6 ms·

The little things I learned in the valley

66 points by aqeel 12y ago

gingerjoos 12y ago
>>>"Ironically there is a lot of hatred among the locals about “tech” but I was honestly surprised since the west coast is largely transient population." It's interesting to note the parallels between SF and Bangalore in this aspect.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
untog 12y ago
There is hope on the streets. The cogs of the American economy seem like moving. [...] A lot of people are homeless. Every year I visit it’s increasing. Maybe I am using the wrong streets. I am surprised there’s no startup to fix this.
- cryoshon 12y ago
  Seems like he's missed the elephant in the room. The tech sector's cogs are moving at an increasingly rapid pace whereas nearly everyone else has been jammed to a standstill or losing ground since 2008. The proliterian hatred of the tech sector is based on jealousy and misplaced blame for the fallout caused by gentrification which follows higher incomes. The homeless are the most blatant casualties of a depressed economy, but rest assured, there are countless others who suffer without falling onto the streets.
  - throwaway13qf85 12y ago
    I don't think you understand what the phrase "elephant in the room" means. If lots of people are talking about something (and certainly, a lot of people are talking about the tech sector vs the rest of the economy) then it's not the elephant in the room.
    - untog 12y ago
      (and certainly, a lot of people are talking about the tech sector vs the rest of the economy) I'm not sure they're talking about it in the tech sector, though.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        Sure they are. Whether arguing for or against it, they're talking about it. Not everyone, certainly, but enough that "elephant in the room" seems an inappropriate description.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Homelessness in SF is a lot more complicated than that. With a mild climate, political sympathy (and associated city services), and lots of tourists to panhandle... SF is something of a destination for the homeless who can manage it.
- peterwwillis 12y ago
  I laughed out loud at the last sentence.
- dntrkv 12y ago
  Are you implying that the two are mutually exclusive? Solving homelessness is not an economic problem. There are so many factors involved, that you can have a great economy with low unemployment but tons of homeless people.
  - untog 12y ago
    Getting to 0% homelessness would require more than just economic action, but homelessness is still an economic issue.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Only in the sense that everything is an economic issue. My understanding is that mental illness is still the leading cause of homelessness.
    - dntrkv 12y ago
      Yes because the crazy guy outside my office yelling at the brick wall just needs a job, and he'll be living in a home in no time.
      - untog 12y ago
        But that's my point. Only 39% of homeless people have mental issues[1]. It's not correct to characterise homelessness as caused by mental problems. [1] http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html
        dntrkv 12y ago
        Sure, it may not be the leading cause. But the homeless that people are usually referring to when they talk about San Francisco's homeless problem, are the ones with mental issues or addiction problems. I rarely ever see the regular, sane, homeless people sprawled across the sidewalk in the middle of the day. It's always the drug addicts or the mentally ill.
supahfly_remix 12y ago
> A lot of people are homeless. Every year I visit it’s increasing. Maybe I am using the wrong streets. I am surprised there’s no startup to fix this. Does he mean a startup to help him avoid streets with homeless, or a startup to solve the homeless problem?
- brixon 12y ago
  Probably avoid streets since his next bullet is "A lot of socially driven business is just pure BS." Solving the homeless problem would be a socially driven business and that would make it BS and not worth doing.
  - sirkneeland 12y ago
    I think what the author means is that a lot of the businesses CLAIMING to be "socially driven" are pure BS, not that the very idea of a socially driven business is inherently BS. Which would make sense to me.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I think you're reading it wrong. What he's saying is: many socially-driven businesses are pure BS. That doesn't mean he doesn't believe that a genuine socially-driven business can be built to solve that problem.
  - whbk 12y ago
    lol wat? That's an..'interesting' parsing of what he's saying. Is it just me or is it fairly apparent to most others that he's likely saying he's surprised that homelessness in general isn't being tackled (without speaking to the likelihood of success) by a startup, and he then follows by stating the obvious: that most startups who talk about 'changing the world' are blowing smoke. Of course, the unstated insinuation being that a startup aiming to reduce homelessness would actually be worthy of that title. Not sure why you jumped to the least generous interpretation possible but I'd bet a lot of money that there's no there there.
- josefresco 12y ago
