Does It Make Sense for Programmers to Move to the Bay Area? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.triplebyte.com/does-it-make-sense-for-programmers-to-move-to-the-bay-area <comment><USER2> As someone who grew up in the Bay Area, but moved to Portland about three years ago, I can tell you there is a stark difference in ecosystems. However, if you are a young up-and-coming programmer coming out of school, it makes complete sense to move to the Bay Area. If you're an Actor you move to L.A. to get your big break. If you're a programmer, you go to the Bay Area to work for a big firm that will help build your reputation and resume. For people later in their careers who have "been there/done that" it's less about what you can do for a company and more about what you can do for yourself. People later in their career tend to think more about their quality of life after spending years grinding it out in markets like the Bay Area. I know it's the big reason I moved to Portland. I love the tech community here. It's much more collaborative. The salaries may not match what you get in the Bay Area, but what I lose in salary I gain in not being stressed all the time.

<comment><USER3> >go to Bay Area to a big firm to build your reputation

Doesn't make sense. The big 4 have campuses across the country.

Instead of telling people to move to SV I would recommend making sure to get into the right (big 4 or not) team and role for your career. Just fixing bugs at big SV company will not help much. You want to make sure you have a chance to contribute something to show your skills on an innovative or leading team.

<comment><USER4> Joining one of the FANGs as your first job is a great way to kill your chances of developing a highly diverse skill set early on. Good luck doing anything interesting when there are 120 superior engineers who are bored out of their minds all vying for the opportunity. Working in a smaller company that has real problems to solve tends to be much more rewarding. There's a reason the technical leadership at the big 4 tends to be comprised of engineers who came from elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It looks like the salary differential of $33k listed in the article is gross earnings. After taxes this would just barely cover the rent differential of $1.5k/mo ($18k/year). Note that this is the best case scenario according to their estimates.

What troubles me is the use of median rent to compare housing costs. As rent increases, renters are likely to downsize offsetting some of the rent increase. I'd be willing to bet Seattle renters are able to get more space for the area's median rental. Accordingly, the salary increase probably doesn't cover the rent increase for a similar sized home.

<comment><USER6> EDIT

I incorrectly multiplied the tax rate to the salary difference, and said that this was a 5$ difference. This is totally wrong (as multiple people point out below). I'll leave my original embarrassing comment as a cation to not write stupid things :)

==

I just added in a mention of the tax difference. But the numbers are 13.3% in CA vs 0% in WA. That's significant, for sure. But 13% tax on $33k is about $5k. I don't think that changes the conclusion that the salary difference does (in many cases) cover the housing costs.

You're likely correct about the price for a similarly sized home. People who want large homes should probably not move to the Bay Area.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for adding the note on the tax difference! That doesn't address my point though.

If the salary difference of $33k is the difference between gross salary, that $33k is going to be taxed at the marginal tax rate. My guess at a marginal tax rate would be ~40%. Accordingly, that $33k becomes closer to $20k after tax.

Edit: to clarify, consider a Seattle salary of $100k and a Bay Area salary of $133k. The take-home salary for each location would be:

      Seattle : $100k*(1-0.4) = $60k
      Bay Area: $130k*(1-0.4) = $78k

Leaving $19.8k in additional income to cover the median rent increase of $18k annually.

<comment><USER7> Washington state has no state income tax, which in California is a little under 10%: [https://www.tax-brackets.org/californiataxtable](https://www.tax- brackets.org/californiataxtable)

Works out to $9k according to this for a single filer: [https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax- calculator#8TRRj...](https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax- calculator#8TRRj8YaEI) \-- so your additional income is more like $11k, or just under $1k / mo. In my experience, the difference in housing is far more than $1k/mo, so you come out ahead in Seattle.

EDIT: Looks like I forgot about California's other taxes on payroll, so it's actually even more in Seattle's favor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting that Bay Area hackers make more than local hackers when they relocate outside the Bay Area.

FTA:

      A 2015 report by Hired found that when engineers from
      the Bay Area relocate to other areas, they out-earn
      engineers on the local market. Experience in the Bay
      Area seems to advance careers. Engineers moving from
      San Francisco to Seattle make an average of $9,000
      more than others who get offers in Seattle. This Bay
      Area premium is even higher in other cities: $16,000
      in Boston, $17,000 in Chicago, and $19,000 in San Diego.

[found slide at [http://get.hired.com/rs/348-IPO-044/images/Hired-State-of- Sa...](http://get.hired.com/rs/348-IPO-044/images/Hired-State-of- Salaries.pdf)]

Bay Area hackers are more valued in different markets than local hackers. I would love to see the raw data for the "relocating" hackers and local hackers. Is it a question of applied experience opportunities in the Bay Area hackers? Is just startup afterglow? Are relocating hackers better than average pre-Bay Area experience to begin with and this shows up when they migrate away from the Bay Area?

<comment><USER5> This could also be an artifact of the metric. I call this the "Geico" fallacy.

Geico advertises that "People who switch to Geico save 15% or more". Notice that people who would lose money by switching to Geico should rarely switch. Accordingly, this metric will usually be positive.

Consider that people moving to a new city for a job may need more incentive to move.

<comment><USER9> This is really insightful. Does this fallacy have an well known name?

<comment><USER10> Self-selection bias : [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self- selection_bias](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When people compare salaries / the cost of living in different cities, they often fail to account for the fact that many people don't spend their entire salary in the local economy. If you are trying to save money (or pay for college, donate to a cause, or buy a Ferrari) this costs the same no matter where you live. You should only apply the cost of living adjustment to housing (and maybe food). When you do this, living in the Bay Area starts to make more financial sense.

<comment><USER11> Yes, this is absolutely true. Your car, clothing, computers and gadgets, and most of your groceries will be a lower percentage of your discretionary income in the Bay Area than in most other places. Your housing and gasoline will cost more, and maybe your car insurance.

However, the caveat is that housing is so expensive here that it's difficult to save up for a down payment on any kind of housing on a single engineer's salary. A 20% down payment on pretty much anything is more than $100k, and even a highly paid engineer will need a long time to save up that kind of money while also paying high rent. An 80/10/10 mortgage or some kind of mortgage with PMI is easier to achieve, but those have significant drawbacks.

So, if you have significant cash savings, or a home somewhere else you can sell, you can achieve home ownership in the Bay Area (but it will probably be a smaller home than the one you have now). If you don't aspire to home ownership, you'll be fine too -- a software engineer with an average salary _can_ afford to pay rent here, and people who say otherwise are simply incorrect. But if you are just starting your career and move to the Bay Area planning to buy a home anytime soon, you're going to be disappointed.

Given that many people predicate their quality of life on home ownership, that's a pretty big caveat.

<comment><USER12> It takes about 2 years to save up $100K on a typical Bay Area engineer's salary, if you're fiscally prudent. Figure that $150K/year after taxes is about $110K/year, and live on $60K/year. That's eminently doable even in the Bay Area.

The problem is that $100K is a very low estimate for a down payment in the Bay Area these days. Most people I know are getting parental help to put down $500K down, because with housing prices running around $1.2M, that's what's necessary to get under the $700K jumbo mortgage threshold.

<comment><USER13> Sorry, I live here. I have an average salary for my experience. I can barely save $20k/yr.

My rent+util is about $2000/month. I live in a very /cheap/ 1-bedroom with creaky carpet floors, no insulation, and near train tracks that's far outside SF. (Belmont)

Altogether I spend close to $4000/month if I don't do anything special. /Everything/ is more expensive in this region. Food is expensive for no apparent reason other than to gouge customers. ($6 for a few sticks of butter? When I was in Seattle, it was $2-3.) I eat less fruits here because the prices are high year round. My job doesn't provide lunches, so I have to eat out everyday I'm at work. I mean, even cars cost more here just on Craigslist. In the same way there's an Apple tax, there's definitely a Bay Area tax.

I cannot possibly save $50k/yr for a house. Oh and $150k/yr is not $110k/yr after taxes. It's more like $94k.

I'm saving maybe $20k/yr right now. Ain't even contributing to retirement. Just trying to save for who knows what until I can get a job that pays 50% more.

<comment><USER14> You don't have an average salary for your experience.

$4,000 * 12 is $48,000. Plus your $20k in purported savings is only $68k.

That's only $100k in gross pay, which is the bare minimum for a developer in SV. Most new grads make more than that.

<comment><USER15> According to PayScale[1] and Glassdoor[2], average/median salary for software engineer in the Bay Area is around $110K, so it's tough to believe $100K is "the bare minimum".

1: [http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Software_Engineer/Sa...](http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Software_Engineer/Salary/a5e48575/San- Francisco-CA)

2: [https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-software- en...](https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-software-engineer- salary-SRCH_IL.0,13_IM759_KO14,31.htm)

<comment><USER14> That's salary alone, not total comp.

<comment><USER15> Your post only mentioned salary.

EDIT: And to add more to the conversation than that curt response:

When I compare take-home pay among various jobs I tend to ignore bonuses (because they're subject to your employer's whim--you don't necessarily get them) and I tend to ignore equity (because it's typically temporary--once you vest it no longer adds to your yearly take-home). To compare apples with apples you can only really compare base salary.

