many different…

> Most Europeans I know speak 3+ languages, have studied and lived abroad, and have traveled extensively. This is very much specific to what country in Europe you're talking about and what field of work you're in. Over here in the UK, there are a lot fewer people that speak multiple languages than in say the Nordic countries or Germany.

The UK is trying hard to become the 51st state - with some success. It's quite shocking how much of our culture is imported from the US.

We get far more news about the US than we do about Europe, US movies and TV are mainstream while European movies usually only get niche middle class art house distribution, our singers sing with fake US accents, and it used to be much easier to decorate your living room with photos of Brooklyn Bridge than of European landmarks - until we started putting union jacks on everything.

As far as many English people are concerned the US is full of sexy super heroes, while the EU is full of immigrants, shifty foreigners, bureaucrats, and smelly cheese.

So it actually makes no sense to compare SF to London, because in many ways (excepting the weather, the age of the housing stock, and possibly the social signals used to indicate class) they're more similar than different.

Comparing SF to Berlin, Barcelona, or maybe Lisbon might be more revealing.

Post reply on HN