  I certainly hope we wasn't referring to a startup to help you avoid the homeless. Taken in context, I believe he's referring to the widening income gap and would therefore not be advocating simply avoiding them. A startup to fix the homeless problem? Good luck.
ar7hur 12y ago
> Palo Alto, Mountain View etc. are no more part of Silicon Valley Seems somewhat exaggerated to me. There's definitely a shift from the valley to the city (and Palantir eating up all available space in PA sure catalyzes this process), but I wouldn't say PA/MV are "no more part of SV".
- phamilton 12y ago
  Probably true. However, I do like the "observations from an outsider" perspective. He came to the bay area and spent all his time in SF. Therefore, from at least one persons perspective, SF is Silicon Valley and PA/MV aren't.
- orky56 12y ago
  The sexy, consumer-focused startups are in SF and where people want to be. Down in Mountain View & Palo Alto is where the VCs, unsexy B2B startups (Box), and accelerators (YC/500) are thriving. 20 something bachelors & DINCs want to live in the city where it's fun and happening whereas mothers/fathers would rather raise a family in the suburbia of the peninsula. I won't deny the trend towards SF as VCs and accelerators are making a presence there but most are not replacing their HQs in the peninsula.
  - GregorStocks 12y ago
    for reference, DINC = double income no children
josefresco 12y ago
"Quite a few companies are built by people who have no passion for that business. They are in the axis mundi to strike gold. It makes me sad." Worked or is working for Tony Hsieh @Zappos who couldn't give a crap about shoes. I realize the author is actually talking about start-up founders and not CEO's of successful corporations, but we should be weary of the advice that you must be passionate about your market/product to be successful.
- beat 12y ago
  You don't need to be passionate about the product of your business. Tony Hsieh may not care that much about shoes, but he cares tremendously about customer service and employee satisfaction. He's not making happy shoes, he's making happy customers and happy employees. Frankly, lots of businesses don't require "passion" in the eros sense about the product. One doesn't become passionate about dry cleaning, or transmission overhauls, or phlebotomy. The vast majority of jobs pay because they're necessary but not interesting. Products that inspire deep passion, like music or farming, rarely pay well, because passion is its own reward. If you want to make money, become really good at doing something that doesn't inspire passion, preferably something that most people really hate or fear. Get rewarded with pride in quality work, and the pay that comes with doing something that sucks for people who need it done.
  - smacktoward 12y ago
    > If you want to make money, become really good at doing something that doesn't inspire passion, preferably something that most people really hate or fear. Excellent point. The British have a saying for this: "where there's muck, there's brass." (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/where-there-s-muck-there-s-brass http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/where-the...)
- icebraining 12y ago
  He didn't say they can't be successful.
pzaich 12y ago
>>>`A lot of people are homeless. Every year I visit it’s increasing. Maybe I am using the wrong streets. I am surprised there’s no startup to fix this.` https://handup.us/ https://handup.us/ is tackling the challenge of direct donations to homeless.
legohead 12y ago
My first impressions of San Francisco were quite opposite of yours -- it was ugly, dirty, smelly and scary. I went for a conference and was in a nice hotel downtown. I went out to grab some dinner at night and couldn't wait to get back, lots of weirdos out on the street. I've been to cities all over the world and never felt as uncomfortable as I did in SF. Maybe I just got unlucky that night...
- dntrkv 12y ago
  Yeah, you were probably in the Tenderloin. The worst part of the city.
- orky56 12y ago
  Union Square is one of the most touristy parts yet with a couple wrong turns you're in some very sketchy areas.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    I remember once being a hotel ~15 years ago that was 5 or 6 blocks along (I think) Geary from Union Square - when I told the taxi driver where I wanted to go he said "Do you really want to go there?". The direction I got from the chap on reception were interesting - basically walk up the hill two blocks and along and back down to Union Square - he was very clear on not walking directly to Union Square. Of course, I did try walking directly back myself late one night - took taxis after that!
    - orky56 12y ago
      I find it even worse. I often stay at Parc 55 and there's a liquor store about 3 doors down that is a nightmare just to walk by. It's a sad sight to see watching homeless people spending the little money they have on booze in the heart of the new Silicon Valley. It's that feeling where you don't know the solution but the problem is so pervasive that you truly feel powerless. You know right from wrong but feel powerless in the easy amoral apathy.
- ethomson 12y ago
kyro 12y ago
What was most off putting on my last trip to SF was the juxtaposition of the yuppie and homeless worlds. It wasn't uncommon to see long lines for local chic coffee shops full of young, well-to-do individuals while the homeless begged, urinated and defacated on the same stretch of sidewalk to often no acknowledgement by the former group. I live in NYC so I see homeless people every day, but here you don't see such an unsettling and stark contrast between them and the non-homeless.