<comment><USER16> That is nuts to only compare base salary. At the big 4, base salary will be <60% of total comp. It's possible that Goog will hit really tough times and no longer pay the annual bonuses and it's possible they don't offer equity refreshes. But it's much more likely that Goog's business will hold steady (or grow) and the company will want to continue attracting candidates. It's much more likely that employees get refreshes so that their pay in years 2,3 and 4 are higher than the pay they were promised at sign-on. However, it's possible for pay in the 5th year to drop if the initial grant is huge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So a recruiting agency who makes money from placing applicants in the Bay area, a place with a shortage of developers, writes an article to convince more developers to move to the Bay area ? Yeah, totally trust their data and the data they selected for this article!

<comment><USER18> So, do you actually see something wrong with/missing from their data?

<comment><USER19> I didn't get very far, but their first section has a huge disconnect between data and the text. Text:

> So assuming you're looking throughout the Bay Area for a good deal and > you're comfortable renting rather than buying a home, as most of us are > during the early stages of our careers, higher Bay Area salaries at least > cover the costs of higher rents.

Data:

> engineers at top tech companies in the Bay Area stand to make between > $15,000 and $33,000 more per year than engineers at top tech companies in > Seattle.

and

> median rent is about $1400-$1500 a month (or roughly $17,000-$18,000 a year) > higher in the Bay Area than in the Seattle metro area

Somehow $15k-$33k marginal income "at least cover" $17k-$18k. That's just outrageously untrue, even if you ignore the fact that it fails to cover any of the numerous other ways that SF is more expensive (food? local services? _CA income tax?_ ) or the fact that _you have to pay taxes on the extra money_ (which brings $15k-$33k down to $10k-$22k, assuming a conservative marginal tax rate estimate of 35%).

Even assuming they aren't missing anything, cherrypicking data, etc., their data doesn't come close to supporting the claims they're making. Claiming bias seems like a pretty generous interpretation here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This whole dialogue shows a very laborer-centric view of the world. What is missing from this entire conversation is the concept of being an employer/founder or independent consultant. If you want to bootstrap a startup, the Bay Area cost basis is going to destroy your nest egg until you can raise capital. Also, this conversation implies that you are employed 100% of the time, ignoring any cases where you quit, are fired, or the "rocketship" startup you joined doesn't work out.

<comment><USER21> Considering that we're posting on a platform owned by venture capitalists, I think the more labor-centered posts we get the better.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, I'm not really seeing that as a negative.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I did the math on this about 1.5 years ago and came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it. I was, at the time, in a CTO-level position at a VC-funded startup and so had plenty of opportunities in the Bay, but in the end opted to live in a quiet country town about 2.5 hrs drive away and work from home in a lower-key role.

I have a 3yo kid and another on the way, and I do not regret my decision for one second, particularly when I hear horror stories from my stressed-out friends in SF/SJ. Also we can easily pay the mortgage on one salary and my wife is able to finish her PhD without us going into debt.

For us, it wasn't just about salary vs cost of living, but also about the stresses of big city life, competing for limited places in overtaxed childcare, sitting in traffic for hours every day, and being surrounded by other parents enduring the same tortures. No thanks.

<comment><USER24> He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune; for thay are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief.

<comment><USER25> I get that. But weighing family > enterprise is pretty easy to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I ended up in Los Angeles because, despite being an expensive city, rents were cheaper than the Bay Area, and the salaries being offered were equivalent. I have a great place in LA that would easily be 50% to double the price in the Bay.

This wasn't the only reason but it was one of the biggest. Another reason being that I wanted to work in tech as it relates to media and content, and there were many more options to choose from here.

<comment><USER27> for those who don't know, quality of life in LA is entirely dependent upon your commute. your life can either be the single best big-city experience in the country, or a hellish, dystopian nightmare that will send you into a suicidal depression.

i'm not joking. if you move to LA, plan ahead.

<comment><USER28> My plan is to find a remote job to avoid having to commute, rent a house in the San Gabriel Valley, and then spend my free time enjoying delicious Asian and Mexican food.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The article is poorly argued.

Paragraph 2 -- if you pick a winning startup (uber, etc) then the bay area is great! Well, yes. The problem is picking that winning startup, and really, if you're good at that, stop wasting your life as an engineer and go invest money for a living. We shouldn't expect eng to be able to pick better than vcs, and their hit rate isn't great.

It also uses pre-tax salaries, not _after tax_ salaries, where Seattle has a large advantage; even at $120k, you get $5k more in cash in Washington state. Which may not sound like much, but you should view it not as 5/120 but as 5/80 (roughly your take-home pay).

The discussion of housing (where exactly is that sub $800k housing in sfbay) ignores commute times and costs. Sure, if you want to live in outer sunset or east bay and deal with horrid commutes, there's cheap housing. If you want to live within 30 minutes of work, housing will likely be much more expensive.

The author also pays no attention to the effects of having to reset your social network / family to exploit moving to sfbay, banking the higher salary, then moving away. That's a large price to pay if your plan is to get to your mid 30s then move elsewhere. And hard to achieve buy-in from significant others who may similarly not be stoked about losing all his/her friends.

And finally, it finishes with a discussion of the two most generous employers, google and fb. Who, yes, are generous but also not representative.

<comment><USER30> I don't know if the article was really talking about "winning" startups. Growth+revenue aren't really representative of whether a company is "winning"—they're just representative of a company that's properly doing the thing investors want it to do, growing at the expense of all else.

If you're an investor, you need a company to _succeed_ in a long-term sense: to pay out at the other end of the bet that started it. _That 's_ hard to predict: it's like looking at the fitness of animals in an ecosystem and trying to predict which one will end up with the most great-great- grandchildren.

But if you're an employee, you just need a company to _be growing_ , and to be throwing money around in the process of doing that. You aren't looking for a _fit_ animal, you're looking for a _fat_ animal. Animals might get fat _before_ they get fit, as before puberty in mammals—and investors try to encourage startups to "bulk up" to kickstart their metaphorical puberty. But unhealthy animals _also_ get fat, and to a predator, they're just as edible.

If your goal is to "eat a lot of salary", you just need a company who's known to be throwing their fat around, not a company who will dominate their niche and sire a thousand children.

<comment><USER29> That is a good point. I do think though that even growing startups prefer to pay in equity though, at least until you get to the pseudo-IPO ultra late stages. As recently as a couple years ago, AirBnB gave me a fairly cash poor offer, but wanted me enough that when I turned it down both my future manager and a VP eng tried to get me to reconsider.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> _The salaries here do cover the higher cost of living, and if you are able to capitalize on the additional opportunities that are uniquely available here, you could end up doing much more than covering costs._

This conclusion is patently false. The article mentioned but failed to calculate California state income tax.

That $15k-33k salary differential is going to be eaten by _at least_ $12k in California income taxes. That leaves $3-21k to cover the additional rent expenses which is $250 - $1750 per month. The difference in median rent is almost $1500 per month. The article itself already admits that Seattle is better if you wish to own rather than rent housing.

EDIT: The salaries at Microsoft (Redmond) are comparable to the salary figure for Google, Facebook, Twitter, Airbnb, and Uber. The salaries at Amazon are $5-10k lower but make up for the difference in stock.

I'm estimating stock and cash bonus to be 40% of salary (which is conservative for Google and Facebook, I think). California state income tax on $160k is $12k.

<comment><USER32> It's like the author didn't even crunch the numbers. The same for stating that the facebook salary from the bay area is higher;

249 * .133 + 18 = 51.2, suggesting that a Microsoft engineer makes more in take home pay than a comparable Facebook engineer at Level 3.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This article seems to assume you're single and not in a hurry to start a family. I'd be interested to read an article "Does it make sense for a programmer with a wife and kids to move to the bay area". I secretly suspect the answer will be "no", since no matter how you slice it, a 4-bedroom house in the Bay Area won't be reachable until you are well on your way to, say, 40 or so.

<comment><USER34> I interviewed over phone and skype with a Bay area company not too long ago. In between interviews, since things were going well, I started looking for places to live. I have 2 kids, and currently live in a 4200 sq ft house in Texas. I was more than fine with downsizing, but not at the cost of eating up all my salary to live with my family in an apartment that was barely acceptable when I was single. My kids are currently in a top school district here, and to send them to a top (public) school in the Bay area was insanely expensive. The salary I would have received ($130k range) was no where near enough to get me into a 2k sq ft home near good schools. As I researched areas, I just couldn't understand how the salaries were so low, and the cost of homes/apartments so high. But if you have no family to support, take on roommates and are fine with 500 sq ft to live in, then it will be mostly ok to live there.

<comment><USER35> I had almost the exact same situation, except I'm up in MN. Top notch schools and no crime, 4200sqft home, etc etc. The salaries in SV are way too low to ever consider a move.

<comment><USER36> Not disputing your conclusions, but I wonder what the hell people do with 4200sqft houses. I grew up in a very normal 5 bedroom multi-level house, 4 person family. It was 2400sqft. So were everyone else's houses. My house in the valley is about half that size, for 2 of us. Given infinite money, sure I'd like a bigger house. 2k, maybe 2500. I just cannot fathom why anybody would even WANT 4k+. I hear of people living in 6000sqft mansions and it just seems so insane. Especially when they're paying $500/mo on A/C in AZ or TX. Just all seems so wasteful in a way that expensive real estate isn't.

<comment><USER34> Personally, we wanted the neighborhood, and also both my wife and I grew up very poor (i.e., we'd never lived in a really nice house). So we bought a mid- size house in a really nice neighborhood (over bought a little). That's why I am personally very happy with downsizing. But not at the cost of paying 4x what I am paying now.

But as already said by others, you fill the space and get used to it. There are times it's really nice to have so much space (holidays with family, birthday parties), and other times it's not (cleaning, a/c). Having a dedicated movie theater room is nice too.

