Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why San Francisco Is the New Renaissance Florence

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the i-left-my-pants-in-san-francisco dept.

Technology 250

waderoush writes "Despite legitimate concerns over sky-high rents, Ellis Act evictions, Google Bus traffic, and the like, the San Francisco Bay Area is perhaps the most prosperous, comfortable, enlightened, stimulating, and generative place to live in Western history. For satisfying parallels, you'd have to look to a place like Florence and a time like the Renaissance, argues an Xconomy essay entitled From Cosimo to Cosmos: The Medici Effect in Culture and Technology. Today's coder-kings are working to reinvent economic structures in much the same way Renaissance painters, poets, architects, and scientists were trying to extend the framework they'd inherited from classical Greece and Rome. And in the role of the Medici family, long Florence's most powerful rulers and art patrons, we have people like Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and Seth MacFarlane. Wait, what — Seth MacFarlane? Yes, the reboot of Carl Sagan's Cosmos starring Neil deGrasse Tyson (itself a tribute to the rise of science) wouldn't have happened without the involvement of a California media mogul. It's true that Silicon Valley can feel like Dante's Inferno if you're stuck in traffic on 101, or working 70-hour weeks as a code monkey at a doomed startup. But 'It would be unthinking, and ungrateful, to overlook the surplus we're reaping from the tech boom,' the essay argues."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wat is this i dont even (1)

bsdasym (829112) | about 8 months ago | (#46487897)

nt

Ozymandias (4, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 8 months ago | (#46488161)

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

The Seconc Coming (2)

bsdasym (829112) | about 8 months ago | (#46488349)

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

sshh! (0)

hguorbray (967940) | about 8 months ago | (#46487907)

don't tell anyone! -it will just mean that more people will want to live here...

Disclaimer -I live in the East Bay(Newark), but spend most weekends in Berkeley/Oakland or SF and it is a great area to live and have fun, se shows, recreate, eat great food, etc

-I'm just sayin'

Re:sshh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488055)

I suppose the author hasn't ever lived in London or Paris.

Re:sshh! (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 8 months ago | (#46488063)

I'm missing something. Are you implying that London or Paris are pleasant places to live? If so... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Re:sshh! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 8 months ago | (#46488193)

Depends where. I live in SF most of most years. London is wonderful, if you got a bit of dosh, and I'm there a few months, pretty regularly. Back in Portobello area...

Paris is just a train ride away. Two tubes and a Eurostar? Downtown Paris, from your Kensington door step. Freakin' great town, if you've French friends. I don't think it would be livable, unless you spoke very good French, 'tho.

Re:sshh! (2)

beelsebob (529313) | about 8 months ago | (#46488679)

As someone who lived around London for many years, in Paris for many months, and now near SF, I'll take the bay area over London or Paris *any* day. It's infinitely more pleasant to live in.

Re:sshh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488707)

yeah ok well beelsebob is obviously a fucking moron but, well, so are you

"paris is just a train ride away"

sure it is, if you're fucking minted. most of us can't afford to treat paris as "just a train ride away" because... IT COSTS A FUCKING FORTUNE.

"from your kensington door step".

you've got a kensington fucking doorstep? yes because that's the experience of every londoner.

fuck off.

and for the record, paris is perfectly livable without "very good French". you just have to not be a total twat. sorry if you had problems while being a total twat but my shitty french appears to have offended remarkably few, given paris' reputation.

Re:sshh! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 8 months ago | (#46488855)

You know very well, you can have a knob on your head, but speak good French, and get about. No French? Even Raquel Welch would have been dissed with a brush off.

Re:sshh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488903)

sorry, i forgot to add, if you think that st pancras is "on your Kesingtson doorstep" and that the gare du nord is "Downtown Paris" then you're an even bigger fucking cretin.

fucking jog on, you witless cunt.

Re:sshh! (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 8 months ago | (#46488087)

i'm moving to San Francisco from DC in July. Well, more likely i'll find a place around berkley. SF is pretty ridiculously expensive even by DC standards. I hope i don't start coming across as pompous as this posting though. It's always seemed like the ideal place for me to live. I don't know if it's for everyone though. I'd like to think that when i post about how awesome it is, it's with the assumption that it's awesome for me personally. It's not simply the best place in the history of the world.

Re:sshh! (2)

dead_cthulhu (1928542) | about 8 months ago | (#46488761)

A lot of the creative folk are now moving over to Oakland, which has a bit of a cost of living advantage over both Berkeley and SF as well as a pretty thriving cultural scene. It's also rather conveniently located between the two on BART.

Re:sshh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488509)

Disclaimer -I live in the East Bay(Newark), but spend most weekends in Berkeley/Oakland or SF and it is a great area to live and have fun, se shows, recreate, eat great food, etc

What shows?

Do you mean all the drive by shootings in the east bay?

Re: sshh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488823)

Oakland, come for the crack, stay for the sideshow.

Humble as always (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46487911)

At least they don't have an over developed sense of their own importance.

Re: Humble as always (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46487979)

"the San Francisco Bay Area is perhaps the most prosperous, comfortable, enlightened, stimulating, and generative place to live in Western history"

WOW, just WOW, I'm sure they believe all this too.

Re: Humble as always (4, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 8 months ago | (#46488159)

Generative...

Doesn't it seem like maybe they went one complimentary adjective too far?

Cheese and frickin' rice. There is nothing sadder than a group of tribalist asshats who believe in Zip Code superiority.

Re: Humble as always (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 8 months ago | (#46488563)

Cheese and frickin' rice

I've heard of sticky rice before. not sure what frickin' rice is. maybe that's what rice-a-roni is made out of??

