What I wish I knew before moving to San Francisco - <AUTHOR> http://jasonevanish.com/2013/01/17/25-things-i-wish-i-knew-before-moving-to-san-francisco/ <comment><USER2> In my opinion the high cost of living kills everything else on that list. I'd much rather have a comfortable living, travel the world and be optimistic that i will have no problems buying a nice house for me and my spouse/family if i need to/should i want to. I don't really see this possible based on what i hear from a couple of friends living and working there. Both consumed by their tech jobs, some cool things to do every once in a while when they're not slaving away for a startup. I guess people have different priorities. All this stuff is great until you're in mid 50s and you realize your less-than- comfortable living is leaving you with a less-than-comfortable retirement.

<comment><USER3> I still don't get why folks don't consider living in places just outside of SF that are much more affordable. Places such as South San Francisco, Daly City, Brisbane, Oakland, etc. The proximity to the city is very close (5-10 mins).

<comment><USER4> None of those places are, in practice, 5-10 minutes from a place you want to be. You can see that in the BART schedules: [http://www.bart.gov/schedules/bylineresults.aspx?route=7&...](http://www.bart.gov/schedules/bylineresults.aspx?route=7&date=01%2F17%2F2013)

And that doesn't include walking or waiting time.

Driving might seem like a plausible option, but that's generally worse. Oakland City Center to Embarcadero is 25 minutes by car, not counting parking. Daly City to the Mission is 20 minutes. And that's not counting parking, which is never easy in SF.

People do live in those places. But it's definitely living in another city.

<comment><USER5> May I ask where you are getting the driving numbers?

I live/work in soma and as long as I avoid commute traffic, Daly City really is only ~10 minutes away. A coworker lives in Brisbane and his commute averages 11 minutes. I frequently visit parts of Oakland far further from City Center (say Mills College area), and it is just under 20 minutes.

If you lack a car, well, the numbers look terrible as well in San Francisco. This is most obvious when you note that you can bike from most A to most B faster than Muni can take you. As another example, downtown Oakland is closer to Embarcadero or even Union Square by BART than Inner Sunset is by Muni Metro.

<comment><USER4> All times were from Google Maps and BART schedules. Google Maps currently lists Daly City to Moscone as 14 minutes nominal, 17 minutes with traffic.

The "as long as I don't drive when most people want to drive" thing is nice if that works for you, but it's definitely not the common case. Most people have to commute when most people have to commute.

<comment><USER5> Oh did you mean Mission Street (as in Soma), not the mission district?

I agree driving to the Moscone sucks (driving on 3rd past Harrison is a nightmare).

Things are much better if you are talking about the Mission District: [https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Daly+City,+CA&daddr=M...](https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Daly+City,+CA&daddr=Mission+District,+San+Francisco,+CA&hl=en&ll=37.724022,-122.445545&spn=0.126274,0.264187&sll=37.736648,-122.427692&sspn=0.126252,0.264187&geocode=FXQSPwIdwECz- CnJY96E-3uPgDFX- hMO2-C0LA%3BFQAsQAId4AS0-CkjM4BfPH6PgDGJUeQ9BwBYAw&oq=miss&mra=ls&t=m&z=13)

(I mentioned "avoiding commute traffic" as I figured "place you want to be" meant for fun, not work.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm living in Toronto, Canada, and the SF crack-head thing is always a shock.

If I'm in SF, it's for conferences and it's always strange that literally one block away from our expensive hotel, there are zombies shambling about -- and this is totally normal!

For those who know Toronto: it's like you're in Yorkdale, you walk one block and you're in the worst part of Parkdale.

The other odd thing is that I seem to pay about the same in taxes, given the author's figures.

<comment><USER7> Calling people crack-heads and shambling zombies is pejorative. You don't casually use words like fag, dyke, tranny, bitch, ho, nigger, Indian (for native / aboriginal), and kyke, right?

If you want a name, say "drug-addicted homeless person". We're talking about the most badly abused people in our society and you and the author are simply abusing them more with these words. Surprise, they aren't there to say anything back, not that they care at this point. Although I hope at least you'd get a couple fuck you's if you tried it in person.

1/3 of homeless people in the US have a serious mental illness like schizophrenia. Do you think that if they aren't able to distinguish between reality and fantasy and are constantly being told to take pills by a health professional that they will miraculously decide not to take other drugs on the advice of a drug dealer?

If I called you a zombie for just blindly going along with the crackhead term that the author used, you would be offended, right? Are the thank-god-for-the- lowest-caste-so-that-I-can-not-belong-to-it opiates treating you well?