- debt 12y ago
  That seems to be largest complaint I hear from tourists. SF takes care of their homeless. Matter of fact, SF programs are so good we have a problem with other states sending their homeless specifically to SF[1]. I'm from Chicago where the homeless don't have nearly the same advantages as they do here in SF(particularly the weather). There were encampments in Grant Park in Chicago and they were forcibly removed by the police both in '68 and just a few years ago[2]. Which, again, is in stark contrast to something like Golden Gate Park here in SF where there has been a large homeless encampment for at least as long as I have lived here and probably longer[3]. That shit would just not fly in Chicago but I do like that SF actually takes care of everyone and not just the people that know the right people. [1]http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san-francisco-sues-nevada-patient-dumping/ http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san-franc... [2]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-16/news/chi-occupy-chicago-protesters-relocate-to-grant-park-20111015_1_chicago-protesters-chicago-police-grant-park http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-16/news/chi-occup... [3]http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/despite-improvement-50-people-still-live-in-golden-gate-park/Content?oid=2477222 http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/despite-improvement-5...
  - ethomson 12y ago
    I'm not sure that I agree with you. I don't equate allowing homeless encampments with "taking care" of them. Many of these people have mental illness and / or drug addiction that is being ignored by the city. I feel like San Francisco (and some of the other nearby municipalities like Berkeley) have this lassez faire mentality when it comes to their homeless population where they think that interfering would be a bad thing. That this acceptance is a healthy thing. That some guy in a tent in Golden Gate Park who yells things at passers-by and chases dogs is somehow a charming slice of life in the city and contributes to its uniqueness and not that this poor guy might benefit from antipsychotics. But again, that's just a feeling I get that I can't really back up with anything but anecdotal evidence. Chicago is certainly no better in terms of taking care of its homeless, as you point out: the city and state have been deprioritizing spending for years. Homeless shelters, community health organizations, addiction centers have been losing state funding and having to get federal and private grants to get by (when they can get by; certainly the number of beds available are shrinking.) But Chicago isn't proud of the status quo and I'm surprised that San Francisco, well, seems to be.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
a2kadet 12y ago
> A lot of people are homeless. Every year I visit it’s increasing. Maybe I am using the wrong streets. I am surprised there’s no startup to fix this. Do we really think startups are the silver bullet to solve all of the world's problems?
at-fates-hands 12y ago
>> But the increasing divide in between the rich and the poor and the nouveau riche will only hurt in long term. History has taught us that. I hope my American friends will learn this for the larger good. Every time I hear this, I wonder if people just don't know that we lift more people out of poverty every year, or its just such a common misconception that is now engrained in our culture. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/land-of-opportunity-almost-93-of-all-new-millionaires-worldwide-in-the-last-year-were-americans/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/land-of-opportunity-almost-... "Land of opportunity: Of the 1.8M net increase in global millionaires last year, more than 9 out of 10 were Americans" http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/17/2633881/poverty-data-shows-importance-safety-net-programs-millions/ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/17/2633881/poverty-... "The official poverty rate was essentially unchanged at 15.1 percent in 2012, and alternative measures show that safety net programs like food stamps, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and tax credits for the working poor keep tens of millions of Americans out of poverty each year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday." Maybe we have different ideas of what poor is? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-pov... "“The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker."
bluetidepro 12y ago