Re: Humble as always (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 8 months ago | (#46488949)

Since when does the author of an article speak for the whole of a population? Come now, you can't be that daft. Most people are not elitist douche bags in the SF bay area. Sure there are some, and yes they tend to gravitate to a select few companies, but the overwhelming majority are down to earth regular people. I tend to see as many since I moved to the bay area as I did when I lived near Detroit. Obviously a less crime and nicer weather here, but people are people where ever you go.

You can't have it both ways... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46487921)

You can't have a renaissance city and evict struggling artists at the same time, which is what's happening in San Francisco.

Re:You can't have it both ways... (1)

khallow (566160) | about 8 months ago | (#46488009)

It's not just San Francisco, but the whole San Francisco Bay area. In fact, most of the really important areas like Palo Alto, San Jose, or Berkeley are a fair distance from San Francisco. Your struggling artists can live elsewhere in the Bay area.

Re:You can't have it both ways... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 8 months ago | (#46488203)

San Francisco earlier than the mid-90's. Yes. Sorry you missed us...

Re:You can't have it both ways... (4, Interesting)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | about 8 months ago | (#46488311)

Palo Alto is more expensive than SF, and Berkeley rents are pretty high -- largely fuelled by student housing demands as UCB expands. San Jose? That's about an hour+ south of SF with absolutely no public transportation taking you to other areas of the Bay.

Plus, your quote about "struggling artists can live elsewhere" is what makes people in SF really hate "techies" -- it's that attitude that is contrary to SF culture.

Disclosure: I live in San Francisco (proper)

Re:You can't have it both ways... (0)

khallow (566160) | about 8 months ago | (#46488379)

Plus, your quote about "struggling artists can live elsewhere" is what makes people in SF really hate "techies" -- it's that attitude that is contrary to SF culture.

Your concerns are justified. I revel in that opprobrium. I was tempted to suggest Gilroy as an alternate locale - it's the garlic capital of the world!

My observation remains. If the place is too expensive for the starving artist, then they should move some place where it isn't. Or maybe get a better job. I don't like paying a lot for things either. But to whine to the point of advocating harmful social policies because a not-particularly-useful lifestyle no longer is economical in a particular place? GTFO.

Re:You can't have it both ways... (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 8 months ago | (#46488501)

If the place is too expensive for the starving artist, then they should move some place where it isn't.

One thing for sure, if they're starving and won't move to someplace with lower rents, they have no reason to complain about starving.

Re:You can't have it both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488533)

They're not complaining about starving, they're complaining about the rent. Totally justified.

Re:You can't have it both ways... (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 8 months ago | (#46488583)

I'm not saying that they're not justified in complaining about the rent. However, my point still stands that if they're starving because of high rents, they should either move someplace with lower rents, get a room mate to share the rent, or stop complaining that they can't afford to buy food.

Re:You can't have it both ways... (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 8 months ago | (#46488971)

But if they weren't dirt poor then they wouldn't be the cliched starving artist they would just be another talentless libral arts major that asks do you want fries with that at work for the rest of their life.

Re:You can't have it both ways... (1)

CQDX (2720013) | about 8 months ago | (#46488551)

A benefit with Palo Alto and surrounding communities is that you can actually find parking. And it's almost always free! Or if you like to ride a bike, the roads are actually bike friendly. The streets are wide and many with dedicated bike lanes. And for the weekend trek, there are many scenic routes with little or no traffic. Live in SF? Hell no! Disclosure: I'm in Mountain View.

Re:You can't have it both ways... (1)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | about 8 months ago | (#46488651)

Palo Alto's parking system, with their colored curbs and byzantine policies on how long you can park at a color and how you have to move to different colors after x amount of hours etc, is really quite a mess IMHO. Personally, I think it's designed to cause out-of-towners to get more parking tickets. If you're parking in a residential area without this, sure, but any area with parking enforcement is a nightmare. So you can park at home -- but then when going to restaurants etc, good luck.

Palo Alto is Spanish for "perpetual traffic jam" (1)

KWTm (808824) | about 8 months ago | (#46488803)

A benefit with Palo Alto and surrounding communities is that you can actually find parking.

Yes, traffic flows so slowly through Palo Alto (including Highway 101 on weeknights where drivers slow to a crawl as soon as you enter Palo Alto) that you can always find parking. You see, the entire city of Palo Alto is one big parking lot!

Re:You can't have it both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488317)

maybe the artists they're referring to are the homeless bums who shit on the sidewalks?

Re:You can't have it both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488433)

Err, yes, you can.

What renaissance histories are you reading? Because they're evidently written by morons.

Fuck you. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46487931)

You pretentious cunt. San Francisco sucks.

What the fuck did I just read??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46487933)

Wow. I feel much dumber now. Do people really eat this shit up?

I guess the drive to feel important is pretty strong.

Having lived in Sausalito and Mill Valley, let me (4, Insightful)

Assmasher (456699) | about 8 months ago | (#46487953)

...just say STOP BLOWING YOURSELVES.

I love the Bay Area, lived there as a kid, lived there as an adult. It's beautiful, fun, and hideously expensive.

All that other crap you ascribe to it could be said about most large cities throughout the world.

Get over yourselves FFS.

The Falsification of Evolution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488147)

Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?

You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon. Therefore we can dismiss the theory of the blue interior of watermelons as being pure speculation and guess work, not science. You can not say something is true without demonstrating how it is not false, and you can not say something is not true without demonstrating how it is false. Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously. If one could demonstrate clearly that the watermelon appears to indeed be blue inside, without being able to demonstrate what colors it is not, we still have no absolute confirmation of its color. That is to say asserting something is the way it is, without being able to assert what it is not, is a useless claim. Therefore, in order for any theory to be confirmed to be true, it must be shown how to both validate and falsify its claims. It is circular reasoning to be able to validate something, without saying how to falsify it, or vice versa. This is the nature of verification and falsification. Both must be clearly demonstrated in order for a theory to be confirmed to be true or false. Something can not be proven to be true without showing that it is not false, and something can not be proven to be not true, unless it can be proven to be false.

Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest. In the event that evolution is not true, there should be a clear and defined method of reasoning to prove such by demonstrating through evidence that one could not possibly make any alternative conclussions based on said evidence. It is for this reason we must be extremely skeptical of how the evidence has been used to support evolution for lack of proper method of falsification, especially when the actual evidence directly contradicts the theory. If it can be demonstrated how to properly falsify evolution, regardless if evolution is true or not, only then can evolution ever be proven or disproved.

It will now be demonstrated that Darwin never told us how to properly falsify evolution, which will also show why no one can claim to have disproved or proven the theory, until now. It must be able to be demonstrated that if evolution were false, how to go about proving that, and while Darwin indeed made a few statements on this issue, his statements were not adequate or honest. In order to show Darwin's own falsification ideas are inadequate, rather than discussing them and disproving them individually, all that needs to be done is demonstrate a proper falsification argument for evolution theory. That is to say if the following falsification is valid, and can not show evolution to be false, then evolution theory would be proven true by way of deductive reasoning. That is the essence of falsification; if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true.

So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method, and would therefore prove evolution to be true in the event this falsification method can not show evolution to be false. As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true. This would confirm the accuracy of this falsification method, which all theories must have, and show that Darwin did not properly show how evolution could be falsified, in the event that evolution was not true. In order to show evolution is not false (thereby proving it to be true), we must be able to show how it would be false, if it were. Without being able to falsify evolution in this manner, you can not validate it either. If something can not be shown to be false, yet it is said to be true, this is circular reasoning, since you have no way of confirming this conclusion. Example; If we told a blind person our car is red, and they agreed we were telling the truth, the blind person could not tell another blind person accurate information regarding the true color of the car. While he has evidence that the car is red by way of personal testimony, he has no way of confirming if this is true or false, since he might have been lied to, regardless if he was or not.

So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such. To say evolution is true, without a way to show it is false, means evolution has never been proven to be true. If evolution be true, and this method of falsification be valid, then by demonstrating the falsification method to be unable to disprove evolution, we would confirm evolution to be right. Alternatively, if the falsification method is valid and demonstrates that Darwin's validation method does not prove evolution, then evolution is false indeed.

Firstly, the hypothesis. If evolution is incorrect, then it can be demonstrated to be so by using both living and dead plants and animals. The following is the way to do so and the logical alternative to the theory. The fossil record can be used as well, but not as evolution theory would have us believe. In order to properly falsify something, all biases must be removed, since assuming something is correct without knowing how to prove its false is akin to the blind person who can not confirm the color of someones car. Since evolution has not correctly been shown how to be falsified, as will be demonstrated, we must be open to other possibilities by way of logic, and ultimately reject evolution by way of evidence, should the evidence lead us in such a direction.

If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design. This would predict that all life since the initial creation has been in a state of entropy since their initial creation, which is the opposite of evolution. If this be true, then animals and plants are not increasing in genetic complexity or new traits as evolution theory would have us believe, but are in fact losing information. This would explain why humans no longer have room for their wisdom teeth and why the human appendix is decreasing in functionality. The only objection to this claim that evolution theory would propose is that evolution does not always increase the genetic complexity and traits of an organism, but rather, sometimes decreases them as well. This objection is only made because we have only ever actually observed entropy in living creatures, which suits the creation model far better than evolution, which shall be demonstrated.

If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution. For example; the creation model states that life was created diversified to begin with, with distinct "kinds" of animals, by a supernatural Creator that did not evolve Himself, but rather always existed. Without going into the debate on how such a being is possible to exist, it must be said that either everything came from nothing, or something always existed. To those who say the universe always existed; the claim of this hypothesis is that the Creator always existed, which is equally as viable for the previous logic.

In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined. A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!

The idea of kinds is in direct contrast to evolution theory which says all cats share a common ancestor, which the creation model does not hold to be true. If evolution theory is true, the word kind is a superficial label that does not exist, because beyond our classifications, there would be no clear identifiable division among animals or plants, since all plants and animals would therefore share a common ancestor. The word kind can only be applied in the context of the creation model, but can not be dismissed as impossible due to the evolutionary bias, simply because evolution has not been properly validated nor can it be held to be true until it can correctly be shown to be impossible to falsify.

One must look at the evidence without bias and conclude based on contemporary evidence (not speculation) if indeed evolution is the cause of the diversity of species, or not. It must also been demonstrated if the clear and distinct species do or do not share a common ancestor with each other, regardless that they may appear to be of the same family or design. In order to verify this, all that needs to be done is to demonstrate that a lion and cheetah do or do not have a common ancestor; if it can be demonstrated that any animal or plant within a family (cats in this case) do not share a common ancestor with each other, this would disprove evolution immediately and prove supernatural creation of kinds.

However, since lions and cheetahs are both clearly of the same family or design, and can potentially interbreed, we must be careful not to overlook the possibility of a very recent common ancestor If such is the case, this does not exclude the possibility that the two are originally from two separate kinds that do not share a common ancestor previous to them having one. It is therefore necessary to build an ancestral history based on verifiable evidence (not homogeneous structures in the fossil record) that can clearly demonstrate where exactly the cheetah and the lion had a common ancestor. If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias, and this test is performed between two or more of any plant or animal life without ever finding anything to the contrary, we can confirm with certainty evolution did not happen, and that kinds do exist.