Do you think that anybody living on the street addicted to drugs is feeling happy and fulfilled about it? I mean, it just doesn't go down like this: "I've decided that despite the fact that drugs are bad for you, I'm going to totally allow them to fuck up and control my life and be homeless." It's more like: "I'm in a lot of pain, and hey for a couple hours if I do this I feel better. Fuck my life is getting bad now and nothing I do is working, I need some more of those things that make me feel good."

Fuck you and your expensive hotel.

edit: I was mean here, so I apologize. It probably didn't do any good, I think I just felt like getting angry at someone.

<comment><USER8> As someone who lives around and deals with these people every day, let's call a spade a spade and not cover it up. Have you seen a zombie movie lately? These people basically ARE zombies - they hobble around, mutter to themselves, smell like shit, randomly attack people, and will infect you with disease if you touch them.

Whether they scream at/spit on/push around my sister or female employees because they are on crack, mentally ill, or just in a bad mood, I could care less. They need to be removed from the area because they are a real and present threat to public safety.

I would happily donate money to move them all to a camp outside the city where they can scream at trees and smoke tea leaves all day but for whatever reason the powers that be seem content to leave them where they are, which directly places the rest of us in harm's way.

<comment> __--__ The powers that be leave them alone because if they don't, they are met with complete civil unrest in SF. Any attempt to even address the homeless issue is met with outrage and organized protest. This goes along with the outcry against gentrification and the lament of the city losing its "character."

Make no mistake, some of the people here actually want to live in a post- apocalyptic zombie film. :)

<comment><USER9> _outcry against gentrification and the lament of the city losing its "character."_

People sniffing glue, blazing crack pipes, and defecating on the street is 'character'?

<comment><USER10> It keeps the rents down and prevents richer people from moving in next door and making you feel insecure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I considered moving to SF but chose Austin instead. I refuse to live in a state with such a dysfunctional government and ridiculously high taxes. Some of the same reasons I left NY.

You can do tech anywhere. You do not need to live in the bay area. If you really like the city pick a place (like Austin) with inexpensive direct flights and go a few times a month. You'll still save money.

<comment><USER12> _I considered moving to SF but chose Austin instead. I refuse to live in a state with such a dysfunctional government ..._

You do realize you live in Texas, right?

<comment><USER13> You do realize that there are people outside of your little world that aren't leftists/socialists/fascists, right?

<comment><USER14> You do realize that, objectively, Martin Luther King was more instrumental in the Civil Rights movement than Lyndon Johnson was, right?

Oh, wait, you might not, because the Texas Board of Education took it upon themselves to re-write history.

Low taxes are cool and all, but I don't see how anyone could live in peace with that public school system.

<comment><USER15> Let's face it: American governmental bodies are dysfunctional at almost every level. Most people live in California, Texas, Florida, and New York. All are poorly managed. And then there's the federal government sitting on top.

The key to thriving in the US is to have a high net worth so you can feel independent of this dysfunctional government. And then ignore all the stressful noise in the crisis-obsessed news cycle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> On it getting cold at 4 PM, I quote the estimable "30 Rock":

"Can't hack it in the big city? Gonna move to the Bay Area now, pretend that was your dream the whole time? Have fun always carrying a light sweater."

<comment><USER17> I hate that everyone calls the weather here amazing. Being cold all but maybe 30-40 days a year is not incredible weather, especially factoring in fog.

<comment> __--__ Go spend a winter in NY and then complain about the SF weather.

<comment><USER17> I have spent a winter in NY. And about 24 of them in Indiana. The thing with those places is that I expect it to be frigid in the winter. San Francisco is always lauded for it's "amazing" weather, which to most people -- especially tourists who generally come with nothing but shorts + tshirts and end up buying hundreds of dollars of giants/niners/i <3 sf gear to stay warm -- is in the 70-80 range. Even when it is "nice" and in that sweet spot, it's only from about 11am-3pm and then it gets cold and/or foggy and/or crazy windy (depending which parts of the city you're in, of course).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One of the biggest shocks to me when moving to the Bay Area is the difference in social norms and acceptable behavior. I grew up in Texas and went to college on the east coast. For the first few months after moving out here I was in awe by some of the things people would do and thought were acceptable. In fact I'm still in shock by many of these things but used to them by now. From some of the things I've seen managers do in regards to relationships with their employees and behavior at office parties to an entire section at AT&T park cheering when an opposing pitcher gets hurt and pulled.