> "This future is “only” mobile. I thought it is mobile." I wouldn't mind seeing more expansion on that thought. Maybe it's because I spend so much time on the computer for work, but I still think there is a LONG ways to go before you can have the same experience with applications or sites on your mobile device that your desktop gives you. I will never want to be locked down to such a small screen for everything. And things like touch screens (at any size) are far from perfect verse the precision you can get with a mouse. Yes, I think the future is mobile, for certain categories of business. I just think we are still very far from saying that statement applies to everything in the tech industry, or any industry for that matter. I think a better statement is the future is "mobile enabled" meaning you have to have a way to use the site or app on the go (mobile), but that doesn't mean it's the ideal way to interact with the product 100% of the time.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  The "future is mobile" thought isn't saying that mobile experiences are superior to desktop experiences. In fact it's almost a tacit acknowledgment of the opposite. Think about it this way: Google Maps on desktop is IMO much, much more useful than Google Maps on my phone. I can fit a lot more search results, things are much easier to see at a glance, I don't have to zoom in so far to see important map features, etc etc. But ultimately I still use Maps on my phone a lot more than I do on desktop, because I need maps a lot more while I'm out and about than when I'm sitting still. Ditto shopping. Surfing Amazon on a desktop is probably always going to be a superior experience to doing it on mobile, but as smartphones get better and connectivity improves, more and more people are going to want to quickly buy something (e.g., notice you need a pack of razors as you're heading out the door - use your phone instead of sitting down at your desktop). And what we're seeing - at least from the few companies I've had the opportunity to watch this from - is that even traditionally "desktop" use cases are increasingly mobile. Looking for something to do with your significant other this weekend? That used to be a desktop use case, but it's increasingly mobile as well, even though it is of course not an intrinsically or obviously mobile thing to do. "The future is mobile" means "people want to use this on mobiles, even though it's going to be strictly worse than the desktop experience, so you can either try to close the desktop-mobile UX gap as much as possible or watch your users bleed off to your competitors". The corollary to that is also "you should try to find actual mobile-centric use cases for your product so that your mobile product isn't just a slightly crappier clone of your desktop product".
JackFr 12y ago
TFA struck me as mostly harmless anecdotal observations of a twenty-something living in a bubble. But A lot of people are homeless. Every year I visit it’s increasing. Maybe I am using the wrong streets. I am surprised there’s no startup to fix this. indicated a whole new level of bubble-induced cluelessness. If we take him at his word, that he really is 'surprised' by this, his incapacity for any thoughtful awareness undermines the whole piece.
tzs 12y ago
> Palo Alto, Mountain View etc. are no more part of Silicon Valley. SF is the happening city. Cent percent of my meetings were in SF. The last time I was here its was distributed between University Ave, PA, Castro Mountain View and SF The big Silicon Valley companies apparently haven't gotten the message yet. The Wikipedia article on Silicon Valley [1] has a list of 32 Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Silicon Valley. Only one of them is headquartered in San Francisco. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silicon_Valley&oldid=607496532 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silicon_Valley&old...
Balgair 12y ago
San Fransisco is a dirty, two-fisted drinking town. I grew up in the Bay and my family has been there 4 generations now. The tech sector is a small part of SF and SF is a small part of the Bay and California as well. There are millions of teachers, janitors, dentists and accountants that live in the Bay too. Most of these people couldn't care less about tech. They care about Prop 13. The care about the police; my town was a This American Life special [0] on corruption. They care about traditions and family; Pittsburgh is owned by old mafiosi from way back [1]. They care about stable jobs; Telegraph is nothing but burning out asians and burnt out hippies [2][3]. They care about fun and freedom; SF clears out for the Burn every year more and more [4]. Tech, though rich, is a fad and we can all see it. The impression I get is that it's a bunch of trustafarians and credit cards playing around because there still aren't any good jobs left over from 2008 and no-one knows what to do 6 years on. SF will be who lives, works, goes to PTS meetings, runs for Geary Revitalization seats, goes to A's and Raider's games, and cleans the streets. Not doughy guys staring at screens and pretending they can make Soylent real (really, how uncool can you be?) Unless it's got bourbon in it, most people in the Bay could care less. [0]http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/447/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/447/t... [1]http://mafia.wikia.com/wiki/San_Jose_crime_family http://mafia.wikia.com/wiki/San_Jose_crime_family [2]http://opa.berkeley.edu/uc-berkeley-fall-enrollment-data http://opa.berkeley.edu/uc-berkeley-fall-enrollment-data [3]http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Council_4/Elected_Officials_and_Collections/Homeless_Task_Force.aspx http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Council_4/Elected_Officials_and... [4]http://blog.burningman.com/2013/09/news/black-rock-city-2013-population/ http://blog.burningman.com/2013/09/news/black-rock-city-2013...