In the event that fossils are too elusive (compounded with the fact that they can not be used as evidence of common descent due to circular reasoning e.g. homogeneous structures), then there is a superior and far more effective way to falsify evolution. Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy) that the first lifeforms increased in complexity and size by introduction of new traits, slowly increasing step by step to more complex life forms. Notice that the addition of such traits can not be attributed to the alteration of old ones, for obvious reasons, since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.

That means a bacteria becoming able to digest nylon is a mere mutation of already existing digestive capabilities, and can not be classified as an increase in traits. Evolution theory would predict that the process of gradual change and increase in traits is an ongoing process, and therefore should be observable in todays living animals and plants through new emerging traits that any given plant or animal did not possess in its ancestry. Those who say such changes take millions of years and can not be observed today only say so because no such trait has ever been observed to emerge or be in the process of emerging in contemporary history, which is what the creation model predicts. If evolution theory be true, we would expect that at least one animal or plant would contain a new trait or be in the process of growing such a triat over its known common ancestors (that is not simply a multiplication or alteration of a trait it already had).

At this point, the fossil record can not be used as evidence to prove that evolution can produce new traits due to the fact that two animals that appear to be of the same family (T-rex and Brontosaurus, dinosaurs), while they do indeed exhibit distinct trait differences, may not have a common ancestor, but rather were created differently with all their different traits. It is therefore of paramount importance to show a single instance of such an increase of traits exists within a provable ancestry (stress provable) in contemporary times, and not assume anything concerning where the traits in the fossil record owe their origin. If it can not be shown that any animal or plant living today (or very recently deceased) exhibits any trait variance that can clearly and thoroughly be proven to be a new addition over its (stress) provable ancestors, compounded with the reasoning that two similar animals (such as a penguin and a woodpecker) do not necessarily or provably share a common ancestor, then evolution is clearly absent entirely, and supernatural intelligent design and creation is thereby proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, should any two animals or plants within a family (a palm tree and a coconut tree) be proven to not share a common ancestor, or if no provable increase of traits can be demonstrated to be in its beginnings or actively present in the animals and plants living today over their provable ancestry, then The Bible is correct when it says God created all the animals and plants as distinct kinds with their traits to begin with. This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.

Re:Having lived in Sausalito and Mill Valley, let (1, Insightful)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 8 months ago | (#46489027)

Thank you. I have been seeing this bull shit about the wonderful city of San Fransisco blahblahbalh... for the past couple of weeks on various tech sites and it is getting to be fucking annoying. Especially while the same danm sites report on the Luddite bullshit they have been doing.

You want to know what San Fransicso really is?

San Francisco is city that pushes a go green eco freindly message thats people protest when a tech company tries to create a mass transit system to cut traffic and emissions. The city that objects to innovators moving there and ruining their culture by virtue of living there. The city who populous mobbed the house of googles self driving car team head for no good reason. They sound more like a liberal arts version of the old black and white monster movie peasant mob chasing down scientists and innovators with pitchforks and torches.

It's also... (4, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | about 8 months ago | (#46487961)

The most smug, pompous and expensive place to live....

It's the land of the have and have nots.

Want you kids to go to good schools in the area? Get ready to either send them to private school or fork out $1m plus for a 1600 sqft home with no land that was built in the early 60s.

If you didn't make in a killing in the previous dotcom bubble or the one we're in (Snapchat, i'm looking at you), enjoy mediocre housing and schools.

Re:It's also... (-1, Flamebait)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 8 months ago | (#46488171)

Waaaah Waaahh Waaah. I guess you should stay in a Flyover State where nobody wants to live so the housing is cheap.

Re:It's also... (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 8 months ago | (#46488197)

Plenty of people choose to avoid the goldrush mentality of California. That's why most people live other places. There's just lots more of "everywhere else". So supply and demand works out in our favor.

Re:It's also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488625)

If it means I don't have to be near pompous pussy fucking faggots like you, then I'll call it a win. Fucking dork.

Re:It's also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489041)

If it means I don't have to be near pompous pussy fucking faggots like you, then I'll call it a win. Fucking dork.

Pompous I will give you but, if they are indeed "pussy fucking" as you say would they not be straight not gay???

Re:It's also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488633)

You couldn't pay me enough to live in the bay area. Things are just great here in Colorado, where the air is fresh and clean, the rents are low, and half of our children are above average.

bah! (3, Insightful)

lophophore (4087) | about 8 months ago | (#46487969)

Let me guess the city where the writer lives...

I'd argue that it is nothing like classical Florence, where the artists had sponsors. There's no analog in Silly Valley for that, none of the new rich are sponsoring great art, whether for themselves or the public.

Re:bah! (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 8 months ago | (#46488199)

Well you can go to a ballgame at 3 com park. You can go to go to a museum, which is generally corporate sponsored. You can go to a free concert in the park, where a local company advertises in exchange for monies given.

And of course most of the art in classical Florence was private. There are indeed rich people in the Bay Area with private collections of art.

Re:bah! (5, Insightful)

Bevilr (1258638) | about 8 months ago | (#46488897)

Yes, but I think the OP was referring to a very important difference. The rich in Florence were actively promoting the development of arts and culture. The rich in the Bay Area are simply collecting it. Sure, you are correct that much of it was private, but the architecture, and public buildings (and the paintings within them) were for everyone - or at least, so everyone could see how great they were. In that aspect I suppose they are similar, they both think/thought of themselves as the greatest city in the world. But where Florence contained one of the most impressive public buildings in the entire world (the Duomo was a public building and an engineering marvel), San Francisco has comparatively weak museums compared to cities like New York, London, Paris, or even Florence. Sure 3 com park, and free concerts exist, but nearly every large city in the world has that. New York's Shakespeare in the Park, and the wealth of other free public art and music in that city is significantly more impressive. Even more importantly, as wealth has flowed into the Bay Area, the artists and culture creators of the city have simply been priced out. That being said, the argument that software is our current society's art and that software developers are the Florentine Renaissance artists might have legs.

