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

The little things I learned in the valley

gigpeppers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: The little things I learned in the valley

#61

Post by dntrkv »

untog wrote: post #39
dntrkv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because the crazy guy outside my office yelling at the brick wall just needs a job, and he'll be living in a home in no time.

But that's my point. Only 39% of homeless people have mental issues[1]. It's not correct to characterise homelessness as caused by mental problems. [1] http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html

Sure, it may not be the leading cause. But the homeless that people are usually referring to when they talk about San Francisco's homeless problem, are the ones with mental issues or addiction problems. I rarely ever see the regular, sane, homeless people sprawled across the sidewalk in the middle of the day. It's always the drug addicts or the mentally ill.

Re: The little things I learned in the valley

#62

Post by potatolicious »

bluetidepro wrote: post #48

> "This future is “only” mobile. I thought it is mobile." I wouldn't mind seeing more expansion on that thought. Maybe it's because I spend so much time on the computer for work, but I still think there is a LONG ways to go before you can have the same experience with applications or sites on your mobile device that your desktop gives you. I will never want to be locked down to such a small screen for everything. And…

The "future is mobile" thought isn't saying that mobile experiences are superior to desktop experiences. In fact it's almost a tacit acknowledgment of the opposite.

Think about it this way: Google Maps on desktop is IMO much, much more useful than Google Maps on my phone. I can fit a lot more search results, things are much easier to see at a glance, I don't have to zoom in so far to see important map features, etc etc.

But ultimately I still use Maps on my phone a lot more than I do on desktop, because I need maps a lot more while I'm out and about than when I'm sitting still.

Ditto shopping. Surfing Amazon on a desktop is probably always going to be a superior experience to doing it on mobile, but as smartphones get better and connectivity improves, more and more people are going to want to quickly buy something (e.g., notice you need a pack of razors as you're heading out the door - use your phone instead of sitting down at your desktop).

And what we're seeing - at least from the few companies I've had the opportunity to watch this from - is that even traditionally "desktop" use cases are increasingly mobile. Looking for something to do with your significant other this weekend? That used to be a desktop use case, but it's increasingly mobile as well, even though it is of course not an intrinsically or obviously mobile thing to do.

"The future is mobile" means "people want to use this on mobiles, even though it's going to be strictly worse than the desktop experience, so you can either try to close the desktop-mobile UX gap as much as possible or watch your users bleed off to your competitors". The corollary to that is also "you should try to find actual mobile-centric use cases for your product so that your mobile product isn't just a slightly crappier clone of your desktop product".

Re: The little things I learned in the valley

#63

Post by tptacek »

debt wrote: post #50
kyro wrote: post #33

What was most off putting on my last trip to SF was the juxtaposition of the yuppie and homeless worlds. It wasn't uncommon to see long lines for local chic coffee shops full of young, well-to-do individuals while the homeless begged, urinated and defacated on the same stretch of sidewalk to often no acknowledgement by the former group. I live in NYC so I see homeless people every day, but here you don't see such an…

That seems to be largest complaint I hear from tourists. SF takes care of their homeless. Matter of fact, SF programs are so good we have a problem with other states sending their homeless specifically to SF[1]. I'm from Chicago where the homeless don't have nearly the same advantages as they do here in SF(particularly the weather). There were encampments in Grant Park in Chicago and they were forcibly removed by the…

I don't understand your second graf; you seem to be referring to an Occupy protest as an "encampment of homeless people", but those two things obviously aren't equivalent.

San Francisco differs from Chicago on homelessness in two significant ways: the weather and environment is amenable year-round, while Chicago is inhospitable for 1/4 of the year, and San Francisco's politics regarding homeless people are "hands-off".

Based on the last spot counts I could find, Chicago and San Francisco have roughly comparable homeless populations, despite the fact that Chicago is more than 3x larger. That difference is not simply because Las Vegas busses homeless people to SF.

I dispute the notion that SF does a particularly good job taking care of homeless people. It's indeed possible that SF does a better job of this than Chicago and NYC, both of which see clusters of indigent people on the streets as a quality-of-life problem for residents. But if you can find a source that says SF is doing a good job of actually delivering services and getting homeless people off the streets and into society, I'd like to read it; the sources I've found say the opposite.