66 points by aqeel 12y ago

>>>"Ironically there is a lot of hatred among the locals about “tech” but I was honestly surprised since the west coast is largely transient population." It's interesting to note the parallels between SF and Bangalore in this aspect.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

untog 12y ago

There is hope on the streets. The cogs of the American economy seem like moving. [...] A lot of people are homeless. Every year I visit it’s increasing. Maybe I am using the wrong streets. I am surprised there’s no startup to fix this.

cryoshon 12y ago
Seems like he's missed the elephant in the room. The tech sector's cogs are moving at an increasingly rapid pace whereas nearly everyone else has been jammed to a standstill or losing ground since 2008. The proliterian hatred of the tech sector is based on jealousy and misplaced blame for the fallout caused by gentrification which follows higher incomes. The homeless are the most blatant casualties of a depressed economy, but rest assured, there are countless others who suffer without falling onto the streets.
- throwaway13qf85 12y ago
  I don't think you understand what the phrase "elephant in the room" means. If lots of people are talking about something (and certainly, a lot of people are talking about the tech sector vs the rest of the economy) then it's not the elephant in the room.
  - untog 12y ago
    (and certainly, a lot of people are talking about the tech sector vs the rest of the economy) I'm not sure they're talking about it in the tech sector, though.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Sure they are. Whether arguing for or against it, they're talking about it. Not everyone, certainly, but enough that "elephant in the room" seems an inappropriate description.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Kalium 12y ago
  Homelessness in SF is a lot more complicated than that. With a mild climate, political sympathy (and associated city services), and lots of tourists to panhandle... SF is something of a destination for the homeless who can manage it.
peterwwillis 12y ago
I laughed out loud at the last sentence.
dntrkv 12y ago
Are you implying that the two are mutually exclusive? Solving homelessness is not an economic problem. There are so many factors involved, that you can have a great economy with low unemployment but tons of homeless people.
- untog 12y ago
  Getting to 0% homelessness would require more than just economic action, but homelessness is still an economic issue.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Only in the sense that everything is an economic issue. My understanding is that mental illness is still the leading cause of homelessness.
  - dntrkv 12y ago
    Yes because the crazy guy outside my office yelling at the brick wall just needs a job, and he'll be living in a home in no time.
    - untog 12y ago
      But that's my point. Only 39% of homeless people have mental issues[1]. It's not correct to characterise homelessness as caused by mental problems. [1] http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html
      - dntrkv 12y ago
        Sure, it may not be the leading cause. But the homeless that people are usually referring to when they talk about San Francisco's homeless problem, are the ones with mental issues or addiction problems. I rarely ever see the regular, sane, homeless people sprawled across the sidewalk in the middle of the day. It's always the drug addicts or the mentally ill.

supahfly_remix 12y ago

> A lot of people are homeless. Every year I visit it’s increasing. Maybe I am using the wrong streets. I am surprised there’s no startup to fix this. Does he mean a startup to help him avoid streets with homeless, or a startup to solve the homeless problem?

brixon 12y ago
Probably avoid streets since his next bullet is "A lot of socially driven business is just pure BS." Solving the homeless problem would be a socially driven business and that would make it BS and not worth doing.
- sirkneeland 12y ago
  I think what the author means is that a lot of the businesses CLAIMING to be "socially driven" are pure BS, not that the very idea of a socially driven business is inherently BS. Which would make sense to me.
- icebraining 12y ago
  I think you're reading it wrong. What he's saying is: many socially-driven businesses are pure BS. That doesn't mean he doesn't believe that a genuine socially-driven business can be built to solve that problem.
- whbk 12y ago
  lol wat? That's an..'interesting' parsing of what he's saying. Is it just me or is it fairly apparent to most others that he's likely saying he's surprised that homelessness in general isn't being tackled (without speaking to the likelihood of success) by a startup, and he then follows by stating the obvious: that most startups who talk about 'changing the world' are blowing smoke. Of course, the unstated insinuation being that a startup aiming to reduce homelessness would actually be worthy of that title. Not sure why you jumped to the least generous interpretation possible but I'd bet a lot of money that there's no there there.
josefresco 12y ago
I certainly hope we wasn't referring to a startup to help you avoid the homeless. Taken in context, I believe he's referring to the widening income gap and would therefore not be advocating simply avoiding them. A startup to fix the homeless problem? Good luck.