Re:bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488657)

SJ's RDF [wikipedia.org] has taken over the entire region there. One day on the west side of LA would complete change the author's attitude.

Re:bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488993)

In case anyone is misinterpreting lophophore: the new tech wealth is proportionately drastically less involved in donating or funding the arts than old(er) money in the area. This may sound like a stereotype, but the research I've read says they tend to keep their money associated with technology and funding things which have clear measures of success (for which, "that's great art" doesn't count.)

Fuckin' hype (5, Insightful)

hessian (467078) | about 8 months ago | (#46487971)

Sorry, finding new ways to rent out your car through an iPhone app is not any kind of Renaissance.

If anything, it's the decline of computer science from world-changing to trivial amusements for trivial, pointless people.

Paging Girolamo Savonarola (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46487995)

It's time to have a bonfire of the vanities!

Give me a fucking break (5, Funny)

SensitiveMale (155605) | about 8 months ago | (#46488011)

You must have used Dragon software to write this article because you were obviously patting yourself on the back with both hands.

HEY MODS!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488109)

Mod parent up!

De Medici (3, Interesting)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 8 months ago | (#46488021)

I think they got the wrong family. Maybe Borgia would be a better fit.

Ridiculous and insulting comparison (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488035)

Sorry, I don't see any Leonardo, Michelangelo or Raffaello in San Francisco. Let alone anything close to their work of arts. Comparing a trashy kid who violates privacy for a living to any of them is simply an insult to human intelligence.

In 100 years nobody will remember who the f**k zuckerberg was, surely facebook won't even exist, while Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raffaello have been on history books for 500 years and will always be.

Note that Renaissance artists don't even need being called by last name, that's how great they are.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488039)

Michelangelo was the original hipster?

If you believe the elite culture creates a renaiss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488047)

or great art, particularly in this country, you don't know much about this country.

Sure, SF ist great for the US, but just for them (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488069)

The most prosperous, comfortable and enlightened place in Western society is Scandinavia. And quite clearly so. You get all the liberalism of SF and more (most of their churches even conduct homosexual weddings), and far more prosperity and comfort due to the fairer distribution of income. Sure, there are less Zuckerbergs and whonots there. But the average guy, the guy cleaning the street or working at the butcher's is far more educated, content and wealthy.

Re:Sure, SF ist great for the US, but just for the (-1, Flamebait)

madsenj37 (612413) | about 8 months ago | (#46488689)

We do not need churches to conduct weddings here. Religion is a leftover of unenlightened.

Re:Sure, SF ist great for the US, but just for the (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489023)

That's right everyone knows that the treatment of gays is the measuring stick for a societies enlightenment. /sarcasm

Haha (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 8 months ago | (#46488071)

If you like everything being expensive and high crime then I guess San Francisco is the place for you. Don't forget about the awful weather and huge homeless population. Actually it sounds like a liberal paradise.

San Francisco (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488077)

Where it's a good day if you don't get yelled at by a bum.

Who's ole Nick then? (2)

nospam007 (722110) | about 8 months ago | (#46488081)

Which one is Niccoló Machiavelli?

Great, except not true (1)

Texmaize (2823935) | about 8 months ago | (#46488085)

For those who are living in SF, good for you! It is a very beautiful city, and I enjoyed it when I lived there.

That said, I am not sure how this self congratulation piece actually passes for news on slashdot. It did not happen after some major breakthrough happened in the Bay area. There were no earth shattering events. In fact, the only thing of note is that it is Pi day, and I am fairly sure SF had little to do with that.

In fact, to say it is under a current Renaissance would be a horrible stretch. In fact, I am not sure an there has been anything of note that is new produced in the bay area in a decade. At best, you could claim that people who develop tech elsewhere, like to move to moderate climates when they get money. Remind which of those start-ups these 70 hour code monkeys that you are referring too actually amounted to anything?
As for enlightened? I know people in SF and who like to post on slashdot like to feel they are. But in reality, these "enlightened" philosophies are becoming increasingly exposed for the totalitarian darkness that they inevitably are. Wasn't there another article this weak about how Facebook (not created in SF, btw) wash shocked that the politicians of the "enlightened" actually were the Palpatinesque people behind the drones and NSA spying?

That great period in Italy brought us lasting art and philosophy. By comparison, 400 years from now, i see no equal achievements of such magnitude from the bay area.

Re:Great, except not true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488985)

Dubbing the Renaissance "that great period in Italy" immediately invalidates the rest of your post, which is a pity because I thought it quite interesting.

1) It was Europe-wide and had repurcussions, traceable repurcussions, globally. Come to that, it was global. That there were Italian states, and notably Venice and Florence, that were involved does not invalidate the involvement of the likes of France or England or Spain or Portugal (each of which were arguably -- but not very, unless you're an idiot -- further evolved towards modern states than the Italians were), and nor does it diminish their importance compared to the Italians. (And nor does it overstate their importance, either. This is not an anti-Italian polemic, but rather an anti-fuckwit rant.)
2) It wasn't "great" unless you're a naive simpleton who enjoys abusing innocent words such as "great". It was the Renaissance and it was what it was, and there were ugly, evil things that came out of it as much as those paintings that you pretend to masturbate over. In every nation that was hit by the Renaissance. Which was most of them, and most them would be surprised if you said it was a "period in Italy".