<comment><USER37> 4200 sq ft. is mid-size to you?? Wow!

I lived in a 600 sq ft. mobile home in the bay area with my wife and son. It was a bit cramped but not too bad. Now we're in Munich in a place that's...maybe 900 sq ft.? And it feels like a pretty good size, just wish we had a garage. 4200 just blows my mind. To me, I think having that much space would feel like a burden.

<comment><USER34> No, 4200 isn't mid-size to me, it's mid-size for the neighborhood. It's a freaktastic mansion to me. I grew up with 6 people in a 1000 sq ft space (we moved a lot, so sometimes more, sometimes less).

But, you are right, this much space does feel like a burden frequently, which is why we are moving and I plan on downsizing. A little.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I wonder how much weather affects success, both for companies and individuals.

I worked as a Data Science engineer in Seattle (startup), and just moved to San Francisco this year (Google). I know this sounds trivial, but I think the more pleasant weather in the Bay Area is beneficial to my career. The lifestyle aspect is just icing on the cake.

I can't get up in the morning when it's rainy and cold. Of course, I do show up to work, just a little bit later in the day than if the weather was pleasant. I'm less refreshed. I think less clearly. I work less efficiently. I make more mistakes. I feel less healthy, because grogginess and caffeine consumption is positively correlated. That's the effect weather has day-to- day. Week-to-week, month-to-month, I can't help but avoid having S.A.D. (Seasonal Affective Disorder) in Seattle. Occasionally, I'd have an Existential Crisis, to use the term lightly, questioning whether my work is meaningful, whether I've sold out on my passion for programming. It helps that I work at a Google, but San Francisco weather definitely makes me feel more excited for work.

Maybe things will change when I want to own a house. Until then, even if my take home pay minus cost of living in the Bay Area is lower than Seattle, the Bay Area is still a better payoff, both in finances and purposefulness.

<comment><USER39> Stole the words right out of my mouth!

Did a summer internship in Redmond, and realized how much the weather affects my happiness and psychological well-being.

While SFBA weather is way better than Seattle, I still find it a bit cold/dreary for my liking. I really wish the tech hub was in San Diego instead, I'd move there in a heartbeat.

<comment><USER38> If I ever create a startup, I would definitely move to SoCal. It's cheaper. There's more diversity. The restaurant scene, in my opinion, is better, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> alex- I moved (internationally) to the bay area. In my specific circumstances I would not say that it was financially clearly a good thing to do, due to the MUCH higher costs of living.

However as a place to live it is quite nice. Technology is everywhere. You can go to a free meet up and literally see the creator of the language doing a talk (e.g. Guido tomorrow with the baypiggies). It has A LOT of opportunities to pursue the career that interests you. It's warm, close to the coast and a manageable drive to skiing in Tahoe.

Some times it is not all about the profit loss.

</comment><comment><USER40> This point is interesting:

      [3] We find that engineers often under-value startup success
      (growth rate, revenue) when looking for jobs, and instead
      place an emphasis on brand-recognition, or whether they find
      the subject area exciting. Now, I don't mean to judge anyone
      for this — working in an areas of passion may be great
      choice. But if your goal is to maximize your financial
      outcome, looking at startups more like an investor and
      picking a company in a big market on a promising trajectory
      is likely a winning strategy. The Bay Area, with a large
      number of startups, is probably the best place to do this.

<comment><USER41> Investors diversify their portfolios by investing in a number of startups and also in more reliable investments like well-established companies. You can't treat a job that way - there's no way to diversify the hours of day into several different companies with different risk levels. What the author describes is gambling. You bet all your resources (time, in this case) on one horse and hope it pays off big. That's not a good strategy. If you want to "invest in startups", then do that. Use Republic or start a VC. Don't gamble on a single startup and lie to yourself that it's an investment - treat it as a gamble, and only bet as much as you can afford.

<comment><USER42> Gambling and investing are just points at each end of a continuum.

Just because you can't diversify doesn't mean its not still a good idea to pick your employer in the same way an investor would.

<comment><USER43> If you want to treat job selection like a long-term investment, you should be getting a consistently high-paying job at BigCo instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> This doesn't factor in stock compensation AFAIK. For instance, I started at Amazon at around $90k in salary plus signing bonus of $20k so like $110,000 my first year out of college back in 2013. I made about the same in 2014. In 2015 I got promoted to SDE2 and my salary is closer to $118,000. But additionally I also got like $60k in 2015 in stock and this year my stock compensation is just about $100,000.

I'd imagine this is the case for a lot of tech companies so comparing salary alone probably isn't going to make a good argument one way or another.

Also taxes. WA has no state income tax so add an additional 10% income buying power

<comment><USER45> But there has also been an incredible growth in amazon stock value during that time. This isn't going to be typical of someone starting to work for Amazon today (or another tech company) as your stock grant was most likely calculated at a much lower stock price then it is now while theirs would be calculated on today prices and we don't know how the future will go. Experience definitively varies.

<comment><USER46> You're underestimating Amazon. I still think it can achieve same returns if not more in next 4 years like last 4 years

<comment><USER47> Tell that to the LinkedIn employee whose stock went down ;)

Stock is hit or miss. The big 4 had tremendous growth in the past few years and that made some people lucky. Don't count on that again in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Counterpoint: Globalization is real. Top tier accelerators accept companies from outside of the Bay Area and tech hubs these days. You can work for a tier 1 early to mid stage startup in a tier 3–4 startup ecosystem if you look hard enough (I do).

(The Triplebyte recruiter didn't seem super enthused with that being my response to why I didn't do their process.)

</comment><comment><USER49> If you are young, single and in tech, then it makes sense. You don't care if you share an apartment or even a room, you'll make good money and you'll acclimatize to how ridiculous the prices are over a few years.

If you are older, and you have a spouse and/or kids, then it makes less sense. It actually makes no sense if you're coming from a low cost area, and more sense if you're moving from NYC to Bay Area. If you're coming from a low cost area, you will suffer, because even if you owned your house outright, if you sell it it may be a decent downpayment, and then you'll have to spend a lot of money on mortgage. Plus school, commute, etc. I wouldn't recommend it in that situation.

</comment><comment><USER50> This analysis is very low quality. Engineers move to the bay area not for salaries, but for equity and RSUs. It's not unusual to make your salary again in RSUs, which are usually not that risky. Equity is a mixed ball, however. But these two factors are the unique element in the Bay area, and why you should move there. If you are an engineer in the bay area without loads of equity or RSUs, you're getting ripped off.

<comment><USER51> The analysis is low quality for a lot of reasons...

1\. It motivates moving to sv because there are "lots" of successful startups. Is the rate of successful startups higher than elsewhere?

2\. Average reported salary is a garbage statistic. Compare median values, between jobs of equal "status" (Google != j-random shipping company... Compare Google sv to Google Seattle within job title groups)

<comment><USER48> > 1\. It motivates moving to sv because there are "lots" of successful > startups. Is the rate of successful startups higher than elsewhere?

Probably, yes, but hard to say since a 2–3x "acquihire" can be a big success for another a city but considered a failure in SF, so how "success" is defined is different.

Even with that, the probability of hopping on a rocketship is still very low < 1%. It might be _higher_ in the Bay Area than elsewhere, but I felt the article was disingenuous if the intent was to suggest an engineer has good odds of picking the right rocketship at the early stage. It's not science.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> State and local taxes are a big concern that didn't get any mention in the article.

<comment><USER6> Totally fair point. CA state income tax may take an additional 13% out of the Bay Area numbers. I'm adding this into the post now... Thanks for pointing this out!

<comment><USER52> Cool! Interested to see your take on it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Not if rent/property prices are a major economic factor for you. Obviously you can find deals if you know someone or get lucky, but housing prices have gone back to pre-recessionary craziness. As a homeowner I regularly get mail from real estate agents offering to get the best price if I want to sell; over the last 5 years prices in my neighborhood have increased 300%. Yes, three hundred per cent. A _small_ one bedroom apartment in this nice-but-not-fancy North Oakland neighborhood typically starts around $2000/mo.

There's just too much money chasing too few housing units, and while I am seeing a fair amount of new residential construction in the last few years it's only a fraction of the amount demanded.

</comment><comment><USER54> Divide yearly salary (before taxes) by median rent (40 = bare minimum to rent an apartment, 60 = comfortable, and 100 = luxurious living).

Once you're making enough, it's about realizing the chances you'll be able to buy a house or find a compatible (and attractive) romantic partner are low.

Before the rent situation got completely out of control, it was easy to recommend at least living in the Bay Area for a while (just to see if you like it or not, and to have experienced it), especially if just out of school, but now things are unclear.

Many (of the better) tech companies have their headquarters in the Bay Area, and it's been commonly said that working out of any other office is a poor experience.

</comment><comment><USER55> My favorite line from the article:

(Perhaps you have heard about...) _...the guy on Reddit who calculated that it would be cheaper to commute daily to the Bay Area from Las Vegas by plane than to rent an apartment in San Francisco?_

However, I am going to nitpick the title:

 _Does It Make Sense for Programmers to Move to the Bay Area?_

This question really ought to be:

Does It Make _Financial_ Sense for Programmers to Move to the Bay Area?

I will also suggest that there are facets to this question that really are not covered by the article. I am keenly aware of this because I returned to California as soon as I could for health reasons. My health is simply better here ("here" being _California_ \-- I am not in the Bay Area currently).