ar7hur 12y ago

> Palo Alto, Mountain View etc. are no more part of Silicon Valley Seems somewhat exaggerated to me. There's definitely a shift from the valley to the city (and Palantir eating up all available space in PA sure catalyzes this process), but I wouldn't say PA/MV are "no more part of SV".

phamilton 12y ago
Probably true. However, I do like the "observations from an outsider" perspective. He came to the bay area and spent all his time in SF. Therefore, from at least one persons perspective, SF is Silicon Valley and PA/MV aren't.
orky56 12y ago
The sexy, consumer-focused startups are in SF and where people want to be. Down in Mountain View & Palo Alto is where the VCs, unsexy B2B startups (Box), and accelerators (YC/500) are thriving. 20 something bachelors & DINCs want to live in the city where it's fun and happening whereas mothers/fathers would rather raise a family in the suburbia of the peninsula. I won't deny the trend towards SF as VCs and accelerators are making a presence there but most are not replacing their HQs in the peninsula.
- GregorStocks 12y ago
  for reference, DINC = double income no children

josefresco 12y ago

"Quite a few companies are built by people who have no passion for that business. They are in the axis mundi to strike gold. It makes me sad." Worked or is working for Tony Hsieh @Zappos who couldn't give a crap about shoes. I realize the author is actually talking about start-up founders and not CEO's of successful corporations, but we should be weary of the advice that you must be passionate about your market/product to be successful.

beat 12y ago
You don't need to be passionate about the product of your business. Tony Hsieh may not care that much about shoes, but he cares tremendously about customer service and employee satisfaction. He's not making happy shoes, he's making happy customers and happy employees. Frankly, lots of businesses don't require "passion" in the eros sense about the product. One doesn't become passionate about dry cleaning, or transmission overhauls, or phlebotomy. The vast majority of jobs pay because they're necessary but not interesting. Products that inspire deep passion, like music or farming, rarely pay well, because passion is its own reward. If you want to make money, become really good at doing something that doesn't inspire passion, preferably something that most people really hate or fear. Get rewarded with pride in quality work, and the pay that comes with doing something that sucks for people who need it done.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  > If you want to make money, become really good at doing something that doesn't inspire passion, preferably something that most people really hate or fear. Excellent point. The British have a saying for this: "where there's muck, there's brass." (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/where-there-s-muck-there-s-brass http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/where-the...)
icebraining 12y ago
He didn't say they can't be successful.

pzaich 12y ago

>>>`A lot of people are homeless. Every year I visit it’s increasing. Maybe I am using the wrong streets. I am surprised there’s no startup to fix this.` https://handup.us/ https://handup.us/ is tackling the challenge of direct donations to homeless.

legohead 12y ago

My first impressions of San Francisco were quite opposite of yours -- it was ugly, dirty, smelly and scary. I went for a conference and was in a nice hotel downtown. I went out to grab some dinner at night and couldn't wait to get back, lots of weirdos out on the street. I've been to cities all over the world and never felt as uncomfortable as I did in SF. Maybe I just got unlucky that night...

dntrkv 12y ago
Yeah, you were probably in the Tenderloin. The worst part of the city.
orky56 12y ago
Union Square is one of the most touristy parts yet with a couple wrong turns you're in some very sketchy areas.
- arethuza 12y ago
  I remember once being a hotel ~15 years ago that was 5 or 6 blocks along (I think) Geary from Union Square - when I told the taxi driver where I wanted to go he said "Do you really want to go there?". The direction I got from the chap on reception were interesting - basically walk up the hill two blocks and along and back down to Union Square - he was very clear on not walking directly to Union Square. Of course, I did try walking directly back myself late one night - took taxis after that!
  - orky56 12y ago
    I find it even worse. I often stay at Parc 55 and there's a liquor store about 3 doors down that is a nightmare just to walk by. It's a sad sight to see watching homeless people spending the little money they have on booze in the heart of the new Silicon Valley. It's that feeling where you don't know the solution but the problem is so pervasive that you truly feel powerless. You know right from wrong but feel powerless in the easy amoral apathy.
ethomson 12y ago

kyro 12y ago

What was most off putting on my last trip to SF was the juxtaposition of the yuppie and homeless worlds. It wasn't uncommon to see long lines for local chic coffee shops full of young, well-to-do individuals while the homeless begged, urinated and defacated on the same stretch of sidewalk to often no acknowledgement by the former group. I live in NYC so I see homeless people every day, but here you don't see such an unsettling and stark contrast between them and the non-homeless.

