Why San Francisco Is Not New York • Hacker News Board

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#91

Post by eddieroger » Sun, Mar 23, 2014, 7:50 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #41

eddieroger wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having spent time in both, but living in neither, I think that's fair. Specifically, good observation on the cleanliness of the city. New York is busy, but I never felt it was dirty in the way I immediately felt SF was. I think a large part of it was the uncontrolled panhandling and the fact that there are certain areas that those folks know will be busy, so they go there. I've never seen anyone openly urinate on the…

It also helps that it rains more in NYC. NYC is a wonder to behold a few hours after a rainstorm. I've noticed that places that don't get lots of rain just look perpetually more "dirty" and used. NYC also has this weird way of turning filth into part of the set piece of the city that very few places can manage.

Yeah - the rain doesn't get enough credit. Contrast that with New Orleans where they literally hose Bourbon Street down every morning and it still feels gross. Crediting the rain starts to get close to blurring the lines between dirty and lived in - they're not necessarily the same.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#92

Post by jortiz81 » Sun, Mar 23, 2014, 8:38 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #72

jortiz81 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a native New Yorker but lived in the SF Bay Area for 9 years. I agree with this assessment. The quality for the price in generally better in the Bay Area, since a lot of the food is local and super fresh. That said, the diversity of cuisines in NYC in much, much broader than SF. For example, in SF you can find Salvadorian and Mexican food quite easily, but New York has food from all parts of Latin America. The sa…

That really boils down to a critical mass of the relevant ethnicity. If you don't have enough Thai people in a given area than you aren't going to have Thai markets, which is going to make it very difficult to get the proper ingredients to make a great jungle curry. The sheer number of non-trivial ethnic sub-populations in Queens alone, much less all of NYC, makes it an unfair contest.

I mean, none of these are truly fair comparisons. There's no question that there are many things Sf will be better at because of its size and there's other things New York can offer because of its size. But that's what this whole thread is about, comparing the two cities regardless of the root causes for their differences. For example, sf has better quality food in general, since the weather is more forgiving and farms and wineries are quite close. Still, there's no question that the food in sf is of higher quality on average.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#93

Post by wpietri » Sun, Mar 23, 2014, 8:49 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #59

pg wrote: post #46

I lived in NYC at one point, and I'd agree that the two cities are fundamentally different, but I think he missed what may be the biggest source of the difference: the proportion of people playing zero-sum games. A lot of the most ambitious people in NYC work in finance, whereas in SF hardly any do. Nearly all the most ambitious people in SF make money by creating things that other people are willing to pay them for.…

In don't think "zero sum game" means what you think it means. Lots of people in San Francisco engage in transactions, and lots of people in New York engage in reducing transaction costs. Neither are "zero sum" endeavors. Insurance is a great example. My office used to sit in the shadow of the Met-Life building. They don't make anything, so they must be zero sum. Wrong. Insurance enables transactions to happen that wo…

Having worked in finance, I can promise you that a lot of people in finance are playing zero-sum games. All trading is basically zero sum. No trader goes home saying, "Hey, honey, I imperceptably increased global liquidity today; yay me!" They say things like, "I'm fucking awesome. I gutted those chumps in the LIBOR pit. Whores for everybody!" [1]

Anybody working for those people is also essentially playing a zero-sum game, in that their activity is just aiding in shifting value from one pocket to another. Which is why I no longer work in finance; I wanted to do something useful.

[1] Yes, I have actually heard traders say "Whores for everybody!" in the office. At least in the office they were joking.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#94

Post by autodidakto » Sun, Mar 23, 2014, 11:06 PM UTC

mike_herrera wrote: post #42

raverbashing wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" The general ingredient quality just blows NYC away - both meat and produce." Well, west coast (meaning: access to Australia and some other selling markets), good climate, etc

SF's neighbor to-the-east, The San Joaquin Valley, is "the nation's salad bowl." Which also happens to be home to many cattle and sheep operations. Access for foreign imports are important for the gourmet scene, but not necessary.

"Virtually all non-tropical crops are grown in the Central Valley, which is the primary source for a number of food products throughout the United States, including tomatoes, almonds, grapes, cotton, apricots, and asparagus." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_(California)

Minor correction: The San Joaquin Valley in the south half of the Central Valley, and The Sacramento Valley is the north half. The dividing line is the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#95

Post by nextstep » Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 12:53 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #88

nextstep wrote: post #3

Not to mention, New York is relatively clean compared to San Francisco. San Francisco shuts down at 10pm; New York truly is the city that never sleeps, and many neighborhoods feel busy and alive at all hours of the night. The public transportation in SF (and the larger Bay Area) is a classist, unreliable nightmare. New York has probably the best public transit systems in the country. Owning a car in NY is unusual and…

> Owning a car in NY is unusual and unnecessary 46% of NYC households own a car. I don't think that qualifies as "unusual". Or if it does, then some other things that are unusual in NYC are white people (44%) and males (47%). :-) Even in Manhattan, which has the lowest car ownership within the five boroughs, 23% of households own a car, which is hard to describe as "unusual". Some things that are comparably rare in M…

New York City has the highest percent of households without a car for any US city: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_h...