Re: The little things I learned in the valley

#64

Post by debt »

tptacek wrote: post #63
debt wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to be largest complaint I hear from tourists. SF takes care of their homeless. Matter of fact, SF programs are so good we have a problem with other states sending their homeless specifically to SF[1]. I'm from Chicago where the homeless don't have nearly the same advantages as they do here in SF(particularly the weather). There were encampments in Grant Park in Chicago and they were forcibly removed by the…

I don't understand your second graf; you seem to be referring to an Occupy protest as an "encampment of homeless people", but those two things obviously aren't equivalent. San Francisco differs from Chicago on homelessness in two significant ways: the weather and environment is amenable year-round, while Chicago is inhospitable for 1/4 of the year, and San Francisco's politics regarding homeless people are "hands-off…

The CPD definitely makes it a priority to treat people as "blight" in the more touristy areas(Grant Park, Loop, Navy Pier, North Ave. Beach, etc); be it protestors or homeless people, they're quick to, literally in some cases, extricate them from the area. The Occupy protests in NYC turned into an encampment of people for some time. They weren't homeless people, but I fail to see the difference between an encampment of homeless in a public space vs an encampment of protestors in a public space. If there's nothing from stopping the protestors, I assume they will protest indefinitely, thus they'll be "living" in Grant Park for some time.

Someone on here had mentioned something I never thought of before, and it might be a cop out I don't know but "quality of life" isn't something for people of authority or higher societal status to figure out for another person. To put it another way, just because a person is living on the street doesn't mean that person doesn't want to live on the street and you, as an individual, shouldn't make such assumptions. They may seem to be in a bad state, but, perhaps, that's their lifestyle. SF is hands-off for that reason.

The services exist in SF for those who want treatment; a homeless person may subsist on the nice weather and any government social services alone if they choose that lifestyle. People go in and get their treatment, food, medicine, blankets, etc. and then they're on their way back to their living area.

Is it right for me to judge them based on their lifestyle? Should the government insist that they're living incorrectly and explain to them that they're messed up in the head and that normal people don't want to live on the streets?

Re: The little things I learned in the valley

#65

Post by tptacek »

debt wrote: post #64
tptacek wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your second graf; you seem to be referring to an Occupy protest as an "encampment of homeless people", but those two things obviously aren't equivalent. San Francisco differs from Chicago on homelessness in two significant ways: the weather and environment is amenable year-round, while Chicago is inhospitable for 1/4 of the year, and San Francisco's politics regarding homeless people are "hands-off…

The CPD definitely makes it a priority to treat people as "blight" in the more touristy areas(Grant Park, Loop, Navy Pier, North Ave. Beach, etc); be it protestors or homeless people, they're quick to, literally in some cases, extricate them from the area. The Occupy protests in NYC turned into an encampment of people for some time. They weren't homeless people, but I fail to see the difference between an encampment…

Three things:

1. The difference between an Occupy encampment and a clustered homeless population is that the Occupy encampment is there to disrupt the surrounding area (that's the point: to generate awareness) and the homeless cluster is there for safety and convenience --- in other words, for the intrinsic benefit of the people in the cluster. Policy responses to those two different circumstances aren't comparable.

2. I do not disagree that displacing organic, emergent clusters of homeless people to improve optics and quality of life for residents and tourists is an unfriendly and probably unhelpful policy response to homelessness. It is not my contention that shuttling homeless people out of the Mag Mile in Chicago is a positive step. This is, however, the standard policy response to homelessness in much of the US (not just Chicago), because the overwhelming majority of urban residents want it to be.

3. The relativism underpinning your sentiment about not judging the lifestyle of the homeless is disquieting. Homeless people aren't hobos. They aren't deliberately living a different lifestyle. They are an underserved population of mentally ill, substance-dependent people continually victimized by their circumstances through lack of medical care, death by exposure, and crime. Let me help you out: it is OK to judge homelessness as bad. Homelessness is bad.

Re: The little things I learned in the valley

#66

Post by peterwwillis »

dntrkv wrote: post #61
untog wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's my point. Only 39% of homeless people have mental issues[1]. It's not correct to characterise homelessness as caused by mental problems. [1] http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html

Sure, it may not be the leading cause. But the homeless that people are usually referring to when they talk about San Francisco's homeless problem, are the ones with mental issues or addiction problems. I rarely ever see the regular, sane, homeless people sprawled across the sidewalk in the middle of the day. It's always the drug addicts or the mentally ill.