Furthermore I also found it much harder to communicate appropriately as social cues seem a bit different. I have at many times found myself in a conversation (or lack there of) filled with awkward silence.

edit: grammatical correction

<comment><USER19> I found that people from the west coast, esp. LA and SF are more happy-go- lucky types - meaning that if you were to meet a girl at a party or a new bro, the person of interest might be very enthusiastic or affectionate - "leading on" that there's specific chemistry between you or that person; when in fact that person is just very spontaneous, in the sense of being open and fun in any social situation. This is a bit different from the Northeast Coast frigid weather which causes most people to be irritated and singular-minded on roads/public transports, but causes people to find "cuddle-buddies" during the winter; once you make a friend, that friend becomes a best friend.

I used to be upset about this. But now I'm more understanding that for some people, they don't necessarily value their individual friendships as they value their own belonging/membership in a clique (SF vegan-foodie who works in SOMA startup who rides single-fixed gear) and also the necessity of forging temporary social/professional alliances in an transient yuppie community where most people moved to for professional advancement (marketing guys from frattier backgrounds fraternizing with engineers with more diverse backgrounds to advance everyone's careers).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> >The most crushing aspect I saved for last though. Taxes here are significantly higher than I've experienced anywhere. This means you're squeezed both on your take home pay and your expenses.

...and some weirdness means they don't spend that money on roads, so the road surfaces are _lousy_. Maybe I've been spoiled by our great road surfaces in UK.

<comment><USER21> Here in Oregon we have less than half the taxes of California, and yet we have well-maintained roads (to the point of joking that the state flower is a traffic cone), and well-maintained everything else. And the state doesn't gripe about not having enough money nearly as often (and when they do it doesn't make the national news). The state even (by law) gives _back_ any excess tax revenue they collect each year, though the state legislature puts a measure on every major ballot to try to prevent that (and it thankfully always fails).

I genuinely wonder what California has done so differently to end up doing so badly when they have twice as much tax revenue per person.

<comment><USER22> Californians pay more in federal taxes than the state receives in federal spending. This is also true of Oregon, but in California it's true to a much higher degree. So the state is essentially subsidizing the rest of the country and doesn't have enough left over for itself.

<comment><USER23> why is that?

<comment><USER24> Different states have different levels of economic development. Since all states share a common currency, it isn't possible for states like Mississippi to devalue their currency in order to be competitive with California. Large fiscal transfers between states are necessary to keep things balanced out.

<comment><USER25> Why don't they just sale their goods at lower prices? No need to fiddle with artificial (non-gold-backed) currencies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Meanwhile, here, no matter what you're doing, those you meet will almost always be in finance or startups."

Well, except for the taxi drivers, the restaurant workers, the police, the teachers, the students, the grocers, the bike messengers, the lawyers, the house cleaners, the fire fighters, the ...

<comment><USER27> I know it's just one anecdote, but a Subway employee in SOMA once asked me if I knew anyone that would hire him as a DBA. The feeling in SF is that the tech world is inescapable, which some people seem to like.

<comment><USER28> I moved to SF two years ago. Since then I've had a discussion with the cashier at Taco Bell about the differences in the way browsers render on different mobile OS's. Had a discussion with a banker that learned Ruby to help with some of his reporting...

Tech is everywhere here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This seems more of a "West Coast vs. East Coast" article than it is a "San Fran" article.

For the most part, the author is highlighting the differences that anybody living on the East Coast will experience in moving to one of the western coastal cities, save perhaps LA, which as everyone already knows is its own little planet.

Most of these "hints" hold true for San Diego, San Fran, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. They are all in the same vibe the way Philly, New York, Boston, and Toronto are "the same vibe".

<comment><USER30> You lost credibility with me by repeated use of the vulgar "San Fran". It's THE CITY. :)

<comment><USER31> Yes, no one from the Bay Area refers to San Francisco as "San Fran". Even worse is when people refer to it as "Frisco". It's either SF or "The City".

<comment><USER32> "The City" refers to the core of whatever urban area you're in. It's meaningless outside of your local frame of reference. The only place in the US that has a halfway legitimate claim universal ownership of that name is NYC and that's tenuous at best.

<comment><USER31> If you read more carefully, I said people from the Bay Area call SF "The City". I didn't say it was the universal name for SF, just for the people in the area.

<comment><USER29> Sure, but if you read more carefully, you'd understand the context for the rest of the entire conversation is national, if not North American.

