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

891–900 of 1001 posts

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

#891

Post by greenavocado »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #882
seizethecheese wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve had several meetings, either in Twitter office or around it, and the street scene is very bad in that part of SF. If the claim is that this is a motivation for the move, it certainly passes the sniff test for me.

Why do the citizens of SF like living in such squalor?

Homeless industrial complex. First you cause the crisis then you profit off of the solutions that claim to fix it (but never fix it).

https://yandex.com/search/touch/?text=san+francisco+homeless...

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

#893

Post by cyphertruck »

verandaguy wrote: post #670
cyphertruck wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 adve…

Government using force, whitewashed with a thin veneer of an NGO to cartelize advertisers and censor twitter is not “free speech”.

You pretended to be unaware of the situation then you straight up lie to push the dishonest narrative.

You support censorship.

This site literally bans anyone who defends conservative positions.

There’s nothing more hypocritical than leftists pretending to care about human rights.

I’m not going to indulge pretending otherwise.

You cannot lie your way into moral superiority.

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

#894

Post by flanked-evergl »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #890
flanked-evergl wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do the citizens of SF like living in such squalor?

The obvious answer is they don't, and it is a tough problem to fix

The way I see it, the main way in which the citizens of SF can fix it is by voting for something different, but they don't. So it certainly does seem like they find the status quo preferable to alternatives.

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

#895

Post by flanked-evergl »

greenavocado wrote: post #891
flanked-evergl wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do the citizens of SF like living in such squalor?

Homeless industrial complex. First you cause the crisis then you profit off of the solutions that claim to fix it (but never fix it). https://yandex.com/search/touch/?text=san+francisco+homeless...

But the citizens of SF can just stop electing local governments that fund this, yet they don't. I can certainly see how they contributed to causing the crisis (i.e. by electing people who caused it), but I don't see how they profit from it, unless the people in SF likes such conditions, which seems pretty weird, at least to me.

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

#896

Post by cyphertruck »

latentcall wrote: post #518
cyphertruck wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"illegal cartel boycott" I'm not sure what you're talking about, can you fill me in a little bit?

From the CEO: https://x.com/lindayax/status/1820838625245880634

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

#897

Post by delfinom »

drawnwren wrote: post #788
darby_nine wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You know an area is fucked when people start trying to blame the victims for the crime.

Not to mention talk about "survival skills" as if that should be normal in a highly wealthy western country in a highly wealthy city. That's shit you talk about in developing countries.

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

#898

Post by pokot0 »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #894
s1artibartfast wrote: post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious answer is they don't, and it is a tough problem to fix

The way I see it, the main way in which the citizens of SF can fix it is by voting for something different, but they don't. So it certainly does seem like they find the status quo preferable to alternatives.

Before you jump to that conclusion you have to be sure that: - such politician exist (politician is not where we humans shine) - you believe the ones who claim they will fix it - the one that you believe can fix it don’t come with values that you cannot accept (extreme example: “I’ll kill all homeless people. vote me!”

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

#899

Post by klabb3 »

itsoktocry wrote: post #887
throw__away7391 wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you make tech money It is a great tragedy that the US with all its money and diversity of geography and people has only really managed to produce a single walkable city and a scattered handful of “I don’t always use my car” neighborhoods, which are always the most expensive places to live. So many cities outside the US manage to do this on a fraction of the budget.

> It is a great tragedy that the US with all its money and diversity of geography and people has only really managed to produce a single walkable city Have you considered, then, that many people do not actually want this? > So many cities outside the US manage to do this on a fraction of the budget. Young yuppies with their Silicon Valley salaries get to spend time in European city AirBnbs and wonder "why can't Ameri…

> Have you considered, then, that many people do not actually want this?

If so, the European city planning wouldn’t be popular within the US, but it’s the opposite. The few European style cities are incredibly attractive to live in.

> Young yuppies with their Silicon Valley salaries get to spend time in European city AirBnbs and wonder "why can't America be like this?"

Right.. and? They’re not representative? Or it’s unrealistic? That’s a perfectly reasonable question to ask for those that do get the opportunity to see functional dense urban areas in other places, especially as they don’t require anywhere near SV salaries yet are still lively and safe.

I don’t think the US will drop car centrism, partly because of the perpetual lower class social issues that make it dangerous to share public space with strangers, but you can get pretty far if you mix in high volume public transit like in NYC (or even SF BART for a smaller example), which greatly reduces the dead spaces that prevent walkability.

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

#900

Post by alright2565 »

itsoktocry wrote: post #887
throw__away7391 wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you make tech money It is a great tragedy that the US with all its money and diversity of geography and people has only really managed to produce a single walkable city and a scattered handful of “I don’t always use my car” neighborhoods, which are always the most expensive places to live. So many cities outside the US manage to do this on a fraction of the budget.

> It is a great tragedy that the US with all its money and diversity of geography and people has only really managed to produce a single walkable city Have you considered, then, that many people do not actually want this? > So many cities outside the US manage to do this on a fraction of the budget. Young yuppies with their Silicon Valley salaries get to spend time in European city AirBnbs and wonder "why can't Ameri…

> that many people do not actually want this?

The concept of supply & demand shows people obviously do want this, given that the cost of living in that walkable city and in walkable places is so high.

The real reason? Americans become infatuated with the latest technological marvel too easily. For a while, this was the car. And unfortunately, rolling back all these car subsidies takes a while and is heavily fought against because people hate the feeling of having something taken from them.

Post reply on HN