My condition can be very expensive and very debilitating when it is not well controlled. So, while I am horrified by real estate prices out here, for me it makes more financial sense to be here than to be someplace that keeps me too sick to work while running up medical expenses.

There are many reasons to want to live in a particular place. While criticism of the insane cost of living and insane pace of inflation is totally valid, I think it is problematic to boil down a decision about which job to take or where to live to these (specific) financial metrics (of salary and rent). Life is multifaceted. Such decisions do not hinge entirely on money.

</comment><comment><USER56> For the following reason:

1\. Bay area is extremely tolerant of immigrants and of different people. 2\. Bay area is an excellent place for raising kids. The opportunities for your kids to learn are simply endless. There are excellent colleges near by and some of USA's best high schools. 3\. Your experience as a programmer in bay area will always be valued more than your experience in Denver other things being same. 4\. Job hopping is easier, finding another job when fired is even easier. 5\. Skewed gender ratio means women might get more attention. 6\. Networking opportunities are unparalleled in the world.

Disadvantages: 1\. If you don't like racial, ethnic diversity then you might be uncomfortable in bay area. 2\. If you are a single male finding a girl would be harder in bay area. 3\. Competition is cut throat and sometimes it is stressful. 4\. Job security is less as there are more people out there who can replace you. 5\. California's tax policies and other government policies are very tyrannical and sometimes pure nonsensical. The Liberal state is far too liberal with your money. 6\. Housing is bad. 7\. Everything is expensive.

</comment><comment><USER57> Mixing median rent and average (mean) salary is confusing. Why not go with median salary?

</comment><comment><USER58> There is no doubt that the big four (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook) and hot tech startups like Airbnb pay really well.

However, I think that "normal" companies in the Bay Area pay normal salaries.

If you are a normal software engineer, who wants to have a family, you are better off in Zurich. Here you can make similar money and have lower living expenses.

Disclaimer: I run coderfit.com, a platform which should become hired.com / triplebyte of Europe and I live in Zurich. Read my story about Zurich that I wrote two years ago: "8 reasons why I moved to Switzerland to work in tech" \- [https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i- moved-t...](https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i-moved-to- switzerland-to-work-in-it-c7ac18af4f90)

</comment><comment><USER59> It all depends on your own situation.

I, myself, moved from the Midwest to a very high COL East Coast city 7 or 8 years ago. My salary has pretty much doubled, though I imagine at this point it is about $40K more than I could get back home.

But I live very frugally, and I have saved a lot of money. The plan is to soon get out of here and buy a nice place somewhere cheaper (South or Midwest) with cash and not worry about making the same salary.

OTOH, I think many people end up losing out financially in places like NYC and SF. If your salary is only $40K more than it would be in Omaha, after taxes, you're probably looking at only $30K. If you rent a typical corporate apartment, you're probably now underwater.

I think we're going to start seeing more and more people refusing to move to SF, NYC, and DC if salaries don't allow similar lifestyles as $20K less in middle America.

<comment><USER60> I have already blacklisted SF, SV, and NYC for cost of living reasons, DC for typical job quality, and Chicago and Detroit for corrupt and bankrupt local government. The spouse has blacklisted St. Louis for arguably insane reasons, but it's out of bounds nonetheless.

That leaves plenty of places to live, but not very many that are well known for having a lot of good software jobs.

I don't really want to live in a broom closet with 3 other people that already get on my nerves in the space we're in now. It doesn't matter if you are willing to pay me more if I can't maintain the same standard of living on that.

<comment><USER61> Boston could be OK. Cost of living isn't spectacular, but it's much cheaper than the Bay Area, especially if you don't live in the city proper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Does this article have anything insightful?

It's easier to compare against Seattle: The housing is still very expensive, and you get only half as many sunny days.

Why not compare to someplace like Austin? Most people can afford a real house, it's very sunny, great grad school, great culture, great startup scene.

The SV big company advantage is not true. Most of the same big tech companies have a presence in Texas. And guess what. If you work for Microsoft, Amazon, etc, you get all the same stock compensation, same retirement matches, and your resume sparkles just as brightly.

The biggest advantage for SV that they don't even mention is making deals. VCs/Funding, partnerships, contacts, etc. All of these exist elsewhere just on a smaller scale. However this stuff is mostly an advantage if you start a company.

TripleByte's case is pretty weak.

<comment><USER37> Austin's tech scene is weaker than Seattle's, and it's missing certain amenities that strong programmers in the US seem to like, like decent transit (Seattle isn't _great_ but it's decent), being in a politically progressive state, and having lots of interesting outdoors stuff nearby.

Also the weather between Austin and Seattle is basically a wash, while Austin is sunnier it also gets _very_ hot in the summer.

<comment><USER3> All good points. But please note Austin is very progressive. It's an oasis of free thinking within a conservative state.

Also the utility of transit is location dependent. Would I live in Manhattan and own a car? No way, but Texas cities are very spread out. Most parking is free and everyone has a garage.

The outdoors are mostly great, but I admit tall mountains and ocean cannot be beat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> > It's easy to hear data and stories like these and conclude that programmers > moving to the Bay Area are suckers. After all, salaries have not risen by > 70% in the past four years. But what this analysis misses is the extent to > which this place and time is exceptional.

The author lost me right there, even though I did make an honest effort to read the article to the end.

(1) There are plenty of "brain centers" in the world. The fact that they don't tout it day and night makes them no worse than the Bay Area. In fact, as an European, I am more likely to move to Gothenburg, Oslo or even Reykjavik than the Bay Area -- on this basis alone. Most of us Europeans strongly dislike touting. In fact it says a lot to me and many others how the Bay Area gets the most press coverage of being the "tech innovation center of the world". Center of what? The 99% of failed startups that want to disrupt markets that didn't exist yesterday? Center of "work 16 hours a day for the measly promise of 1% equity if we ever take off"?

(2) "Amazing place and era to live in" is a good inspirational motto... and it only works until you get your first burnout and wish to just make good money and be at peace, and have time for your other hobbies, significant other or whatever else. I feel sorry for all the tryhard after-teens who are about to find that out the hard way.

(3) Company valuations in billions rarely mean _anything_. I am too lazy to dig around but I clearly remember there were cases of several companies being valued close to 1 billion, only to be sold for ~30 millions several months later. This is hype, it's produced by the investors and VCs themselves, they profit from it, and it has almost zero real-world credibility. I might be oversimplifying this; but I am convinced I am not that far off.

(4) The historical flashbacks only make the author want to desperately justify how cool is it to live in the Bay Arean. No, sorry; I'd honestly prefer 14th century Venice compared to San Francisco. There were tangible things to see there, for example Michelangelo's art. What can SF show you? Zombified devs hurrying for their commute, hellbent on zombifying themselves even more in the name of a cause that's 99% likely to fail?

<comment><USER57> I wonder if you have ever been to the Bay Area. It sounds like your entire conception of it is from HBO's Silicon Valley. Most developers in the Bay Area are working 9-10 hours per day, not 16.

> Most of us Europeans strongly dislike touting.

This is a Scandinavian trait, not universally European. It's not even universally Scandinavian.

You're mad about something, but I can't figure it out. What is it?

<comment><USER62> Me being mad -- that's partially true. Mostly I am just sick and tired of the fake positive SF press coverage. It's so forced you can just smell the dollars spent to write the article. Or the lack of any personal life of those who praise their employer and job.

Apologies for the mistake -- I mean "Most of us _Eastern_ Europeans strongly dislike touting", by the way.

It's a fact that I have never been to the Sillicon Valley. And after all the forced press coverage I don't want to either. I realize this is a bias, but hey, if the Bay Area residents don't like it, you should do some policing of the press hype.

About the statistic -- it's very likely we're both wrong. Let's not go there, none of us has solid data to support their claims. I am sharing intuitive impressions and I am not claiming them to be hard facts.

<comment><USER57> You're right, I don't have an industry-wide study of working hours, just going off of everyone I know who works in the Bay Area.

The notion that I or anyone else in the Bay Area is responsible for policing the free press's reporting on SF/SV is absurd.

<comment><USER62> I hope it's clear that I don't mean that in the blunt literal sense.

But IMO counter-articles on Medium with a much milder tone and stripped of screaming marketing hype would go a long way. Help spread the right message about the Bay Area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> After having spent some time in SF in the whole "startup ecosysem", my dream is now to run a 100% boostrapped business, totally location-independant.

</comment><comment><USER64> This article focuses entirely on cost of living through home pricing, however there are many additional areas impacted. First, perhaps most importantly, Washington does not have state income tax. Additionally, there are differences in price of groceries, restaurants, etc that are not considered here.

<comment><USER65> Even for home pricing comparison is not apple-to-apples. In Seattle, you can still buy descent house in 10-rated school area for $500k. In Bay area you can _probably_ buy house with 30% more money but it would be no where close to what you can in Seattle area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> I just left Seattle a year ago, be careful about confusing Seattle Metro with Seattle. Seattle is surrounded by water and its mass transit system is nascent, so it's pretty hard to live too far outside the city to take advantage of the cheaper real estate.

Seattle city proper prices are getting ridiculous and I suspect they will catch up with the Bay Area quite quickly and maybe even surpass it.

Seattle doesn't come close to the level of tech/economic output that the Bay does, but the output is more geographically dense. Amazon is, effectively in downtown Seattle. The most far flung tech outlier is Microsoft a mere 20 miles away. Expedia moved all of its staff from Bellevue to downtown. I would venture to put median home prices closer to 600k than the 450k reportedly here.