You can't expect everyone to switch context on your whim simply because you want to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I have absolutely no interest in moving to San Francisco, and I only happened to glance at this article because it was so highly voted on Hacker News.

Boy am I glad I did. I _still_ don't care about living in San Francisco, but I am in awe of your amazing blog-writing skills. This is not a book or newspaper article: it falls solidly within the typical boundaries of a blog article, talking about own experiences and opinions on a matter of interest to him and his neighbors. But so WELL written! The amount of detail, the little touches like pictures that reflect, illustrate, and even extend each point being made... I could only aspire to someday be able to write like this. I've bookmarked it under "examples of great journalism" as an exemplar of the "blog post" writing style.

Thank you for writing this and spending the time (it must have taken a good deal of time) to make the presentation so polished.

<comment><USER34> On the contrary, I noticed a lot of distracting grammatical mistakes.

<comment><USER33> I'm sure they were there, but I managed not to be distracted by them, perhaps because the breadth and depth of the content caused me to skim somewhat (read quickly).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Here's one that I don't see discussed much: The tech meetup culture isn't that great.

In other cities with moderately sized tech communities (Seattle, Portland, Austin...) the user group communities are a strong social force - it's how people collaborate, and how they share skill and technology news.

In SF, people are too busy working late at their well-funded post-startup jobs to go hang out and talk about code as a craft. So everything is siloed by company, and you get the Google Way and the Apple Way and whatever from the various places that people worked together, and knowledge only moves as quickly as people can get poached from one company and brought into another.

<comment><USER17> Also meetups here suck because most of the people in the tech scene aren't really that fun to be around. I've been to a few launches and it was nothing but the following: 1) people inflating their egos talking about worthless metrics, how many exits they've been a part of, and how what they're doing now is changing the world (guess what, it's not), 2) people just looking to be a part of the "it" crowd of SV, 3) people looking to find some engineer dumb enough to be their tech guy and execute the idea they have for a paltry equity stake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I used to live in San Francisco for about 4 years (1998 to 2002) and for a few months over those 4 years I lived south and north of the city. I say this very literally, that I rather be homeless in San Francisco than live anywhere around it. Its an amazing city that has given me a lot (and taken a lot in a fair trade). The most amazing aspect of this city, in my opinion, is that its where all the American 'rejects' end up in. In those years the start up scene was different than today and not everybody around you was in a start up. But most of those who were not native and not in a start up were those that didn't quite fit in in their home state and though they'd find acceptance in San Francisco. Most of them did. Its probably one of the most tolerant city in the States where most people there have a passport and are well travelled. Yes its expensive, but you do get what you pay for. The same applies to any big city like London, New York, Tel Aviv etc.

Although I'm no longer a local, here are a few culinary pro tips: if you are a sushi lover, you must visit Ebisu in the Sunset (<http://www.ebisusushi.com>). If you fancy a good pint of Guinness, Oreily's pub in North Beach is a must (and they make a beef and Guinness soup that is just insane).

</comment><comment><USER37> Oh US and your complaining about taxes. "You leave with ONLY 65% of your income after paying taxes". In Denmark you pay 60% in taxes, so you leave with 40% of your income in your pocket. And petrol is now more than $10/US gallon.

<comment><USER38> How healthy is the angel funding scene in Denmark?

The western European model seems great if you want a life safely doing what has always been done.

<comment><USER39> Depends strongly on the area, with probably more focus than in the U.S. on whether the company will produce either scientific or cultural innovation in addition to profits, because many of the funds come from nonprofits or state initiatives. There is a lot of seed funding for companies that can show they'll produce a scientific impact, through either state-funded "research commercialization" grants (where a company will propose to turn academic research into a product), or through quasi-charitable private initiatives like <http://www.novo.dk/composite-364.htm>

There is also a ton of arts funding, much larger than in the U.S. on a per- capita basis, to the extent that it bleeds over into funding tech companies too. For example, Playdead (makers of Limbo) got their initial ~$150k in funding from the Danish Film Institute, and I know two founders with seed funding from the Nordic Game Program.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> OP, did you honestly not _know_ how expensive it was, as well as a few of these other points in the article? I would be shocked if that's the case. Most of the items in the post are pretty well-known things about the San Fran area. More or less, the title is a bit of link bait, and I doubt most of you don't already know these things about San Fran (or the bay area, for that matter).

<comment><USER41> When I first moved to the Bay Area, I got a 40% pay increase, but I calculated at least a 50% increase in cost of living (coming from Salt Lake City), and that was moving to the East Bay.