I'd say that makes NY pretty unusual.

Your comparisons are intellectually dishonest.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#96

Post by erddojo » Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 1:02 AM UTC

chubot wrote: post #90

erddojo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're speaking of SOMA like you're familiar with the restaurants here. I'm guessing you're not. Perhaps you live here but are too busy coding to make it past the Creamery? At the "everyday eating level", try Darwin, Little Skillet, Garaje, American Grilled Cheese, Source, Butler and Chef, La Briciola, Coco500, Zuppa, Holy Grill etc. Want to go a little more upscale? Saisan. Alexanders. 25 Lusk. Prospect. Town Hall.…

Wow, wasn't expecting this level of venom for a harmless comment. I lived in SOMA from 2002 to 2004, and from 2008 to 2010, so I know what I'm talking about... you do realize all the places you mentioned opened in the "last 5 years" (or have waiters and are not "every day food"), which I explicitly mentioned in my comment? I'm guessing you don't because you just moved here, and those are the only places in SF you go…

Wasn't intended as venomous, just maybe a little bit of a reality check. And offering an opinion (with real examples) to counter your opinion isn't trollism. Plus your comment never said that any restaurants opened in the past 5 years weren't eligible for consideration (?).

I was on SOMA from '04-'06, then again from '08-present. There were some good places back then too. Some failed. Some are still here but aren't as good as they once were. If you haven't been here in 4 years, why are you spending your time claiming you know the SOMA foodie scene? And then getting all angst-y when countered?

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#97

Post by dennisgorelik » Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 1:30 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #93

rayiner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In don't think "zero sum game" means what you think it means. Lots of people in San Francisco engage in transactions, and lots of people in New York engage in reducing transaction costs. Neither are "zero sum" endeavors. Insurance is a great example. My office used to sit in the shadow of the Met-Life building. They don't make anything, so they must be zero sum. Wrong. Insurance enables transactions to happen that wo…

Having worked in finance, I can promise you that a lot of people in finance are playing zero-sum games. All trading is basically zero sum. No trader goes home saying, "Hey, honey, I imperceptably increased global liquidity today; yay me!" They say things like, "I'm fucking awesome. I gutted those chumps in the LIBOR pit. Whores for everybody!" [1] Anybody working for those people is also essentially playing a zero-su…

Even if some traders think that they are playing zero-sum game - it does not mean that traders actually play zero-sum game.

Benefit of trading is increased liquidity.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#98

Post by tzs » Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 1:39 AM UTC

nextstep wrote: post #95

tzs wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Owning a car in NY is unusual and unnecessary 46% of NYC households own a car. I don't think that qualifies as "unusual". Or if it does, then some other things that are unusual in NYC are white people (44%) and males (47%). :-) Even in Manhattan, which has the lowest car ownership within the five boroughs, 23% of households own a car, which is hard to describe as "unusual". Some things that are comparably rare in M…

New York City has the highest percent of households without a car for any US city: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_h... I'd say that makes NY pretty unusual. Your comparisons are intellectually dishonest.

You didn't say that NY was unusual in car ownership. You said owning a car in NY was unusual. Try writing more carefully next time.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#99

Post by wpietri » Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 2:43 AM UTC

dennisgorelik wrote: post #97

wpietri wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked in finance, I can promise you that a lot of people in finance are playing zero-sum games. All trading is basically zero sum. No trader goes home saying, "Hey, honey, I imperceptably increased global liquidity today; yay me!" They say things like, "I'm fucking awesome. I gutted those chumps in the LIBOR pit. Whores for everybody!" [1] Anybody working for those people is also essentially playing a zero-su…

Even if some traders think that they are playing zero-sum game - it does not mean that traders actually play zero-sum game. Benefit of trading is increased liquidity.

It matters entirely for the psychology of the industry's culture.

However, increased liquidity is of no direct value. It only matters if people get better prices, or get deals closed significantly sooner. For a trader's participation to be positive sum, the benefit of their capital has to be larger than the costs they impose. Given that every trader is working to make the opposite true, surely many of them are negative sum. Especially given that capital can be deployed to reduce liquidity just as well as increase it.

Re: Why San Francisco Is Not New York

#100

Post by iansimon » Mon, Mar 24, 2014, 4:32 AM UTC

pg wrote: post #46

I lived in NYC at one point, and I'd agree that the two cities are fundamentally different, but I think he missed what may be the biggest source of the difference: the proportion of people playing zero-sum games. A lot of the most ambitious people in NYC work in finance, whereas in SF hardly any do. Nearly all the most ambitious people in SF make money by creating things that other people are willing to pay them for.…

Other people being willing to pay for something doesn't necessarily make it positive-sum or economically productive. A lot of startups (certainly not all) seem to be trying to win tournaments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_theory

In that sense, SF is is similar to Hollywood. And the result is that society devotes too many resources to the next big social network or the next big summer blockbuster, and not enough to, say, making comfortable chairs.