</comment><comment><USER67> I think it makes sense for programmers or anyone else in this universe to do what they love to do and want to do. If moving to SF is the best way for you to do that, then sure, move there.

But I don't think it is. A place with much lower cost of living might give you much greater freedom to explore your interests and hone your skills, develop your talents, let you wander through your own ideas, implement your own projects, grow as a developer in a way that working for a company would not.

I'm a believer that more interesting things get done when talented people are left on their own to explore. Maybe down the line you get a job in SF after all that exploration is over. But I'm not sure that exploration ever really ends.

</comment><comment><USER68> I haven't seen anyone else make this point, but the other vicious cycle to consider is the 7-10 year downtown cycle that the Bay Area goes through (1991, 2000, 2008, 201?). When this happens, the tech companies gleefully (privately) and sadly (publicly) lay off all their middle-aged employees (many now with families), and many smaller companies just fold or get bought. Those people have to hunker down or sell their assets and get out (this was me, 1998-2013 worked/lived in BA).

Then 2 years later, it's all back to hiring and partying, but for recent college grads and twenty-somethings who are suckered into the cycle and are unaware of the history.

But I'm _sure_ 2017 will be different...

</comment><comment><USER69> Go to the bay area, spend a few years becoming ridiculously skilled and invaluable to your organization. Then tell employer you'll be moving to X and telecommuting. X being somewhere with a lower cost of living, and someplace you love (nice beaches, near family, etc).

<comment><USER46> Sean. Is that you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> If you plan on buying a home it is worth considering the future when you decide to (semi?) retire from Corporate and sell the kid-raising home.

Cashing out in Arkansas means you can move to ... a cheaper part of Arkansas. Cashing out in Silicon Valley means you can go about anywhere.

<comment><USER71> Arkansas and other places where land is effectively free work differently than California. You buy a starter home straight out of college, maybe you improve it, it'll probably increase in value marginally over the next 5 to 7 years. Then you sell it and put what you've "earned" into your next house.

My friends back in Oklahoma are on their third or fourth houses (we're all around 35) at this point.

In the Bay Area, you probably don't buy a house until you're 35. In fact, you have to get a bit lucky to be able to do it then.

Houses aren't retirement plans in most places. And I think that's good.

<comment><USER60> If you have ever seen hermit crabs do a multiple shell swap, that's about how it works. In areas where housing is cheap enough to have younger homeowners, the sale of a big home can often depend on a chain of other sale contingencies that depend on whether a first-time homebuyer can scrape up a $15k down payment.

So you have the 1/1 homes for young singles, 2/1 homes for young couples, 3/2 and larger homes for families, and then maybe a step-down option for empty- nesters.

My chain broke in 2007, when I got canned in a buyout, had to move to find work, and couldn't sell either the 3/2 or the previous 2/1 (rented out) at a decent price, and all my accumulated equity vanished. I would probably also be on my 3rd or 4th house by now if I hadn't been busted back down to tenant.

I definitely can't afford SV home prices, even with a higher salary. I need at least a 3/2, and don't have enough millions in the bank to get one anywhere near SF Bay.

Homes aren't the retirement plan around here, but the retirement plans definitely factor in not paying rents or mortgages after about age 55.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> I'm just not sure if the cost of living is worth the pay increase both from a service provider and business owner perspective....

Arguments like network effect, "being in the ecosystem" or near physical vicinity of other SV startups seem to be the face value but these are only superficial items.

I almost feel like with the connected world, as long as you are in a fairly crowded North American city, it shouldn't matter....unless your customers were all focused in SV area.

I'm not a city slicker or a instagram traveler so please feel free to offer any alternative view. Maybe being in SF _is_ important but I'm too biased (haven't left Vancouver for 20+ years)...

</comment><comment><USER73> There are already a bunch of valid arguments made here. Double salary, double career opportunities vs 2-4x expenses for rent and food, opportunism all over.

But the biggest contra argument I had was the Diablo nuclear power station directly at the coast (protected by 6m walls) and directly near the a huge fault which will hit soon. The other 3 corners of the Pacific ring of fire already hit their 9.x in the last decade, San Fran not yet. And this will be in the country, not 50 miles outside. If so you get the Diablo meltdown by tsunami, if not something much worse. And then the career in this company will only be short term.

So not.

<comment><USER74> The Diablo plant is more than 180 miles down the coast from San Jose. What specifically are you worried about?

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I use this website to compare costs of living between countries and cities: [https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp)

Here's example for Seattle and SF: [https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=United+States&city1=Seattle%2C+WA&city2=San+Francisco%2C+CA)

I'm wondering if anyone could comment if those numbers look accurate for those cities.

<comment><USER76> See also:

* [https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/san-francisco](https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/san-francisco)

* [https://teleport.org/cities/san-francisco-bay-area/](https://teleport.org/cities/san-francisco-bay-area/)

* [https://nomadlist.com/san-francisco-ca-united-states/scores](https://nomadlist.com/san-francisco-ca-united-states/scores)

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> I'm married with 4 kids. We like living in roughly 3,000 square feet of housing with on roughly a quarter acre of land, so I'm going to guess in absolutely no universe could it ever make sense for us to move to the Bay Area.

<comment><USER37> Depends. My old boss (also married with 4 kids) did it. He lives in Pleasanton in order to afford a house and commutes to Mountain View. Has to get up very early to beat the traffic though. The upside is that, while I obviously don't know exactly how much he makes, from what I know about people at his level at Google, he is undoubtedly doing quite nicely.

<comment><USER15> Pleasanton is extremely expensive due to its top notch public schools. Your old boss was doing extremely well if he could afford a home there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> It depends. If you're just starting out, it could make sense to move to the Bay Area to work for a big name company that will teach you a lot and make you look better on paper. You'll even get a higher salary to use as slight leverage when you decide to work in a different city. Yes, rent in the bay is expensive. But, at least a lot of things will cost the same. An Apple product will cost the same whether you live in the midwest or the bay. A vacation will also cost the same no matter where you live. Just a different perspective of looking at this argument.

</comment><comment><USER28> I will never, ever move to NorCal.

I find the Silicon Valley tech industry degenerate, and I honestly have no desire to be part of it. I'd rather work a corporate job at a traditional company than have anything to do with SV. I'm not fond of the general non-tech atmosphere in NorCal either... the lack of quality Mexican food puts me off in a big way.

On top of that, NorCal is the most expensive part of the US. Even SoCal is considerably cheaper (and I'm honestly considering moving to SoCal when I have to flee Texas next year).

</comment><comment><USER79> Yes, If you have never been around Silicon Valley culture do experience it. The culture and knowledge sharing is invaluable.

If you have a family do not go to Silicon Valley.

Loved living in the Bay Area.

Hated the commute. Hated the prices of everything.

Loved the culture. Loved the crazy you can only find in SF ( altho much of that is moving to places like that warehouse which burned in Oakland ) Loved the beautiful ocean beaches.

Rent prices... well... you will lose money moving to the bay unless you get a ludicrous salary.

Single.. I wouldnt hesitate. Married with kids. Stay away from The Bay.

</comment><comment><USER80> As a New Yorker, all we're hearing here is LA, LA, LA. Just a heads-up.

Smoke a joint in NYC, spend a night in jail. Smoke a joint in LA, change the world. How I look at it all.

We got Brooklyn, and that's about it.

</comment><comment><USER81> It's kinda bad that the article fails to mention the possibility of working at Google or Facebook in Seattle. You can get nearly as high comp without the taxes and high housing costs.

</comment><comment><USER82> When I started my career I ended up in Austin, Texas. At the time, I didn't know much about the place (and it was much smaller than now) but it really is a serious tech hub. Even at its current absurd rate of growth and increasing cost of living, it is more affordable than the Bay Area and has enough else going on that it isn't an _exclusively_ tech climate. Politically, Austin is like a blue bubble in a red state so it is more California-like in that sense too.

<comment><USER37> The bay area is a blue bubble in a blue state.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> I have been in Bay Area for little over 3 years with a fairly stable company. The opportunities are many in all technical fields(pro) but again it comes with the cut throat competition(con). One has to compete with people from FB/Google or new grads who have mugged all DS questions. My interest to stay in Bay Area is with the hope I could be able to join one of the companies which will be Uber/Airbnb of tomorrow and gain great experience and $$$.

</comment><comment><USER84> DC/NoVa is hurting for programmers. Particularly if you can get a clearance, there's no shortage of work out here, at a (somewhat) cheaper cost of living.

<comment><USER15> I lived in NoVa for a bit, and found that employers would strongly rather you already have clearance, and don't really care if you're clear-able. Most places I looked had no uncleared work to fill so they'd literally have to hire me and sit me behind a desk doing nothing for months waiting for my clearance. That was usually the deal breaker.

I'm currently probably not clearable anymore (married a foreign national) so it's less relevant for me now, but I agree it's a nice area.

<comment><USER84> That's definitely true: coming in with a clearance has a __huge __premium. But being able to obtain one has a premium too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Doing some goal factoring and trying to really understand what reasons would keep you in Bay Area is a good excercise. I'm guilty of noticing being stuck in this artificial prison quite late myself. :) [https://medium.com/teleport- stories/another-kind-of-silicon-...](https://medium.com/teleport- stories/another-kind-of-silicon-valley-exit-bafc108e3647#.coymq2x7g)

</comment><comment><USER86> > At Triplebyte, we help engineers around the country (and world) get jobs at > top Bay Area companies

I admit that I stopped reading at this point. Maybe I read that wrong and they meant "in addition to other areas", but from the way it's written it sounds like a conflict of interest. It's going to be difficult to make an objective assessment of the pros and cons of living in the Bay Area if your business depends on people wanting to live in the Bay Area.