Some days I'm sad I moved away (Denver), other days I'm happy to own a home for a lower payment than my rent in the Bay Area.

<comment><USER42> Did that pay increase make you better off or was it a net loss?

<comment><USER41> I was better off in the I received several large raises while I was there. It was actually my first job out of college so it was a bit of a jumping off point for me. I was better off in that sense than had I stayed where I was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> > I have no idea how anyone who isn't working in a high tech role that pays an > above average salary can live here.

I wondered that too. Anyone care to share how to get by with a non-tech salary in the bay area?

<comment><USER44> Rent control. A lot of people are living/stuck in apartments and paying much, much less in rent. The high rent only applies to new people moving in, and I'd suspect that less new non-tech people are moving in these days.

<comment><USER45> How is rent control like that legal?

<comment><USER46> You've got it backwards: rent is controlled by the law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I was amused by point "SF is a super fit city." As someone who lives in Boulder, CO and frequently visits SF, I feel like SF has a lot of out of shape people compared to Boulder. Guess it's all relative.

<comment><USER48> Same here... coming from Austin... it's hilarious what people call "fit" over here... all I see is facial hair and moobs

</comment></comment><comment><USER49>
       Watching sports matters a lot less.

Welcome to the West Coast. I went from Seattle to DC and they sure do love their sports out East. Even the nicest restaurant in town has a wall of TVs displaying football. Every restaurant is a sports bar.

Regarding the weather, most people don't realise that SF is cold. Sunny, but cold. It's not LA. Bring a sweater.

</comment><comment><USER50> I moved from Seattle to SF and one big difference I noticed is that people are waaay friendlier here in SF than they were in Seattle. It's so much easier to get to know new people here. I think part of the reason for that is that almost nobody _in_ SF is actually _from_ SF. Everybody you meet grew up somewhere else, so people seem much more open to getting to know new folks. This is particularly true as a guy trying to meet girls. "Seattle Freeze" is a real thing.

</comment><comment><USER51> As a San Francisco native, I can say that this is the single best post of its kind that I have ever read. I wouldn't change a thing, except to add the pro tip that you should never, under any circumstances, call it "San Fran".

<comment><USER52> Alternatively, call it San Fran all the time to annoy everyone. Also, 'Frisco'.

Frisco frisco crisco frisco.

<comment><USER53> Definitely go down to the hells angels headquarters and let them all know that they aren't really from here because they call it the "frisco" chapter.

Post back and let us know your experience! ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> The list:

It gets cold at 4pm

Neighborhoods define you

Rent is insane

Cost of living overall is sky high

There are crazy and cool things always going on

Costumes are a way of life

Lots of homeless, beggars and crackheads

PBR is the official beverage of San Francisco

An extremely pro-dog city

The Divisadero is the fog line

Palo Alto and Mountain View are farther away than you think

The 3 things you need to know about MUNI (Google Maps is never right about what time the bus will come; Half of the buses require you to step down into the steps to get the back door to open; Chinatown is a bottleneck on any route going through it)

There are tons of amazing views

Startup Central is in SoMa

SF is a super fit city

If you're a foodie, welcome to heaven

The 3 hour time zone difference is a big deal

Watching sports matters a lot less

Everything is taken to the extreme

You'll turn into an early adopter even if you weren't one before

All the best tech startups are at their best here

Working in tech is the norm, not the exception

People love novelty and new experiences

Tons of awesome lies just beyond SF's borders

Come with an explorer's attitude

<comment><USER55> > Cost of living overall is sky high.

It is, but so are salaries, even in non tech fields. I have a friend in town from Atlanta and I was explaining the benefit of this to her last night: a lot of big-purchase items have retail prices set at a national level, so things like bicycles, television, musical instruments, etc., feel a lot less expensive here than they do in other places.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56>
        Palo Alto and Mountain View are farther away than you think

Hm, when I visited it felt like a pretty quick journey - no more than 30 minutes via Caltrain. Perhaps it was just excitement though!

<comment><USER57> I commuted to Mountain View from San Francisco on Caltrain. It is doable, but it gets old pretty quick.

Also those sports fans that the OP say don't exist much? They all take Caltrain to go to the ballpark at peak commute hours during the season. Also, they allow alcohol on Caltrain. Imagine a packed train full of orange and black with lots of alcohol.

With the coming electrification of Caltrain in preparation for high speed rail though, hopefully they'll be faster and more frequent service.

