|
As someone considering moving from Long Beach, CA to Austin, I'm very much looking forward to it. I've visited the latter multiple times, and as far as I can tell, it has better beer, prettier women who are way less fake, friendlier and more down-to-earth people, and a way more interesting culture. Not to mention actual seasons. gently caress SoCal, basically.
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:Congrats on moving to a massively segregated city too And SoCal isn't segregated? Thanks for the laugh. edit: which neighborhood has the hottest girls? I was thinking south congress. Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 02:09 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:*Sitting in OC, the Texas of CA* That's funny, I thought everyone was saying Austin is not like the rest of the state!
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
redscare posted:Have you been to Austin? It's not actually that cool, unless you like your hipsters with a Texas accent. Yeah, I've visited about twelve times over the past four years, and my sister actually lives there. Like I said, it's far superior to SoCal.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Someone rename this "Californians can't stop talking about Texas" thread. Because clearly its what everyone wants to do. Texas is the state California gets compared to the most, and there are very good reasons for it.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Larry Ellison actually splits his donations between democrats and republicans. Never before have I seen such a perfect example of "investing in the status quo."
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Prop 13 is single-handedly responsible for all the budget problems the state has had since Reagan was governor. You must be living in some sort of bizarro-reality to deny this.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Yes you've been taught your talking point very well. Despite the 4th highest taxes in the nation, prop 13 has reduced CA to a desert wasteland devoid of life. There has been no growth in the real estate market and it's impossible to buy a new house. Did you work hard to pull this strawman out of your rear end, or is it something you have a lot of practice with? quote:Oh wait, they're making GBS threads them everywhere like crazy and all this hand wringing over prop 13 is just a bunch of folks trying to play playground monitor with other people's stuff. I don't care about other people's stuff, I just want them to pay their fair share of taxes. And that "fair share" is more than 1-2% of your property's cash value, sorry.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
on the left posted:Fair share of taxes really should be determined by income level, rather than the value of illiquid assets. On the contrary, income is irrelevant. This is about wealth. Assets, illiquid or not, are part of someone's wealth. And if there is one thing Piketty's book hammers home, it is the fact that taxing income doesn't do much, and it is wealth that should be taxed.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Papercut posted:I only caught about 15 minutes of the show, but it was the perfect summary of why blaming tech workers for the Bay Area's housing crisis is missing the forest for the trees. Maybe, but that doesn't matter when said trees are the most immediately visible causes of the problems in the forest.  If I were a tech company, I'd make my busses look as generic as possible. Maybe even run-down.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The thing is, is if the tech companies wanted to earn some respect from their communities it is relatively easy to work with transit authorities to pay for additional bus routes that cover your commuter need. Other large employers do this all the time, even here in the Bay. Unfortunately capitalism says that a public company's first responsibility is to its shareholders and it must come in the form of maximizing profits. You can bet your rear end that some shareholders (especially rich/influential ones) would throw a hissyfit if they found out that these companies are planning to do "socialist" stuff like improve public transit. And if the companies in question have one bad quarter, programs like that would be the first to get cut anyway, making the improvements unreliable and sporadic. From the city government's perspective, the way I would approach the problem would be by providing tax benefits or other financial incentives to companies who allow their employees telecommute. Reduce the number of people who need to be in the office every day of the week and you'll go a long way towards solving issues related to commuting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
I think you guys are generalizing based on a few bad apples. While this guy sounds like a total moron, there are lots of intelligent people working in the startup space on meaningful, impactful and ethical projects.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