<comment><USER87> This post appears to be the result of a recent Triplebyte hire for a writing position: [https://medium.com/@ammon_b/become-a-writer-at- triplebyte-9f...](https://medium.com/@ammon_b/become-a-writer-at- triplebyte-9ff0000fe486)

> Examples of topics we would like to cover include the salary differences > between the SF Bay Area and other locations (does it make sense for > engineers to move to SF?), the prevalence of remote work (is it harder or > easier to get a remote job?), gender/age bias in hiring (How common is it?), > and how credentials impact hiring decisions. We have insightful data on all > these topics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> As a college dropout, I have nowhere to go _but_ the Bay Area, where many startups don't care much about credentials. Everywhere else does.

<comment><USER88> Not necessarily. Most technology companies I have found won't care _too much_ about credentials. It all depends on what you're applying for. For instance a finance or insurance company may still care but the makers of New App 13 probably don't.

Now the government still cares. They care a _great deal_ which kills prospects around the MD / DC / VA area. I was a contractor with only a 2 year degree so most companies were legally not allowed to charge more than about a junior level's worth when I first started. That was difficult. It was even more awkward when I was in charge of leading the technical side of a multi million dollar government project and my company couldn't bill for me beyond a Software Developer 2.

The Bay area _mostly_ doesn't care BUT (and this is a HUGE BUT) many companies, like Google, make their hiring determinations based on the knowledge of very scholarly topics. So it's kinda indirect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> "drone programming in Clojure" this...hahaha

<comment><USER8> I laughed too - but also wouldn't mind working professionally in a Clojure- oriented shop despite having some freedom to use Clojure now. But I'm a lone wrangler of parentheses in my current role and if I could (in my location) join a team of better Clojure hackers, I think I could take my skills up a level or two even if all I had was the opportunity to talk shop in the hallway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> If one plans to take full advantage of brain, entrepreneur, capital and customer concentrations then yes. Otherwise, scarcity elsewhere make for increased career leverage (at varying income / cost of living ratios) elsewhere.

Also: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13178495](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13178495)

</comment><comment><USER91> If you want status, sure. But, if you're relatively good and want money, then no.

Economics is about supply and demand. And, every city in the world wants high- end developers. Many companies are willing to pay a lot because they have a shortage. But keep in mind that they're looking for someone who's good in more than just programming.

</comment><comment><USER92> I always feel like these articles are one sided - jobs and money. Those things make life easier but ultimately are not the things that make life worth living. This article hits on _none_ of the reasons I moved here after several prior extended stays in the City. For what I want out of life, it absolutely made sense for me to move here - even with only $2K in cash, no job, and no place to live at first.

I came here for the things you can't easily put a price on - like the weather, local arts, music, and culture. Also driving into the mountains, or down the coast of California. Chicago is no slouch for fun but cold days like this make me glad I'm not waiting for the 'L' outside anymore. SF weather is generally magical.

Being in a top US city still gets me direct, reasonably priced, and frequently scheduled nonstop flights to family/friends in places like Chicago, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Seattle - not always attainable in some of these smaller tech hubs (like Portland, or Austin.)

When people move here, there is a constant worry about how much money they will make or what company they work for - I didn't sweat it.

Within a month after arriving, I landed a great career. I spent the last two years exploring other hobbies and interests, and nurturing healthy new friendships.

Biggest tip I can give - It's nice to get to know people who've been around here for a while, they've seen it all before. Show an interest in your local community. Volunteer your time but branch out of tech. Get to know people here in all walks of life; show compassion You just may be liked enough by some old school San Franciscans that refer you to one of their friends; who rent you their old place (with parking and views on Twin Peaks) for $1200. It worked for me.

San Francisco is not an expensive city because of tech alone, it's always been a bit on the expensive side; as there's no place in America like it.

Of course this is my experience. I merely bring it up just as a reminder that there's so many things to focus on when decide whether or not moving here is worth it. The questions that guided me in my decision to move here were:

What are my goals long-term? What made me decide to move here? What is my contribution to the local community and society - outside of working in tech? Will I ultimately grow as a person; both personally and professionally? Is there enough other activities around that will keep me from being bored that I'll enjoy?

My $.02.

<comment><USER36> Well, their entire goal was to determine whether or not it was affordable/made financial sense.. But as a fellow bay area resident, I can't disagree with you on quality of life.

Holy crap, direct flights are critical. My family lives in San Diego now, and they have to multi-hop to go ANYWHERE. What a bloody nightmare. I fly nonstop out of SFO or SJC any time I travel. Last time I needed to take a connection, last week, was a total nightmare. Flight into Chicago delayed due to equipment problems, would have missed connecting flight, rebooked through Houston, THAT flight was delayed due to other issues, missed my connecting flight, spent hours waiting for rebooking and luggage and hotel vouchers. Just enough time to take a shuttle to the hotel, grab a crappy post-10-pm meal at the motel diner, sleep 6h, get up before daylight to catch ANOTHER flight, which finally got me there. You can tell I'm still not over the miserable experience of having to fly somewhere without a major hub.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> A major selling point for Seattle over SF is the complete lack of state income tax. Losing an extra 10% of your money before you receive it is pretty painful, and it's especially painful if you get stock options and cash them out while an SF resident.

</comment><comment><USER94> I spent a year in the Bay Area before moving back to Ohio, and this rings true:

> _...when engineers from the Bay Area relocate to other areas, they out-earn > engineers on the local market._

I think that part of it, for me at least, is just having the confidence to ask for more.

</comment><comment><USER95> One thing the article is missing and not factoring in is home ownership. It can be a tremendous form of "compensation" as well provided you can weather out any downturns (10 years will probably be sufficient).

With high salaries you have high tax brackets. Probably 40-50% total marginal tax rate with state, federal, and all the misc taxes. Being able to subtract your mortgage interest and the fact that your "rent" is going to pay down equity, on paper at least, your living costs are actually lower. Even more so if you have roommates.

Factor in 4-10% appreciation with leverage (10% down = 1000% leverage) so that becomes a 40-100% annual ROI.

Work in the bay area for about 10 years when you are young and then sell your house. You can buy another house somewhere cheaper for cash and then retire.

Might also be possible to just rent out the house in the bay area. The rent should cover rent some place cheaper and have plenty of additional cash flow to live on each month.

<comment><USER36> Well, they mentioned home purchase prices, but they also think the Seattle Metro area has average $400k houses which anyone living there would laugh at. Somehow I think "metro area" in Seattle has longer commute times than "metro area" in SJ or SF. There's just no way the average in Seattle metro (with equivalent commute) is _half_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> Bay Area tech is a gold rush, and Triplebyte sells shovels. Of course you'll strike it rich.

<comment><USER97> Nailed it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> The comments are full of opinions. It would be interesting to know experience of anyone who has moved to Bay area, have family and does not have double income :).

</comment><comment><USER98> Pretend you live in the bay area and use Skype.

</comment><comment><USER99> Living in the bay area is not necessarily expensive. I pay like very little in rent. It all depends on how you want to live.

</comment><comment><USER38> _This growth creates opportunity. Startup jobs, big company jobs, drone programming in Clojure_

</comment><comment><USER100> The smartest thing would be to start in Bay Area, and then transfer to Seattle at the same pay rate.

<comment><USER101> If you are going to transfer somewhere at the same pay rate, transfer somewhere cheaper and nicer than Seattle. Lots of options (I'm partial to northern New England, personally, as I like having proper winter).

<comment><USER102> I miss true seasons. Hoping to make it back East in the future. Any recommendations for NE other than Boston (which I like)?

<comment><USER45> Nashua has a lot of tech companies if you would be ok with a smaller urban area close enough to Boston to enjoy the city too.

Personally I just moved from Seattle to Boston. I'm conflicted on the two places. I really liked the outdoors areas in Seattle, commute was shorter and rent was also cheaper. But Boston has a lot of cool things too, food better, more interesting activities todo (other than outdoors but you can find it NH) and cycling infrastructure is poor compared to Seattle.

I'm not native of either place (from Montreal) so my experience is based on a few years of living in both.

Boston isn't exactly better in terms of winter sunlight that's for sure. Both are grayish in winters but summers are great (less humid in Seattle).

What did it for me is proximity to family. Being in the same timezone is huge.

Cool fact I learned recently, Boston-Cambridge-Nashua, MA-NH area has one lowest unemployment rate for any metro area at 2.6%.

<comment><USER103> Isn't Montreal marginally a tech city?

<comment><USER45> The problem is salary for tech workers in Montreal are way lower than other NE cities. 5 hour south and you make 2-3 times the salary you could make in Montreal (from personal experience) but cost of living does match that increase. You are better off net in the US. I know a few people that spent time working in the US and returned to Montreal with a good amount of savings which lets them live very comfortably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> I do not understand the obsession the software industry has for locality. Wouldn't it make sense for people to work anywhere? Haven't Bay Area companies heard of something called the Internet?

If you have to have people in the office to make sure they're working, you already have a fundamental hiring problem.

<comment><USER105> > I do not understand the obsession the software industry has for locality.

For many types of problems, collaborating in person works far better than collaborating online. Lower friction, easier to have a conversation, easier to sit around a computer and experiment, and generally easier to handle things in a few minutes that would take longer otherwise.