Well sure. People come to the conclusion that most homeless are crazy or addicts based on what they see. Of course they only ever see crazies and addicts. They're the loudest, the weirdest, the scariest, the least self-aware, and the least likely to have any kind of refuge.

The rest of the homeless are hiding from the myriad threads, difficulties and humiliations they're exposed to on a daily basis. The regular, sane, homeless people don't want to be sprawled across a sidewalk in the middle of the day. They want to watch over their stuff, or try to find food or medical assistance or clothing, or solicit donations, or try to contact estranged family/friends, or whatever else they can do to survive.

Re: The little things I learned in the valley

#67

Post by debt »

tptacek wrote: post #65
debt wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CPD definitely makes it a priority to treat people as "blight" in the more touristy areas(Grant Park, Loop, Navy Pier, North Ave. Beach, etc); be it protestors or homeless people, they're quick to, literally in some cases, extricate them from the area. The Occupy protests in NYC turned into an encampment of people for some time. They weren't homeless people, but I fail to see the difference between an encampment…

Three things: 1. The difference between an Occupy encampment and a clustered homeless population is that the Occupy encampment is there to disrupt the surrounding area (that's the point: to generate awareness) and the homeless cluster is there for safety and convenience --- in other words, for the intrinsic benefit of the people in the cluster. Policy responses to those two different circumstances aren't comparable.…

1. Regardless, I believe the Occupy movement in NYC wasn't very disruptive. It was more of a peaceful protest. So I was going off that.

3. While I agree a large percentage of the homeless in Chicago are as you describe; it seems, at least from what I've read, SF contains a large enough percentage of homeless people that also seem to choose the lifestyle.

http://www.dailycal.org/2012/10/22/homeless-by-choice/

Read the comments for more insight into the mindset.

Re: The little things I learned in the valley

#68

Post by GregorStocks »

orky56 wrote: post #31
ar7hur wrote: post #5

> Palo Alto, Mountain View etc. are no more part of Silicon Valley Seems somewhat exaggerated to me. There's definitely a shift from the valley to the city (and Palantir eating up all available space in PA sure catalyzes this process), but I wouldn't say PA/MV are "no more part of SV".

The sexy, consumer-focused startups are in SF and where people want to be. Down in Mountain View & Palo Alto is where the VCs, unsexy B2B startups (Box), and accelerators (YC/500) are thriving. 20 something bachelors & DINCs want to live in the city where it's fun and happening whereas mothers/fathers would rather raise a family in the suburbia of the peninsula. I won't deny the trend towards SF as VCs and accelerato…

for reference, DINC = double income no children

Re: The little things I learned in the valley

#69

Post by tptacek »

debt wrote: post #67
tptacek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three things: 1. The difference between an Occupy encampment and a clustered homeless population is that the Occupy encampment is there to disrupt the surrounding area (that's the point: to generate awareness) and the homeless cluster is there for safety and convenience --- in other words, for the intrinsic benefit of the people in the cluster. Policy responses to those two different circumstances aren't comparable.…

1. Regardless, I believe the Occupy movement in NYC wasn't very disruptive. It was more of a peaceful protest. So I was going off that. 3. While I agree a large percentage of the homeless in Chicago are as you describe; it seems, at least from what I've read, SF contains a large enough percentage of homeless people that also seem to choose the lifestyle . http://www.dailycal.org/2012/10/22/homeless-by-choice/ Read th…

The belief that homeless people in SF want to be homeless and should be left alone to be homeless does a pretty good job of encapsulating the qualms people have about how SF deals with homelessness.

Re: The little things I learned in the valley

#70

Post by lquist »

kyro wrote: post #33

What was most off putting on my last trip to SF was the juxtaposition of the yuppie and homeless worlds. It wasn't uncommon to see long lines for local chic coffee shops full of young, well-to-do individuals while the homeless begged, urinated and defacated on the same stretch of sidewalk to often no acknowledgement by the former group. I live in NYC so I see homeless people every day, but here you don't see such an…

That's because Bloomberg moved all the homeless to the Bronx and outskirts of the city...
Post reply on HN