So much bile and hatred in this thread. It's kind of funny.ShutteredIn posted:Source your quotes. Quick examples: Chegg - Allows students to rent textbooks, massively reducing one of the biggest quarterly expenses for them (not to mention battle the predatory textbook industry) oDesk - Helps freelancers and remote workers get hired, reducing people's dependence on full-time corporate jobs LightSail - Capturing heat energy from compressed air to provide clean energy I could go on. Now, if you want to read a few articles in the news and jump to the conclusion that people like this Brian Mayer kid are the norm in the Valley, that's your prerogative. But I think that would simply prove that you're just as stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So your examples are: Yep. Just like Amazon was a bookstore (but online!) on the left posted:The impact is that they do it without as much human labor, and funnel those savings into the owner's pocket, while telling people who are now displaced by technology to go gently caress themselves. Wah wah, automation is taking our jobs away, wah wah. Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Seriously. Trabisnikof, I don't know what world you live in, but in this one Amazon has had a dramatically positive impact on online commerce. This hasn't benefited just them either. There are over two million sellers on the Amazon marketplace -- many of them small shops and businesses -- and last year alone they conducted tens of billions of dollars in combined sales.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I never was saying that Silicon Valley is the great evil, but that Silicon Valley gets a free pass on being "good" and "ethical". Remember, this discussed was sparked by the number of silicon valley companies and leaders who believe generally "if it sells it must be ethical". There is a general mood for some reason if tech or startups are involved our ability to criticism them for ethical lapses should somehow be reduced. Please provide quotations from this thread that supports this assertion. quote:Silicon Valley isn't out to save, empower, or help us. They're businesses out to make money as they should. They aren't our saviors and they aren't out to do "good" by you or me, unless that helps them somehow. Sure there are some who have loftier goals, but it's not fair to characterize any industry by glorifying a small section of their industry and then pretending they're representative of the norm. Silicon Valley has been a prime driver of innovation in this country for the past 60 years. The average American household owes a lot of its economic wellbeing and standard of living to the technology that was invented in the Valley. And I'm not sure if you notice, but a lot of other countries are trying to emulate the model, and for good reason: technological advancement correlates with a ton of other important metrics. Trabisnikof posted:And actually compared to their market cap or revenues tech companies (that don't manufacture their own hardware) produce far fewer jobs than similar sized companies in other industries. So sure, a successful software startup might have thousands of employees eventually, but that company will be worth billions and if it wasn't a tech company they'd hired tens of thousands. Tech companies employ fewer people, because the very technology that they use makes them more efficient. Efficiency is a good thing. It allows society to produce the same output with fewer resources, whether those resources are time, people or raw materials. If you want to provide jobs to people, pay them to go dig ditches out in the desert.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Wow, I missed that crazy statement. That's a perfect example of the self-centered and entitled attitude that is more and more pervasive in SV. computer parts posted:Hmmm. What exactly is "self-centered" or "entitled" about that statement? Here, I'll provide it again for context: enraged_camel posted:Silicon Valley has been a prime driver of innovation in this country for the past 60 years. The average American household owes a lot of its economic wellbeing and standard of living to the technology that was invented in the Valley. Please state the nature of your disagreement, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:[Apple... Google... Microsoft...] Wow, you have such an incredibly narrow perspective it's nothing short of amazing. You're way too focused on the number of people the companies you cited employ directly, and you completely ignore the entirely new markets and platforms they have created that employ or otherwise provide income for tens of millions of people. I'm not talking about just software either. There's also hardware, manufacturing, marketing, sales, and much more.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm not sure where exactly the motivation to try and play down SV's contribution comes from. Whether it's anger about some lovely new software companies that have been in the news lately, or the Google Bus phenomenon, or just general malaise about the income gap (exemplified by the paychecks of Silicon Valley CEOs), it doesn't matter really. Say what you want about the specific lovely behavior of specific lovely companies and I'm on board, those are facts that can be discussed. Talk about specific unethical practices infecting the IT industry even, and I'm on board. Try and act like the global hub of software and information technology just isn't that big of a deal, though, and you're being absurd. I'd say that the tech media contributes to the anger. They go after sensational stories - like the one about the Google Glass girl leaving the restaurant after being asked to take it off - because they know those stories will get read, shared and talked about. And then you get goons who just eat those stories up and post vitriolic nonsense about how entitled tech workers are and how Silicon Valley is the home of the devil and poo poo. People also don't realize how big of a role the PR industry plays in shaping public opinion. If I were a large tech company outside the valley, I'd be willing to pay a PR agency large sums of money to feed the media stories about how awful Silicon Valley is, with an innocent, tiny tidbit about how many tech workers are migrating to [insert my company hometown here] because it's much nicer. That results in a larger pool of local workers to recruit from and also makes those workers cheaper. Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
