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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by metadat »

saagarjha wrote: post #564
weitendorf wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hard time imagine that they'd enjoy commuting via BART or Caltrain for more than an hour every day. IME this is definitely true and…

Google has offices in San Francisco but it also has offices in South San Francisco, San Bruno, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San Jose. And probably some other cities I forgot. The "reason" Google has an office anywhere has to do more with "why not" rather than anything else.

I wish I understood what you're getting at, because Google does not consider it's employees at all at this point, it's late stage capitalism sweetie. Is there a point, can you clarify?

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

#732

Post by deathanatos »

poisonarena wrote: post #699
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.

reading this as a mariner who works 2-4 months straight, on a ship, in deep sea, 12 hour work day, and no days off (working saturday and sunday).. lol you dont know how bad it really is..

I'm going to assume your work requires your physical presence on that ship, in the deep sea, though. My work, however, does not. Further, employers are, on the whole, cheap, and want to pack workers into as small a footprint as possible. (Literally, 4' or less.) I can build a better work environment at home, for under $1k.

"My [unrelated] job is worse" is not a logical reason for me to abstain from advocating for better work conditions for myself, where there is a possibility of better work conditions. I can dislike things about one tech job vs. another tech job while still appreciating that the conditions of either job probably far exceed that of a career I wouldn't like.

(And, I would also still default to advocating for sane worker's rights in your industry too, unless there is some compelling reason that working >8h/d, 7d/wk makes some sort of sense in your industry.)

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

#733

Post by nradov »

gmadsen wrote: post #713
silisili wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget access to doctors and hospitals. I browse city-data at times out of boredom, and it's a major concern for retired people considering relocating anywhere.

Palo Alto is suburbs. It is also home to the best medical care in the world...

Better than Rochester, MN?

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

#734

Post by dfadsadsf »

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.

Well, Dubai, Kuwait, Singapore and a bunch of other places clearly demonstrate that you can have high inequality and close to zero street crime.

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

#735

Post by hughesjj »

hintymad wrote: post #557
jacobolus wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> For the kids themselves, cities are wonderful and suburbs are often a kind of prison I grew up in a mega city and I agree that cities are wonderful for kids, at least they were wonderful for me and my friends. I'd venture to guess that kids don't care. Cities or not, the world is just so much fun and exciting. I don't know if suburbs are prisons for kids, though. My kids love suburbs, and they also love cities when…

> Instead, I just want to have walking distance to woods and shaded trails.

Most places that have woods at all also have this.

Golden gate park+presidio in SF, discovery+arboretum+Seward+ a bunch more in seattle, central park in NYC, fairmont park in Philly are all places I've loved walking/biking around (and to).

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

#736

Post by dbbk »

ben_w wrote: post #262
dbbk wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure the site still mostly works in the technical sense They just auto-banned everyone who downloaded their new Mac app so... no

Oh? I missed that news. Edit: This, I guess: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/x-kills-its-mac-app-ac...

Yep happened to me. 16 year old account. Oh well, Threads it is.

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

#737

Post by hughesjj »

slyall wrote: post #703
CalChris wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in San Francisco in the very late 70s through to the 00s. My first apartment share was $50/mo. The late 70s had the dying embers of the Beat Generation and San Francisco was a sleepy town. San Francisco was great in the 80s with a ton of theater, music, dance, art, everything. It was good in the 90s although the late 90s dotcom boom pushed/priced artists out. The 00s became pretty boring and compressed. I mov…

I've seen similar complaints from cities in rich countries around the globe Basically to have thriving arts scene you need people in the 20s-30s to be able to live on a minimum wage job and do art/music/whatever in their spare time. Even better if it is a part-time job or some sort of government scheme. If your cost of living is too high then you are restricting yourself to trust-fund 20yo and older people with a bit…

20s really is the perfect time to live downtown.

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

#738

Post by fastball »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #659
robertoandred wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't blame crime on the poor.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472... . There is compelling evidence crime is correlated with inequality.

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

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

#740

Post by a-dub »

jjav wrote: post #510
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…

Not relevant to any current actions by Twitter, but an interesting historical perspective is that it was very rare for a tech company to be in San Francisco. Approximately all tech companies were in Silicon Valley proper (thus named) which is about (depending on who was drawing the boundaries) about 30-60 minutes south of San Francisco. When Twitter opened in San Francisco I distinctly remember how weird it was to se…

historically there was a lot of media and some internet in sf. more interesting hardware type tech companies generally clustered in the south bay with some exceptions (oqo, sega).

twitter was notable because they put a big campus in midmarket... but there was plenty of internet and multimedia that preceded them. (organic, macromedia, razorfish come to mind but there were countless others)

sure, no sun or apple, but let's be clear, twitter was no sun or apple either.

Post reply on HN