<comment><USER58> "Imagine a packed train full of orange and black with lots of alcohol."

Try the last train out of Glasgow after an Old Firm Derby... :-|

<comment><USER59> You're all Subway Loyal!

(we're just jealous, Edinburgh doesn't even get a subway)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60>
       Meanwhile, NFL Sundays will never be the same as 10am kickoffs is something I don't think I'll ever get used to.

Born and raised in Seattle. Some of my fondest memories growing up were rolling out of bed at 9:45 and sitting down to watch some football in my underwear with a bowl of cereal in my lap. (In college, sweatpants replaced underwear and screwdrivers replaced the cereal.) Now I live in D.C. and it's weird that there's nothing on until the afternoon and you can stay up until midnight watching football.

<comment><USER61> Try being a (American) football fan in Europe. Some games start at 2am, watching the Super Bowl usually involves me taking the next day off work as the game usually ends around 4am.

<comment><USER62> Or a (European) football fan on the west coast... Games starting anywhere between 3am and 8 am?

Actually, 8am is pretty nice. Wake up in the morning, pull a couple shots of espresso, watch calcio, get on with my Sunday.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> SF is a great city - I lived there for 3 or 4 months.

Coming from London, the thing I really missed was the late-night club & music scene.

Trying to find anything happening past 1am, especially on a weeknight, is a non-starter.

<comment><USER64> SF is surprisingly hostile to late night music for a city of its size. The DNA Lounge blog is a good window into what it's like to own a club in SF. Here's a classic post where jwz compares SF to Austin after attending SXSW for the first time: <http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2009/03/16.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Y'all are trippin about the cost of living. I make $26,000 a year and do great in San Francisco.

You can be lazy or live cheap here, but you can't do both.

<comment><USER65> Where in San Francisco? It's my understanding that rent continues to go up in basically every part of the city, and it's even incredibly expensive _outside_ the city.

<comment><USER14> No. The rent on _new leases_ is going up, due to low supply and high demand, but also _extremely_ low turnover. So people generally look for rooms, not full apartments.

In this way, housing is regulated in SF through social factors on the low end (i.e. whether your personality and your interests bring something positive to a household), and price on the high end.

I pay $680 a month for my room in the heart of the Mission, mainly because I'm an open-minded guy, and my roommates needed someone tolerant, willing to abide by certain rules (in my case, no meat in the house) and conscientious about shared space, which is more rare than you'd think.

If you're single and you feel the need to rent your own apartment, I just can't relate to you. I don't get it. I feel like living down the peninsula is a better option for people who feel like they need that much personal space.

<comment><USER66> How old are you?

I lived on roughly the same salary the first year I lived in SF. I was 24 at the time, and it was fine because I was working non-stop and didn't have much of a life, but I wouldn't want to do it again for long periods of time.

<comment><USER14> I'm 24 and _don't_ work most of the time, hence the lower salary, and I still manage to go out a lot and enjoy the city.

There's just so much free or cheap entertainment here, you don't need a car, and it's usually sunny enough that if you get bored, just walking around is a pretty viable option. Living here doesn't _have_ to be expensive, people just make it that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> > Pro Tip: Oakland gets a bad rap, but there's tons of great concerts and > other events there worth checking out.

Or, you know, the multitude of world-class restaurants and great bars such as: Chez Panisse, Gather, Boot & Shoe, Cafe Van Kleef, Claremont, Heart & Dagger, etc.

<comment><USER68> ? Chez Panisse and Gather are in Berkeley.

<comment><USER67> I'm from Berkeley. Had to sneak those in there for anyone actually interested in venturing out to the east bay ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I'm curious: do families usually move out of the city and down into the Valley? (there are 5 of us and generally prefer a 3-4 bedroom house).

<comment><USER70> Yes. SF is not a very family-friendly city: the cost of living is high, transportation can be difficult, the schools are not great, and there are many homeless people and "crazies".

Apparently, San Francisco has the lowest percentage (13%) of children of any major city in the country.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/families-flee- san-f...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/families-flee-san- francisco_n_1335639.html)

<comment><USER69> Interesting. Thanks for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> It gets cold at night not because of fog, but because of lack of humidity. Same reason the desert is like that. Same reason the surface of the moon is 107°C during the day and -153°C at night.

<comment><USER72> How can it be foggy _and_ lack humidity?

<comment><USER73> Most of the bay area is chaparral. The Central Valley is generally ten to twenty degrees hotter than the coastal areas during the summer. The hot air literally sucks the cold wet marine air inland right across SF during most summer days.