cafel posted:I don't think it's quite as clear cut that urban and exurban sprawl, reduced air quality, climate change and the global political effects of the American demand for cheap fossil fuels are completely balanced out by the ability to easily take road trips. I like how you're distilling the benefits of automobile down to "the ability to easily take road trips." It's laughably short-sighted.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So are you willing to say that: Sure. But those cities innovate in different fields. Silicon Valley innovates in the high-tech field. Houston innovates in energy. Detroit innovated in manufacturing, before those jobs left America. Boston... sure, it innovates in tech, but it's far behind Silicon Valley so I wouldn't call it a "prime" driver of innovation in tech.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So your statement is pretty meaningless if it boils down to "The average American household owes a lot of its economic wellbeing and standard of living to the technology that was invented". (Also, I'd check your assumptions about the Boston area, poo poo like LORAN was pretty important and we're talking about the last 60 years remember). Perhaps the problem is that you are trying to attach too much meaning to that statement to begin with. I simply posted it in response to your dismissal of Silicon Valley as "businesses out to make money as they should." No, SV is a lot more than that. To understand this, you need to understand how innovation happens. I suggest (re)reading Leperfresh's post. quote:Also you've never actually responded to my 3 criticism of that point. The average American household owes Silicon Valley no more than it owes Houston, Schenectady, College Station, Davis, Los Alamos or any other center of innovation. The point is that they are tiny centers of innovation compared to Silicon Valley. Look, there are many good loving reasons, explained by Leperfresh, why Silicon Valley is the prime location for tech companies. There's a ton of amazing technology that comes out of the place because it has a critical mass of tech companies, highly educated workers, great research institutions and venture capital firms. You simply cannot find that combination elsewhere in nearly the same density (for example, it has the highest number of Fortune 1000 tech companies). Sure, technology occasionally comes out of places like Los Alamos, but measure it in the aggregate and you'll see that it pales in comparison to the stuff that gets invented and funded in the Valley.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're still ignoring the fact that Sillion Valley hasn't been the prime driver of innovation in the Unites States for 60 years. Provide one source to back up this incredible assertion. I didn't say "the" prime. I said "a" prime. Gotta work on that reading comprehension, brother.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So now your admitting that Silicon Valley isn't more important to economic wellbeing and standard of living in America than any other center of innovation (such as the myriad listed in this thread)? I'd say it's in top three. If you look at just tech, it's easily number 1. Easily.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
etalian posted:Even HBO's excellent Silicon Valley got a butthurt reaction from tech gods like Elon Musk since it had the gall to parody and mock the lofty aspirations of the california tech industry. I wouldn't put Elon Musk in the same category as the makers of the "Yo" app. The man is doing a ton of good stuff for society and he doesn't seem to care about his own wealth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
My job title is Sales Engineer. I'll be expecting that cease-and-desist letter in the mail, goons.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Besides that, the whole "are they real engineers???" debate in this thread is another symptom of D&D's insane hatred and stereotyping of American society's upper-middle class and rich. Between Trabisnikof's crazy ramblings about how Silicon Valley is no different than Houston or Los Alamos ( ), and Nonsense's... well, nonsense, it's difficult to make out any real arguments that are actually about the state's politics.Here, let's talk about things that matter. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/california-death-penalty_n_5592448.html quote:A federal judge has ruled that California's death penalty system is unconstitutional.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I must have missed when Arizona elected a gay schoolteacher to Congress. Riverside resident spotted.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