I know I'm preaching to the deluded but learning a fucking tint of history would help Americans a hell of a lot. Alas, we get regurgitated Wikipedia followed by bluster and arrogant assertions, all of which lack the subtlety of actual history.

Obligatory South Park (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488103)

Smug Alert [southparkstudios.com]

Re:Obligatory South Park (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488871)

Came to post exactly this episode.... specifically the spot at 16:50

"San Francisco Is the New Renaissance Florence" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488111)

That has to be the dumbest, most flabbergastingly ill-educated headline I've ever seen. What a ton of pish. If SoylentNews wasn't so shit I'd be tempted to move over there.

soylentnews (1)

kevlar_rat (995996) | about 8 months ago | (#46488653)

If SoylentNews wasn't so shit I'd be tempted to move over there.

I think the other [squte.com] sites [soylentnews.org] have better stories [pipedot.org] on average, but there are better comments on /.

Awful (4, Interesting)

jgotts (2785) | about 8 months ago | (#46488117)

Why should I have to make over $125,000/year to live comfortably when I can make under half elsewhere in the country and be equally content? Why should I be forced to rent unless I can afford a million dollars for a house? How am I supposed to lay down roots? Why should any home short of a mansion cost a million dollars in the first place? Silicon Valley is pretty close to my idea of hell. The only thing I like about it is the City of Berkeley and the surrounding mountains and national parks where you can get away from the people living there on the weekends. San Francisco is bleak, dirty. There's nothing I like about it. It was good in the 60's but that was 50 years ago. Why would I want to surround myself with 99% ghetto rich (making a lot of money but having to spend it all on rent and expenses) men mostly struggling, thinking that their website will be the next Facebook.

For the 1% of people living there, I bet it's great. Those same people would be happy anywhere, because they're very wealthy.

Re:Awful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488257)

I'd rather be making 150k/yr working for a firm that has millions of concurrent users instead of some jackoff place that does everything in VB6.

what the hell are you here for anyway?

Re:Awful (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 8 months ago | (#46489109)

Have you never heard of telecommuting???
Its not like the smog of the southern Californian metropolitan area helps you to code better so you can do that from anywhere. Besides there are other cities with lots of tech businesses. Ever heard of Seattle? Has this little company know for its cloud servers Its called amazon. Or Microsoft heard of them? They're there as well. I could list more, for this and other cities and more all over the country. There is no rule that says you have to be from cali to post on /.

Re:Awful (0)

Crypto Cavedweller (2611959) | about 8 months ago | (#46488359)

So ... how exactly does Earth owe you any of those things, in the precise location of your choosing?

Re:Awful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488399)

Because they pay college grads in Tech over $125k a year to start? Anyone outside of tech is screwed.

Re:Awful (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 8 months ago | (#46488627)

I work in software but I love to hack hardware. there are many surplus electronics places around here that you won't find many other locations in the world.

there is a lot of food choices here and that's a huge draw for those of us who like choice.

you can dress how you like and few judge you by it.

the weather is amazing (we get our spring a week or two before valentines day, most years). cars don't rust out here and we only have snow if you drive to the mountains. you can ski if you drive there and you can go to the beach that same day if you want.

of course there are lots of big name computer-based companies out here. lots of start-ups, as well. (but semi high unemployment right now and companies that simply cannot be pleased and wont' hire you unless you walk on water, sigh).

housing is hella expensive here, that's true. cost of living otherwise is not much more than other nice areas in the country.

social views are very liberal (I consider that a good thing) and racial unrest - at least in the bay area - is essentially non existent other than near oakland and some other select areas; certainly not widespread and the crime rate is not at all high (car break-ins do happen, though).

all in all, I like being here and would be very sad to have to leave it. been here over 20 years and while the economy has certainly had its up and downs, there are more benefits than negatives to living here, especially for those of us who like to dabble in hardware hacking.

Re:Awful (2)

Prime Mover (149173) | about 8 months ago | (#46488813)

Why should I have to make over $125,000/year to live comfortably when I can make under half elsewhere in the country and be equally content? Why should I be forced to rent unless I can afford a million dollars for a house? How am I supposed to lay down roots?

Why should you expect that cost of living should be the same everywhere? Why should owning a house always be within your means? I live in SF and make six figs just to pay back my grad loans and pay rent. I'm still happy with living here because I like to hang out at the beach (I almost said swim in the ocean) then drive up to ski in Tahoe, weather permitting. Compare that with central Kansas. Nothing wrong with Kansas but I don't see people flocking to it.

It's expensive because lots of people recognize how great it is to live here. That doesn't mean that everyone actually can live here.

SF Inferiority complex (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488123)

San Francisco has always envied Southern California: the land of palm trees, movie stars and endless summer.

San Francisco astroturf (1)

UTF-8 (680134) | about 8 months ago | (#46488149)

There is a reason why Silicon Valley is not in San Francisco. San Francisco may be an entertaining place to live as long as you ignore the homeless people, drug dealers and nutty politicians. The real innovation is near Palo Alto, Cupertino, Mountain View, Santa Clara and San José. Those places are just too laid back and relaxing for some people living in San Francisco.

Re:San Francisco astroturf (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 8 months ago | (#46488217)

San Francisco has a very large amount of technology companies, certainly more than San Jose. Sure Mountain View is the epicenter, but San Francisco is a very large part of it.

Ive lived here for 15 years. Its bad-Getting worse (5, Insightful)

Zeio (325157) | about 8 months ago | (#46488261)

Things are getting worse and worse in SF, SiVal/Peninsula and bay area in general.