debt 12y ago
That seems to be largest complaint I hear from tourists. SF takes care of their homeless. Matter of fact, SF programs are so good we have a problem with other states sending their homeless specifically to SF[1]. I'm from Chicago where the homeless don't have nearly the same advantages as they do here in SF(particularly the weather). There were encampments in Grant Park in Chicago and they were forcibly removed by the police both in '68 and just a few years ago[2]. Which, again, is in stark contrast to something like Golden Gate Park here in SF where there has been a large homeless encampment for at least as long as I have lived here and probably longer[3]. That shit would just not fly in Chicago but I do like that SF actually takes care of everyone and not just the people that know the right people. [1]http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san-francisco-sues-nevada-patient-dumping/ http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san-franc... [2]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-16/news/chi-occupy-chicago-protesters-relocate-to-grant-park-20111015_1_chicago-protesters-chicago-police-grant-park http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-16/news/chi-occup... [3]http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/despite-improvement-50-people-still-live-in-golden-gate-park/Content?oid=2477222 http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/despite-improvement-5...
- ethomson 12y ago
  I'm not sure that I agree with you. I don't equate allowing homeless encampments with "taking care" of them. Many of these people have mental illness and / or drug addiction that is being ignored by the city. I feel like San Francisco (and some of the other nearby municipalities like Berkeley) have this lassez faire mentality when it comes to their homeless population where they think that interfering would be a bad thing. That this acceptance is a healthy thing. That some guy in a tent in Golden Gate Park who yells things at passers-by and chases dogs is somehow a charming slice of life in the city and contributes to its uniqueness and not that this poor guy might benefit from antipsychotics. But again, that's just a feeling I get that I can't really back up with anything but anecdotal evidence. Chicago is certainly no better in terms of taking care of its homeless, as you point out: the city and state have been deprioritizing spending for years. Homeless shelters, community health organizations, addiction centers have been losing state funding and having to get federal and private grants to get by (when they can get by; certainly the number of beds available are shrinking.) But Chicago isn't proud of the status quo and I'm surprised that San Francisco, well, seems to be.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

a2kadet 12y ago

> A lot of people are homeless. Every year I visit it’s increasing. Maybe I am using the wrong streets. I am surprised there’s no startup to fix this. Do we really think startups are the silver bullet to solve all of the world's problems?

at-fates-hands 12y ago

>> But the increasing divide in between the rich and the poor and the nouveau riche will only hurt in long term. History has taught us that. I hope my American friends will learn this for the larger good. Every time I hear this, I wonder if people just don't know that we lift more people out of poverty every year, or its just such a common misconception that is now engrained in our culture. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/land-of-opportunity-almost-93-of-all-new-millionaires-worldwide-in-the-last-year-were-americans/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/land-of-opportunity-almost-... "Land of opportunity: Of the 1.8M net increase in global millionaires last year, more than 9 out of 10 were Americans" http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/17/2633881/poverty-data-shows-importance-safety-net-programs-millions/ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/09/17/2633881/poverty-... "The official poverty rate was essentially unchanged at 15.1 percent in 2012, and alternative measures show that safety net programs like food stamps, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and tax credits for the working poor keep tens of millions of Americans out of poverty each year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday." Maybe we have different ideas of what poor is? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-pov... "“The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker."

bluetidepro 12y ago

> "This future is “only” mobile. I thought it is mobile." I wouldn't mind seeing more expansion on that thought. Maybe it's because I spend so much time on the computer for work, but I still think there is a LONG ways to go before you can have the same experience with applications or sites on your mobile device that your desktop gives you. I will never want to be locked down to such a small screen for everything. And things like touch screens (at any size) are far from perfect verse the precision you can get with a mouse. Yes, I think the future is mobile, for certain categories of business. I just think we are still very far from saying that statement applies to everything in the tech industry, or any industry for that matter. I think a better statement is the future is "mobile enabled" meaning you have to have a way to use the site or app on the go (mobile), but that doesn't mean it's the ideal way to interact with the product 100% of the time.

