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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by theGnuMe »

jacobolus wrote: post #552
bluGill wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Middle ages folks hate it because they are most likely to have kids and cities (in the US) tend to be kid hostile. What I'm calling city below is probably better described as downtown - most cities extend out farther and have areas that are nothing like what follows - but are also nothing like what you described as what people move to the city for. Parks in the city tend to be focused on art. They often lack kid basi…

Cities are far more kid-friendly than suburbs, especially for kids from age ~9–18. Everything is walkable or can be reached by transit, many more amenities and activities are accessible, kids are dramatically less dependent on parents or other caretakers to constantly chaperone them, and there are a wider variety of other kids around with many niche interests. Some kids' parents irrationally believe cities will be ba…

That’s it I’m moving back to the city.

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

#662

Post by lazide »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #610
curiousllama wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't know, the residential neighborhoods of SF are the perfect place to raise a family if you make tech money: dense enough that there is a ton of stuff to do and your kid knows other kid nearby, low density enough that you get 1500-2500sqft to yourself.

SF schools and traffic are terrible with kids. Suburbs are generally much mellower.

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

#663

Post by cheschire »

KerrAvon wrote: post #639
trgn wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

turn of the century suburbs truly are goldilocks neighborhoods.

genuinely curious which century you mean?

This is a depressingly good question. I hadn't ever considered we'd be far enough into this one to refer back to the 90's and early aughts as "turn of the century"

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

#664

Post by Apocryphon »

pie420 wrote: post #537
thr0w wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm imagining hordes of 20-something engineers living in the Mission with a 15 minute flat bicycle commute to the X office now having to grapple with getting to San Jose. Probably pretty rough news for a decent amount of people.

they will just work remote

Are they permitted to?

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

#665

Post by FredPret »

mempko wrote: post #642
rapatel0 wrote: post #468

I lived for about 12 months in telegraph hill (got lucky with a solid apartment). I had my wife and 1 year old son. Despite it being a really nice and affluent neighborhood, there was a weekly mugging outside my house. Any packages or items left outside were basically taken if left out for more than 1 hour. My neighbor’s car parked in front of the house was stolen, taken for a joyride and left in a random part of the…

Crime is a function of inequality.

This is a blanket statement and is lazy in the same way as "all government is bad" or "all business owners are bad".

Of course a small portion of all crimes is committed due to poverty. But it's super easy to come up with counter-examples.

Mass murderers are committing crime because they're evil / crazy, not poor. There have been lots of rich mass murderers.

Ponzi schemers do it because they're greedy. Just think Bernie Madoff - already super rich, then decided to steal some more.

Gangs do it because for them it's a business. Again, the gang bosses are already rich but they keep going.

Not one single rape has ever been about inequality.

And so on. In the past, inequality was much worse and more entrenched than it is today, and yet crime during certain historical periods were much lower. Here's an example from the UK: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/oly...

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

#666

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

janalsncm wrote: post #371

Had a recruiter call with Twitter a few months ago. Mandatory in office 5 days per week. Among other things, an hour commute both ways to work was not acceptable. Maybe they will have better luck in Santa Clara. I don’t buy any of the flamebait reasons for leaving SF. Reason 1 is money and reason 2 is talent pool.

Musk runs Twitter like a dictator.

The first and only reason is whatever Musk felt like.

Twitter was imperically a terrible financial decision.

It seems like a bold statement to say the #1 is de facto money.

I suspect non-money issues are much higher on the list.

If anyone on the planet doesn't need more money, it's Musk.

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

#669

Post by cbsmith »

paulsutter wrote: post #434

The issue is the San Francisco gross receipts tax, which becomes problematic for any payments company because it applies to the payments volume Twitter is planning to become a payments platform

There might also be a thing about being millions behind on rent...

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

#670

Post by verandaguy »

cyphertruck wrote: post #511
jsheard wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already cut about 80% of their workforce since Elon took over, I'm not sure how much more attrition they can take. Sure the site still mostly works in the technical sense, but the way it works now has led to a significant decline in revenue and active users.

Active users on the site is setting records pretty regularly, according to Linda. Usability and performance of the site is far higher than before in my experience as well. Revenue is down only due to an illegal cartel boycott, which X has recently filed a lawsuit to resolve.

I've only seen the words "illegal cartel boycott" being used (verbatim, as it were) by Musk, as well as the Twitter account of something called Rumble who are apparently joining Musk in trying to sue the advertisers who left the platform in response to it becoming too volatile to associate their brands with.

Is this the illegal cartel boycott you're talking about?

Would it not be an expression of free speech and advertisers' choice to disassociate from another entity, seen through the lens of Musk's famous free speech absolutism combined with corporate personhood? At worst, wouldn't it be the invisible hand of the free market acting to telegraph reduced demand in a resource by its previous consumers?

Post reply on HN