The public schools are terrible, the cost of living is outrageous even with the high salaries, all families are dual income so most of the kids are latch-key, and my kids - we have to work overtime to protect them from how bad the kids are in general. There are a ton of richie rich kids who have money and they do bad things, drugs, etc. Cupertino, supposedly a great school district, polled kids and found that 75% had tried illegal drugs by 12th grade.

Also most of the universities here have non-California kids in ever increasing numbers. That means the land of milk and honey is not producing high end high school graduates.

I have a plan to relocate out of here within 18 months now. I refuse to say where because I can only hope that others wont follow and bring the pain and suffering and horribly low standard of living with them yet again.

And I've recently been to japan and switzerland. The public transportations STINKs here, the quality of life is far lower than either of those two places and in they have better primary/grade schools in both those places.

This is not living here. There is also little room for a family lifestyle. And the facebook pop has caused a lot of places to be one-percenter-only. All houses under 2 million are horrible, shabby and full of asbestos and mold. Built in the 1950s/60s to a very low standard.

Roads are fairly in poor repair despite there being no winter. Certain areas are crime ridden but the houses are 700K+. Schools - even greatschools-10 schools and blue ribbon schools - are a joke. They are a shadow of schools Ive seen in other places.

Please, never come here thinking you will be better off. Coming here is just like playing the lottery. Dont even think being smart will make you wealthy enough to get a real life here. you have to be either very lucky , or smart and lucky. Nobody earns their way to the top. Also there is a big time old boys club mentality. Inferior people will be much farther than you even if you work 80 hours a week and bleed for work.

The bay area is no longer about technology anymore. its about big gigantic pan national business and the monetization of the internet.

Google has the best, smartest, most driven brightest people in the world working day and night to not cure cancer, or invent new things (they bought a thermostat company for 3billion) but to Shovel Ads in Your Face. Thats it. Same with F-book

Hardly noble.

Welcome to SillyCON Valley.

Re:Ive lived here for 15 years. Its bad-Getting wo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488673)

And I've recently been to japan and switzerland.

Good for you, those have higher costs of living and even richer folks to deal with, mind that there is more racism in those countries that in SF.

Your article makes sense, but I want to let everyone know: it's nice that one has options to goto those places. A lot of us really don't have that option to move.

not telling anyone where you're going? (1, Informative)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about 8 months ago | (#46488983)

Don't worry, everyone isn't in the Bay Area because you're here, you egotistical asshole. They're not going to follow you just because you leave.

I think your 18 months timeframe is too long. Why torture yourself with asbestos and mold any longer? Get out now.

It's a haven for the homeless if anything! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488289)

Isn't this the enlightened city that, from all the goodness of their socialist hearts, have told everyone that they will shelter and care for the homeless?

And then they wonder why the homeless population hasn't decreased after all these years. They just don't understand.

Maybe because every day more and more homeless are flocking into San Fran knowing they will get a free ride and then they hang out in the public libraries and take dumps between the book shelves.

No thank you, SF.

Well, it's one (2)

Crypto Cavedweller (2611959) | about 8 months ago | (#46488335)

But tastes vary. Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Sydney, Singapore, Seattle ... take your pick. Calling one 'the best' like this is simply a reflection of one author's personal tastes.

Enlightened? Seriously? (4, Insightful)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 8 months ago | (#46488459)

You mean "enlightened" like this coder-king?

http://valleywag.gawker.com/ha... [gawker.com]

And prosperous? Well, I guess if you don't count the homeless human "trash" or the "degenerates" he and his enlightened friends complain about. Oh, those pesky poor people... if it weren't for them, SF would be even more of a "comfortable, enlightened, stimulating" city. Why must he and our other coder-kings be forced to look at them? It is thoroughly uncomfortable, I tell you! It completely ruins his stimulating experience of driving a BMW to Fisherman's Wharf for an enlightened lunch!

Can something be done to help this poor Medici-esque man-mogul? I hope he or one of his fellow coder-kings is even now "working to reinvent economic structures", as you say. I'm certain there is a Bitcoin solution to all this. After all, if we dispense with dollar bills entirely, the computer-less poor won't have any way to beg for cryptocurrency and they'll have to return to wherever they came from.

But there I go, being "unthinking and ungrateful", as usual...

Re:Enlightened? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488669)

I have to say, I completely agree with you. It's not even just SF, it's the whole Bay Area. I just moved from Oakland to Walnut Creek, a busy busy 'burb. I was talking to some coworkers who also live there and they mentioned that they hardly ever see homeless people there. Certainly, there are much fewer than in the Town or the City, but I see a few every day (and we take the same BART train to work).

The point is, a lot of people here (and everywhere, lets be honest) develop a strange sense of entitlement. Homelessness is a problem, for sure, but it's not the kind of thing you can fix once and be done with it.

I've always been of the opinion that if you're willing to complain about something, you should be willing to do something about it. For all the rich, entitled tech workers who complain (for example) that some homeless person has parked a shopping cart full of cans in the only available parking spot, they're the last people to even step outside of their fucking car to move it to the side or even speak to the person standing next to said shopping cart, much less volunteer time at or donate money to a shelter.

Directly related to the link about AngelHacks, his complaints are completely worthless. If he wants to work somewhere without homeless people and drug dealers, he probably shouldn't be in downtown SF. Like, say, Mountain View...

Ridiculous Hubris (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488531)

I lived in Firenze & San Francisco: one I eagerly look forward to visiting each trip and the other I cringe when work takes me there. South Park put it best: the place is overcome by smug and the thesis of the essay is proof.

Nice place to visit (1)

roninmagus (721889) | about 8 months ago | (#46488585)

Let's say everything mentioned here actually was entirely self-contained to the author's city, as he or she obviously believes. Which it is not, obviously. I pose to you, if it weren't there, it would just be somewhere else.