<comment><USER106> Yes, let's all keep believing that. If companies realized that all programmers can actually work decentralized, we might not be able to command a decent salary as it becomes a global race to the bottom...

<comment><USER105> As a developer, I've specifically pushed to maintain a co-located team, precisely because the type of work my team does works _far_ better when co- located.

I do decentralized development regularly, and for some kinds of work it works fine. For other kinds of work, it makes simple tasks take an order of magnitude longer.

<comment><USER104> As far as I know, kernel.org does most of their work decentralized. Is XNU (Darwin) a significantly better kernel? I have doubts about that claim.

<comment><USER105> The Linux kernel does distributed development quite successfully, and scales extremely well. However, it does so partly by sacrificing some forms of coordination between developers; for instance, kernel maintainers don't consider duplicated effort to solve the same issue a problem, because the overall process still scales even if some individual developers end up wasting their time.

On the other hand, the development of any one individual patch series to implement one feature typically occurs either by one developer, or by a set of co-located developers in one organization, not by geographically distributed developers. And some other kinds of work, such as backporting or rebasing a series of patches, doesn't work well when geographically distributed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> Move to area of high cost of living for work. Retire to low cost area.

</comment><comment><USER108> Yes absolutely. For career opportunities alone, yes.

</comment><comment><USER109> Yes :)

</comment><comment><USER110> wow, this article, and the discussion in this forum is doing a great job at substantiating an idea that's been swirling around my head for a long time now.

i personally have made a lifestyle choice not to work for any company that won't allow me to work largely remotely. i often apply to great companies who do interesting stuff and pay well, and then i hear "sorry, we don't do remote". that can be very frustrating. i'm losing a contract right now with a company that decided they were going to switch to a non-remote policy. that too was very frustrating. but the kind of data that's pointed to here really shows that the joke is on them.

think about the cost base of a completely centralized non-remote company: a large share of their employees' salaries goes into their landlords' rather than their own bank accounts. a large share of their time goes to crazy commuting routines rather than actual work.

tell your employees "okay, you make $140000 dollars now, but $30000 goes to your landlord for the privilege of being in the BA. work remotely, move to wherever you want, and we'll pay you $125000". both the company and the employee have $15000 to gain. that's 12%!

tell your employees: "okay, you do 8 hours of work now, and you do 2 hours of commuting each day. why don't you work from home for 9 hours instead." both sides win. the company gains an hour of work, and the employee gains an hour of time to themselves. if we subtract holidays, sick days etc. so that we assume that a year normally has 220 working days, that's 220 hours over a year.

cumulatively that adds up as follows: $140000 over a year for 220 x 8 hours equals an hourly rate of $80. $125000 over a year for 220 x 9 hours equals an hourly rate of $63. That's a 21% cost advantage for the company, and more money left over and a better life for the employee. Over a base of $125000 that 21% advantage is $26250 a year per employee.

i find it really funny how the word "coffee" keeps being brought up by people who deny that there's an economic opportunity here. when i lost my current remote contract, the argument was something like "sorry, our culture is such that so much information exchange is taking place over a coffee, and so many decisions are being taken over a coffee that we can't have you working for us if you can't be a part of that". someone in this discussion thread suggested that it's important to be able to "have coffee" with investors and co- founders. i get the point that we're all meant to be social creatures, and it's nice to be able to have coffee with people. but i'd seriously question the business acumen of people willing to value it to the tune of $26250 per employee per year.

the other thing i find interesting about this article and the discussion thread is that it's another example showing how markets always find a way to get into an equilibrium that rules out the possibility of any such thing as a "free lunch". the article mentions the idea of "building equity." my own first job was in a high-paying finance role, working with lots of other young people who come in with extremely naive ideas around the notion of building equity. "i'll work like crazy for top dollar until i'm 35. if at that point i want to deleverage my lifestyle, i'll always have that option. i'll be able to move to a trailer park and never have to work again in my whole life if it turns out at that point that that's what i want to do. by building equity i'm just expanding my options, never reducing them". the point i'd like to make is: earning more is easy. building equity at a higher rate is hard! the point of departure for your thinking might be "move to the BA because of the higher salaries". but then you start to think things through: "higher rents, higher costs of living, higher taxes, higher risk when you should find yourself out of work for a month, bad situation if you're foreigner, build a life there, then lose your job", and you inevitably conclude. "well there's no such thing as a free lunch in the BA either."

</comment><comment><USER111> Headline follows Betteridge's Law.

<comment><USER112> Hardly. Betteridge's Law requires the answer to be a definite "no". E.g. "Is SpaceX planning to put a dog on Pluto?"

<comment><USER113> The answer "it depends" is a cop out. There's no analysis, because even a cursory look gives a logical answer.

Moving to a high cost area to gamble for a position that might help your career in the future, given any unemployment for more than a month makes the living arrangement untenable, is a high-risk gamble. The idea that working for a big company changes your employment chances is about the same as what school you graduated from. It gets you an interview, you were probably going to get anyway in another geo-location. In a lower cost area (even relatively lower like Los Angeles) you end up with lower chances for a startup (with a brand that might eventually become household) but the experience isn't much different and landing your interviews are a cakewalk…talent pools are smaller everywhere else in the world. The positions you might qualify from, are about the same from some no-name sports gambling company as "I worked at uber for a year". Your experience at your role is what matters, you're a worker not a business consultant. The answer is a definitive no, and the headline is baiting a false equivalence, hence Betteridge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER114> "The Bay Area in the early 21st century has produced an astounding number of successful tech companies. Uber was valued at $60 million in 2011 and at around $68 billion in late 2015 [1]; Stripe at around $500 million in 2012 and $9 billion during its most recent funding round; and Twitch at just under $99 million in September 2013, before Amazon acquired it for $970 million less than a year later."

^^^ Is not a selling point. Those are anomalies. How about the hundreds of other companies that are going under consistently everyday in the bay area. If I want to work for startups why would I not move to some where like Austin Tx? Get good experience, have a reduced cost of living, and have no state income tax?

</comment><comment><USER115> No.</comment>


Magnum: C++11/C++14 and OpenGL Graphics Engine - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mosra/magnum <comment><USER2> I'm waiting for Ogre3D 2.0 to be released.

To be honest, I'm more and more tempted to make my own "engine" and implement just the things I need, instead of using an engine that will often have too many features I don't need.

All I really need is a camera, vertex geometry tools, and a flexible and well designed shader system (since shaders are now essentials for 3D graphics. Most of what an engine do, or should really do, is shader management).

I don't need:

* animation

* a scene manager

* sound

* inputs

* font

* texture

* physics

I'd really like an engine that only do graphics and do it well. That is what makes Ogre3D good at what it does. All I'd hope for is a data-oriented engine, instead of object oriented.

<comment><USER3> Have you seen any data-oriented 3D engines anywhere? Even the few engines I've looked at for e.g. Clojure are just needlessly OO on top of some Java stuff.

<comment><USER4> The ones I know of are proprietary and used on AAA console games.

<comment><USER3> Do any of the companies have blogs or GDC talks where they discuss bits of it?

<comment><USER5> This talk from Naughty Dog was really good. [http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022186/Parallelizing-the- Naugh...](http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022186/Parallelizing-the-Naughty-Dog- Engine)

tldw: High performance C++ is converging on something that strongly resembles Erlang. Multiprocessing and issues with memory coherency between cores is driving this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How does this compare against/differ from Ogre 3D? I'm trying to make an Entity Component System (ECS) based game engine purely for educational purposes and was looking for a graphics engine to integrate. Ogre 3D seems to be too rigid for my purpose.

</comment><comment><USER7> With the advent of Vulkan I would like to see if there are intentions to support it in future releases.

</comment><comment><USER8> having worked on and written x of this class of thing over the years this made an interesting browse and read, but i've not been inspired to anything new by it sadly... and i wouldn't have a use for it in practice.

it seems a bit of shame this has the 'opengl is a target' and 'inline #ifdef for platform dependency' mentality given the following and the prolific efforts on it. the combination of the two will make it hard to make more generic... e.g. to target any graphics API in the future.

the level of abstraction is also missing to make that even easier... futureproof OO design is about abstracting the concepts generically. most of the classes here are very opengl centric... sure it can't be made 100% futureproof, but you can make something that becomes easy to port until we stop using triangle meshes (and actually... with a bit more thought even that isn't such a restriction that it needs baking utterly into the design at every level)

<comment><USER9> > until we stop using triangle meshes

Is this a realistic possibility? What would we use instead?

<comment><USER10> Raytracing or raymarching. Not sure if there are any games that use it, but raymarching is often used in the demo scene, for example here: [http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=67433](http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=67433)

<comment><USER11> Umm ray tracing is still triangles.

<comment><USER10> Only if you use triangles to represent your scene. The (non-realtime) raytracer POV-Ray for example supports several other geometric shapes as an alternative: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POV- Ray#Primitives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POV-Ray#Primitives)

Voxels would be another possibility.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Reddit's QAnon Casualties is a home for survivors of the conspiracy - <AUTHOR> https://www.dailydot.com/debug/reddit-qanon-casualties/ <comment><USER2> I sometimes worry about my mom with this stuff. I've caught glimpses of InfoWars on her Facebook follows, she sent me that "Plandemic" video that went around last week, she's been an avid Fox News watcher for basically my entire life. She isn't pushy about it and when stuff like that comes up I just try to gently contest it. Not sure what else can be done.