That is why the best SF weather is early spring and late fall when the temperature difference between the Central Valley and the SF Bay Area is minimal, and their is much less fog.

When the summer sun goes down, the fog evaporates in the dry air and the temperature drops.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> I lived in San Jose and Palo Alto from 2002-2005. Moved to NYC and have been there since. Two things I would add: -SF (vs say NYC,Boston,Chicago) is a one industry town and is therefore a boom and bust town. When I moved there right after the bubble burst the guy who sold me my car was a former dev. Many of you only know the good times, and it won't be like this forever. That's not to say its a great place and I don't miss it. \- The cost of housing on the peninsula and to some extent the east bay is almost as bad as SF. When you are reqdy to have a family, at least in NYC you can live in a nice house in Westchester or NJ. Or a really nice modern condo for half the price of NY. You can't get a nice place with a good school district by going further away from SF, it's like prices get even worse the further south you go until you are way past San Jose.

</comment><comment><USER75> I haven't been here for very long, but I can't say it's a "common sight" to see flip phones at coffee shops. :)

On a more serious note, I have to agree with the bit about being a "pro-dog" city. I am constantly amazed at the number of dogs on the Muni, dogs in parks, dogs tied up outside of stores/restaurants, etc.

<comment><USER76> Seattle is the same way -- there are more dogs in the city than children --

<http://www.seattlemag.com/article/seattles-dog-obsession>

<comment><USER77> I've lived in both places. Back in college I also lived with someone who was allergic. That changes my reaction a bit, I think. It makes the people who bring their dogs on transit, to the bar or to the supermarket look like jerks.

<comment><USER53> Having kids has also changed my perspective on this. I've been taking my kids to a sports field near a playground for the past few years, and so far, the incidence of off leash dogs has been 100%, even though there is a dedicated off leash space right next door. Most of the dogs have been very friendly, but occasionally you do get an unknown very large and powerful off leash dog bounding up to a 3 foot tall kid. This is all next to a well posted sign about leash laws, though I have never seen any enforcement.

I've heard this is frustrating for other dog owners as well. There are a lot of people whose dogs need to be socialized better and they try to keep them on leash, and it's pretty much impossible to go to an open space without off leash dogs.

I'm still 100% in favor of creating a lot of excellent off leash areas, and most dog owners are considerate. But it does frustrate me that enforcement is so lax that there is pretty much nowhere in SF that isn't used as an off leash area.

BTW, if you're moving to SF, "dog wars" are definitely something you'll get used to. Lots of emotion in SF around this one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I was getting ready to roll up my sleeves and begin critiquing on how it was wrong (how could a kid who has been here 9 months know anything blah blah blah), but this is actually a very excellent article. He pretty much hits it right on the head, and I've lived in this area for 15 years now.

Great post!

</comment><comment><USER78> SF is nice. I spent time living in different areas along the peninsula, but definitely enjoyed living more toward the south, like in Mountain View or Sunnyvale. Easy access to SF or SJ. Lower rent. Easier access to good hiking at Rancho San Antonio, easy drive to Santa Cruz.

</comment><comment><USER79> Any time I see something like this, I always think about writing a counterpoint. Then I realize it's been done by someone else.

[http://al3x.net/2009/10/04/so-youre-moving-to-san- francisco....](http://al3x.net/2009/10/04/so-youre-moving-to-san- francisco.html)

<comment><USER80> It's still accurate after 3 years?

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> If you are more interested in the economical aspect, or you're an entrepreneur who wants to move to SF, this is how me and my co-founders lived with 1.1k/month in San Francisco, including the rent.

[http://www.quora.com/How-do-you-live-comfortably- on-a-40k-sa...](http://www.quora.com/How-do-you-live-comfortably- on-a-40k-salary-in-San-Francisco#ans1028411)

Rents are more expensive now, but you can still find workarounds. At the time I remember we didn't have lots of comforts (if any!) but we were happy with it. We landed in SF from Italy, and had to survive somehow while living the dream.

I don't suggest doing this for a long period of time though, except if you're happy and really don't care. Personally, I didn't.

</comment><comment><USER82> I live in the Tenderloin, and it's not that bad. Sure there are a lot of homeless people and drug addicts in the area . As a 24 y/o white male, I have not felt threatened by any of the "sketchy" people here. In fact, most here are very polite saying "excuse me", "be careful with leaving your phone out", and "do you need help with that?". San Francisco is just a friendly place in general. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_r...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate)

Basically the tenderloin is the ugly model. Yeah it's the worst model but still a model. And since the price is half of anywhere else in the city, it's worth it.