Bullocks (4, Insightful)

Berkyjay (1225604) | about 8 months ago | (#46488587)

I've been here for 10 years. I arrived a few years after the dotcom crash and I fell in love with the city. And it wasn't the city that tech built. It was the city that was recovering from the tech devastation. It was a city of artists and just plain old regular people doing their thing. This was still the place to go to get your visual effects done or to get a video game made. Rent was high, but not beyond what a college student couldn't manage with a serving job. It had old tried and true spots that survived the ups and downs. New spots would come about, but they seemed to grow organically and not sprout up and become overcrowded due to hype. It was almost like it was our little secret. But then that secret got out, and the money flowed in and along with it came the greed and the shallowness. Prices skyrocketed, people were driven out. All to make room for people who don't care about community or the beauty of a "lived in" city. They want to be perceived as cool and as important. They don't want to see the homeless and they have no patience for public transportation or a long commute. And finally they write stupid comments like the one above all in an effort to boost their sense of self worth. Because in the end, they are all miserable because they realize deep down inside that most of what they do is all filler for the world at large. They aren't saving lives, they aren't curing disease, they aren't feeding the poor. It's all just distractions.

I wish them well... (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 8 months ago | (#46488613)

But given that they're doing everything in their power to kick out google and face book... I don't see it.

Not seeing this (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 8 months ago | (#46488621)

I'm not seeing this. It's a dull period for San Francisco. The first dot-com boom was more fun. Connecting up everybody and everything was important. This boom is all from ad-based companies, and most of what they're doing is rather banal. So are many of the people doing it.

Almost all the artists who need more than a desk and a laptop moved out years ago. SF used to have lots of big empty warehouse and factory spaces that were used for art projects and wild parties. That's what SOMA was. Those are gone, replaced with "live/work lofts" or giant bullpen workspaces.

I do not get why tech people want to live in the Mission. I've had friends there for years, and it's tolerable, but not a place to live in by choice. Wednesday I went to a stand up comedy improv thing in the Mission where people tried to put together presentions from random PowerPoint slides. Heavy bouncer presence outside because it was right next to a service center for homeless people. The comedy sucked, too. That's what the tech crowd is bringing into the area.

Here's a typical Mission location [google.com] , one which also happens to be a Google bus stop. "Cafe la Boheme" has crappy food, and it's had crappy food for years. The place with the graffiti is an upstairs dance studio which is hanging on. "Chinese Food and Donuts" isn't very good at either. That corner has looked the same for many years. There are some decent restaurants a few blocks over on Valencia, but not at this corner. There are cool places to live in SF, but this isn't one of them.

Hooray! (2)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 8 months ago | (#46488631)

Our tax policies have made our most rapidly expanding market sector resemble the 1500s. I, for one, welcome our new economic lordship. Give most of the money to a very small number of people, and let them decide if and when to parcel it out through patronage, buying electric sports cars, and financing asteroid mining projects. Surely the broader income ranks wouldn't do any better with it. I mean, think about it; other than the 1950s to 1960s in America, when has a far more progressive tax policy ever been correlated with broad-based entrepreneurship, small business expansion, and a nation rising to superpower?

Re:Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488749)

"think about it; other than the 1950s to 1960s in America, when has a far more progressive tax policy ever been correlated with broad-based entrepreneurship, small business expansion, and a nation rising to superpower?"

britain, in the industrial revolution, the time when it rose to superpower and became by far the most powerful state that ever, or has ever, existed.

rome, in the second century BC, the time when it rose to superpower and became by far the most powerful state that had ever existed.

persia, in the fourth century BC, the time when it rose to superpower and became by far the most power state that had ever existed.

etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

hubris (1)

recharged95 (782975) | about 8 months ago | (#46488635)

cronyism

That's all I need to say...

San Francisco's turning into Upper East Side (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46488921)

I've been living in San Francisco for 10+ years. Sorry, Wade Roush & Ed Lee, but San Francisco doesn't need tax breaks for startups or 1/1/1 programs. We need the rich people in this area (including myself and my wife who are both in tech) to pay way more taxes so that we can balance things out a little bit and make the city livable for artists, waiters, musicians, etc. Awesome breakthroughs typically happen when fields intersect, and people bring experiences and impressions from one field into another. San Francisco's power has come from its diversity.

Ed Lee & Ron Conway, the entire San Francisco city is turning into Upper East Side New York. It's madness, and I can't imagine it's going to work out well long term for anyone, including the tech companies and startups that the current economic policies appear to be optimized for. How much awesome creative work is coming out of the Upper East Side? Zero.

Twitter is a great example of misguided policy. I love the service that the company provides and have many friends who work there, but why the hell are they getting tax breaks? It's lunacy. If they don't want to "give back" they can set up shop somewhere else. If they'd rather move to Fresno where they get a tax break, or Austin where there's cheaper talent they can do that. The reason they won't is that they want the stuff that makes SF awesome, its diversity. By creating these types of unnecessary economic incentives you're eroding the very thing that makes SF great to begin with. Why try to compete in cost when the competitive advantage is creativity and diversity?

m

The new Florence? You're kidding, right? (0)

reboot246 (623534) | about 8 months ago | (#46488959)

That's funny. I've always thought of San Francisco as the new Sodom and Gomorrah.

In fact, if God doesn't destroy San Francisco, He owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.

no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46489099)

FUUUUUCK THIS

Cosmos vs. Boba Fet (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 8 months ago | (#46489111)

Am I the only one that watched the show and thought, "Neil deGrasse Tyson stole Boba Fet's ship!"?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?