I think the more interesting tidbit is this:quote:Supporters of the Six Californias measure sponsored by Tim Draper, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, turned in more than 1.13 million signatures. But a statewide sampling showed that only 752,685 of them were from voters registered in California, short of the 807,615 needed to qualify for the ballot, the secretary of state said. So they got over 350,000 signatures from non-Californians. Now we gotta figure out how many of them were Texans who simply want California to burn. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Pohl posted:This is true, but gently caress them. They can cry and be big babies. gently caress 'em. Let's not put women on a pedestal. Both men and women can be idiotic children when it comes to sex. Some women are awesome, some aren't. Just like some men are awesome and some aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
This part is still BS:quote:Q: If I leave my job, can I cash out my unused sick days, like I can with vacation and paid time off? I hate that vacation time can be cashed out but sick time can't. Way to punish people for being healthy...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't actually give a poo poo what standards the CA university systems use to define rape, but I do care that it is a red herring distracting from the terrible systems currently used by colleges and universities all over the country to routinely deny access to higher education to disadvantaged students who are accused of basically anything that the university would rather just not deal with or put any real effort into investigating. Yep. Basically it's just like how HR departments behave in most disputes: they prefer to just fire the trouble-causing employee(s) rather than field any sort of serious investigation into the root cause of the dispute.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:According to the following article by the Economist, http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21621819-californias-new-standard-consent-future-america-yes-means-yes-says-mr, rape and sexual assault rates are pretty much the same for 18-24 year old women who attend and who don't attend college. This seems to be at odds with the often-told narrative of college campuses being hotbeds for rape and sexual assault. I would bet the numbers would look very different if you compare the Greek systems with the rest of the university, however.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I have no idea how new grads without crazy good prospects are supposed to sustain themselves out here, let alone people still in college. Live with roommates or even with parents if they have the choice, work multiple jobs (or job + freelance) and refrain from doing dumb stuff like going out every weekend and upgrading their smartphones and tablets every year. Besides that, just save save save.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
withak posted:I vaguely remember reading a while back about Google looking into building on-campus housing and running into zoning issues. They also tried a giant container ship off the coast.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:$1000 a month for a 1 bedroom in CA is fine. The real issue is that grad students in the UC system without extra grant funding make like $18K a year. The solution is to not become a grad student unless your employer pays for it or you have a guaranteed job offer for when you get your degree.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Sydin posted:They can only jack these up so much before the majority of students can't afford university or to pay back their staggering student loans. I swear it's like they want the student loan bubble to burst so hard it tanks the economy again. The student loan bubble will burst. It is inevitable. The difference is that, unlike with banks and car companies, students will not be bailed out by the government, and their debt won't be forgiven.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't see how the bubble bursts. Mass refusal of students to repay? The government can ensure that the only way to avoid payment is to be permanently unemployed. Until that happens, the banks are guaranteed their money one way or the other. Drop in enrollment? Despite the popular outcry about worthless $100k degrees, on balance it is still worthwhile to get a college degree: lifetime earnings go up on average more than tuition costs. They may be guaranteed their money, but if enough students can't pay enough of their loans back in a timely fashion, for one reason or another, it would still cause the same cascading effect. I mean, if you were a bank and you lent someone $100,000, them paying back $100 per year doesn't really help you. Sure, you make a ton more money over a period of one thousand years due to interest, but that's pointless. Because when you lent that money, you did so with the expectation of getting it repaid before civilization collapses.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Keep in mind that the reason student loans can't be discharged is because of the implicit assumption, backed by reams of post-war data that probably no longer holds true, that a college degree results in higher lifetime earnings, some of which the person can and should use to comfortably pay back the loans. The average debt of college graduates continues to increase because even if they are lucky enough to find jobs, they end up underemployed and/or significantly underpaid at lovely administrative-type office work. It's all going to blow up soon. Just a matter of time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
How about you two post some explanation or at least a title for those?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 09:27
|
|