potatolicious 12y ago
The "future is mobile" thought isn't saying that mobile experiences are superior to desktop experiences. In fact it's almost a tacit acknowledgment of the opposite. Think about it this way: Google Maps on desktop is IMO much, much more useful than Google Maps on my phone. I can fit a lot more search results, things are much easier to see at a glance, I don't have to zoom in so far to see important map features, etc etc. But ultimately I still use Maps on my phone a lot more than I do on desktop, because I need maps a lot more while I'm out and about than when I'm sitting still. Ditto shopping. Surfing Amazon on a desktop is probably always going to be a superior experience to doing it on mobile, but as smartphones get better and connectivity improves, more and more people are going to want to quickly buy something (e.g., notice you need a pack of razors as you're heading out the door - use your phone instead of sitting down at your desktop). And what we're seeing - at least from the few companies I've had the opportunity to watch this from - is that even traditionally "desktop" use cases are increasingly mobile. Looking for something to do with your significant other this weekend? That used to be a desktop use case, but it's increasingly mobile as well, even though it is of course not an intrinsically or obviously mobile thing to do. "The future is mobile" means "people want to use this on mobiles, even though it's going to be strictly worse than the desktop experience, so you can either try to close the desktop-mobile UX gap as much as possible or watch your users bleed off to your competitors". The corollary to that is also "you should try to find actual mobile-centric use cases for your product so that your mobile product isn't just a slightly crappier clone of your desktop product".

JackFr 12y ago

TFA struck me as mostly harmless anecdotal observations of a twenty-something living in a bubble. But A lot of people are homeless. Every year I visit it’s increasing. Maybe I am using the wrong streets. I am surprised there’s no startup to fix this. indicated a whole new level of bubble-induced cluelessness. If we take him at his word, that he really is 'surprised' by this, his incapacity for any thoughtful awareness undermines the whole piece.

tzs 12y ago

> Palo Alto, Mountain View etc. are no more part of Silicon Valley. SF is the happening city. Cent percent of my meetings were in SF. The last time I was here its was distributed between University Ave, PA, Castro Mountain View and SF The big Silicon Valley companies apparently haven't gotten the message yet. The Wikipedia article on Silicon Valley [1] has a list of 32 Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Silicon Valley. Only one of them is headquartered in San Francisco. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silicon_Valley&oldid=607496532 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silicon_Valley&old...

Balgair 12y ago

San Fransisco is a dirty, two-fisted drinking town. I grew up in the Bay and my family has been there 4 generations now. The tech sector is a small part of SF and SF is a small part of the Bay and California as well. There are millions of teachers, janitors, dentists and accountants that live in the Bay too. Most of these people couldn't care less about tech. They care about Prop 13. The care about the police; my town was a This American Life special [0] on corruption. They care about traditions and family; Pittsburgh is owned by old mafiosi from way back [1]. They care about stable jobs; Telegraph is nothing but burning out asians and burnt out hippies [2][3]. They care about fun and freedom; SF clears out for the Burn every year more and more [4]. Tech, though rich, is a fad and we can all see it. The impression I get is that it's a bunch of trustafarians and credit cards playing around because there still aren't any good jobs left over from 2008 and no-one knows what to do 6 years on. SF will be who lives, works, goes to PTS meetings, runs for Geary Revitalization seats, goes to A's and Raider's games, and cleans the streets. Not doughy guys staring at screens and pretending they can make Soylent real (really, how uncool can you be?) Unless it's got bourbon in it, most people in the Bay could care less. [0]http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/447/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/447/t... [1]http://mafia.wikia.com/wiki/San_Jose_crime_family http://mafia.wikia.com/wiki/San_Jose_crime_family [2]http://opa.berkeley.edu/uc-berkeley-fall-enrollment-data http://opa.berkeley.edu/uc-berkeley-fall-enrollment-data [3]http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Council_4/Elected_Officials_and_Collections/Homeless_Task_Force.aspx http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Council_4/Elected_Officials_and... [4]http://blog.burningman.com/2013/09/news/black-rock-city-2013-population/ http://blog.burningman.com/2013/09/news/black-rock-city-2013...