</comment><comment><USER3> Does psychology have anything to say about how to effectively rescue people from conspiracy theories and other damaging memetic infections? If not, it feels like we need more research into this area

<comment><USER4> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming)

It seems that the explored methods are problematic... and the general feeling I get reading on the topic is that effective methods of deprogramming will be used by cults for the opposite purpose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've known people who have fallen down the "CT hole" into full blown mental illness.

I'm guessing these folks had some kind of predisposition. But that doesn't mean it's not irresponsible.

Harmful media isn't limited to news either.

My SO had a psychotic episode triggered by "Black Mirror: Bandersnatch" - which I guess means I literally lived through an episode of Black Mirror.

Bragging rights?

</comment><comment><USER6> Title should say Casualties instead of Causalities.

<comment><USER7> Good catch. Fixed. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Who exactly is producing this content?</comment>


Venture Capital is a Mortgage - <AUTHOR> http://blog.yumbunny.com/2009/02/venture-capital-is-mortgage.html

<comment><USER2> Not quite. VC is equity funding, so they get a portion of the upside, whereas debt just gets the capital back plus interest. This means the VCs' interests are much more closely aligned with the founders'. They both get rich in the same way: from shares in the company becoming more valuable.

The empirical evidence suggests it's a net win for founders. How many tech companies IPO without taking VC? Zero, as far as I can tell.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, it's not saying it's literally a mortgage-- more that it's yet another area that is often associated with people spending beyond their means.

Ideally, I think founders should skip the VC if they can grow/sustain things themselves or at least think hard about taking the loss of equity. Not every business model can make that work, though.

And, of course, not all companies want to go IPO, though I can understand that desire for a lot of people.

<comment><USER3> It very much depends on the competitors out there. VC capital can work like an arms race, if your competitor takes an infusion of capital and you do not then two things can happen:

\- they manage to buy themselves the top spot leaving you in the dust

\- they lose focus and think that because of the capital infusion that they sky is the limit and start doing stupid stuff.

In the second case you clearly are the winner, otherwise you have a real problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good analogy but I think one aspect of VC is missed in this piece and it's the VC's connection to the rest of the world. When a company gets funded by VC, it's growth potential increases because of the VC's network and connection. When you get a mortgage, the bank doesn't introduce you to a high bidding buyer.</comment>


The Essence of Event-Driven Programming [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jpaykin/papers/pkz_CONCUR_2016.pdf <comment><USER2> Since the content is way, way above my head, I'll only comment by saying that I find it quite annoying how many academic papers don't have a date on the front page. It's a small thing, but can help to establish context.

<comment><USER3> One trick I picked up somewhere in the days when access to papers was by xerox'd copy (which is in the post mimeograph era) is to look at the references. The approximate date of the paper is that of the most recent reference (looks like 2015 here). Because journals want current research authors have an incentive to site the most recent work practical.

Not that I disagree that dates on academic articles would be helpful...though I think it would tend to reflect publication rather than authorship which could be a couple of years difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why is it that authors of academic papers refuse to share the publication date? If it weren't for the file name, I wouldn't have even a remote clue.

<comment><USER5> I think academics might only consider their work published once it is accepted by a conference or journal.

If it's a preprint, it is not published yet, hence it has no publication date. Even if you submit a paper today, it might not be published in this year. Some journal papers take years to revise. Some people might get early versions of their conference paper rejected. For every paper I have send to a conference, the conference itself added the conference information (including year and conference dates) to the paper.

<comment><USER6> You have a point but publication date, specially in this fast moving field, is a low grade data point. As another commenter wrote in this thread, we're reduced to deducing date range by looking at referenced prior work.

I for one am grateful to Cornell for making ArXiv happen. They stamp the date on the preprint and their url enodes the general date [/<yy><mm>.<sernum>] as well:

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.06020.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.06020.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can someone explain like I'm 5?

<comment><USER8> What I got from this paper is that the authors are using a flavor of symbolic logic called "temporal logic" to formalize concepts fundamental to the event- driven programming paradigm. The notation seems to make intuitive sense as an extension to the formal logic I learned in my undergraduate discrete math course.

I'm not all the way through the paper but I actually find it quite helpful in explaining the essential meaning of these concepts. I haven't worked with these concepts much, and the tutorials I've read in my free time have focused more on practical use of various implementations of eg futures rather than explaining their actual abstract meaning.

Caveat: I am not familiar with this academic domain so this is my own interpretation. If someone who is better versed can elaborate or correct me, please, please do so.

<comment><USER9> That's pretty accurate! (I'm one of the authors.)

In event-based programming, one of the basic abstractions are something variously called "events", "futures", or "promises". The idea of a future is that it is a data structure that can yield a value at some point in the future, but not might be ready to produce one right away. This idea dates back to (at least) MultiLisp and the Connection Machine, but many modern languages support this primitive -- for example, Javascript, Rust, Ocaml, C#, Java and Scala all have good library support for it.

Our basic idea is that futures correspond very closely to the interpretation of the "eventually" operator in temporal logic. So if we could give a typed lambda calculus for temporal logic, then we could implement the eventually operator with futures. The benefit of doing this is that we could design languages which combine the easiness of reasoning featured by purely functional programming, while still offering good support for event-based programming (eg, for GUIs). In addition, if we are coming from a typed language that has enough invariants, we can also simplify the implementation of futures (since we know statically that certain problems like deadlock can't arise).

My personal goal is to figure out the fundamental primitives of interactive programming. Ultimately I'd like to be able to go from a framebuffer to a comfortable GUI toolkit in a few hundred lines of code, so that teaching the principles of how to implement these things can fit into a semester-long course. (Since there is a fairly small limit on how much code a student can reasonably write/comprehend in a term, the better we understand a problem the more we can teach.)

<comment><USER10> Very nice explanation.

> we could design languages which combine the easiness of reasoning featured > by purely functional programming, while still offering good support for > event-based programming (eg, for GUIs).

Are there any particular difficulties (or niceties!) when these are combined?

For example, does this cause implementation details to leak, like requiring the programmer to choose between multiple definitions of things like function types: "a -> b", "a -> eventually b", "eventually a -> b", "eventually a -> eventually b", "a eventually-> b", "a eventually-> eventually b", ....?

Does it make reasoning easier or harder, e.g. regarding resource usage (space leaks, lazy IO, etc.)? How does it compare to lazy evaluation?

If someone uses events _internally_ to a library, e.g. to read from some stream, could they encapsulate that such that users of their API wouldn't have to notice/care about the events? I'm picturing something like exceptions, or lazily-evaluated IO values, which can trigger errors inside seemingly pure code, e.g. like in Haskell where the `readFile` call in `do { content <\- readFile "foo.txt"; return (toUpperCase content); }` might work fine, but then an IO error is triggered inside the pure `toUppercase` function. Would such things cause reasoning problems about futures?

<comment><USER11> Well, one can imagine a smart enough language could perform some trivial mappings to reduce the zoo of potential function types: a -> b can be trivially mapped to both (a -> eventually b) and (eventually a -> eventually b).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> ∆⊢e:A

Can someone explain this (from p. 3) to me, or point me to an explanation? I am especially unsure about the usage of ∆ and : in this context.

<comment><USER13> As this paper is about a Curry-Howard correspondence, the statement has two (equivalent) readings.

Reading 1. It's a typing judgement. You can read ∆⊢e:A as "the program e has type A, assuming the free variables in e are typed as described by ∆".

Reading 2. It's a logical judgement. You can read ∆⊢e:A as "the proof e is a proof of the logical formula A, assuming the free variables in the proof e stand in for proofs as described by ∆".

<comment><USER12> Thanks! I took a look at the Wiki page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence) but didn't see any Deltas there.

<comment><USER14> A great overview of this stuff is [http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/frege/frege.pdf](http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/frege/frege.pdf)

<comment><USER12> And this one actually has Deltas in it. Thanks!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The world WAS BEGGING for a BuzzFeed Satire site. - <AUTHOR> http://www.buttfeedz.com/news/tragic-this-is-the-real-reason-you-need-to-be-careful-on-the-subway/

<comment><USER2> Pretty much the same as buzzfeed...</comment>


Obama Or McCain Polls: The iPhone app that will last a day - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2008/11/04/obama-or-mccain-polls-the-iphone-app-that-will-last-a-day/ <comment><USER2> Write 20 lines of code, ride the hype/sentiments, make some quick bucks and move on ... What's this app going to prove or disprove? How close is the result of this app going to be to the real one? Is there any justification behind spending that 99¢?</comment>


The Real Truth About Startup Geniuses - <AUTHOR> http://andygcook.com/2014/01/real-truth-startup-geniuses

<comment><USER2> Liked this, and have found the same. That even those with well-read, respected blogs struggle like everyone else to know what is the right next move.</comment>


Ask HN: (virtual/physical) credit cards for company team? - <AUTHOR> A German non-profit company is looking into ways on how to get up to 20+ staff their own company credit cards.
"Revolut" sounds very close to what we want, but they rejected the application because we are a non-profit (Terms of Service 19.1.G). I know Stripe recently announced something similar, and we applied and are on the waiting list.
Ideally, we find a service that offers both virtual and physical cards, postpaid and prepaid. We asked a number of German banks but their fee structures are crazy and they offer very little flexibility in terms of configuration and admin overview.
Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> Have you looked at Pleo? [https://www.pleo.io/](https://www.pleo.io/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks interesting, but only available in DK and UK for now.</comment></comment>