</comment><comment><USER83> I was debating moving there.

Instead I moved to Tulsa, OK.

It had a similar feel to Palo Alto for me. At least in the area I live now. In fact, the biking/walking seems to be slightly better. It feels like the beginnings of a tech and startup community are forming and I am kind of hoping I can be a big contributor to that. The city is investing massively in the area to promote tech and startups.

And the biggest factor for me was cost of living. I own for (far) less than 1 bedroom rent in Palo Alto or San Francisco (with my 20% down payment of course): 2000 sq/ft 3 story condo on the river for less than a grand a month. I pretty much went months without using my car too, walking and biking only.

<comment><USER84> OTOH, the politics of OK suck, and so do the alcohol laws.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> I saw PBR in wholefoods the other day here in Portland, OR. I was kind of shocked. I always considered PBR to be on par with Milwaukee's Best... In other words, nasty cheap beer that people only drink to get drunk.

So I'm wrong?

<comment><USER86> I thought most of the article was pretty spot on, except for the PBR being the drink of SF.

PBR is all over hipster bars in the Mission, but there are plenty of places where you can't get it (most bars in the rest of the city). The true drink of SF in my opinion is Fernet, which is heavily consumed by long time San Franciscans. Fernet has a long history in the Bay Area (SF is even listed in the Wikipedia page on Fernet <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernet>), and surprisingly it is stocked in almost every bar. I've personally had it in everywhere from the Kabuki movie theatre to bars in North Beach to the Mission.

TLDR: Fernet is the drink of SF.

<comment><USER53> Fernet? Wow, never heard of it. Sounds kinda cool.

If we're talking beer, I'd say Anchor Steam is the drink of SF.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> the "distance from mountain view" was spot on. when i moved here to work for google, i was debating between living in the city and commuting, or living in mountain view and going up to the city to do stuff. thankfully, i'd spent nine months living in mountain view a few years ago, and knew that, realistically "going up to the city" would never happen (i don't drive); if i wanted to be in san francisco after work i pretty much had to live there.

so far, while the commute is a bit painful (45 minutes going to work, 70-90 coming back), i have no regrets about deciding to live in sf.

</comment><comment><USER88> Coming from Oregon, PBR has a surprisingly low profile -- Tecate seems more like the "it" beer in SF. Maybe a neighborhood thing.

(Also Fernet, which I'd never heard of before -- it's sort of like a grown- up's Jaëger.)

</comment><comment><USER89> The streets smell pie and marijuana.

Tenderloin is the shittiest places I've ever seen.

Local poor people stick on tourists and try to rip you off.

Go one street below of Market, you'll see junkies injecting heroin to their arms.

There is no street that can be called as "the heart of the downtown".

Cafes get close on 6 or 7pm.

The ocean is fucked up by some industrial shit. and the people think "it's ok".

The transportation is fucked up.

Streets are big and straight. Nothing smells historical or romantic.

Rents are crazy. I saw an apartment in a shitty neighboorhood for 1450$ per month and I even don't leave a dog in that kind of small and unhealthy place with no sunlight!

Bay Area is fucking lame.

</comment><comment><USER90> Hope I'm not repeating something already mentioned in this large discussion, but here's another thing to add to that list:

Once you live in San Francisco for a few years, it will become difficult to move elsewhere. You get used to all the cons mentioned. You will start loving running in the 6pm chill, the cultural diversity and the intellectual similarity, the feeling of living in slightly in the future compared to the rest of the world...

</comment><comment><USER91> The only critique I have: PBR is the hipster brew of choice _everywhere_ especially here in NYC and up in Portland... BUT in SF there is a healthy dose of Tecate as well.

In fact what sets SF hipsters apart from their peers is that they drink Tecate (and modelo).

Anyway I'd call it a Tecate town. Really miss the stuff here in NYC... $2 at delirium, those were the days

*edit: with lime!!

<comment><USER92> I'm sure there are plenty of regional PBR equivalents. In Austin, it's Lone Star. I rarely see PBR, but I see plenty of hipsters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> Pro tip: saying "pro tip" sounds kind of douchey. Try something else.

<comment><USER70> This.

(though I hate "this" even more than "pro-tip")

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> I might be a little late to the party, but if you're in San Francisco or looking to move here, you should really attend a San Francisco Hacker News event. We throw movies, meetups, poker games, dinners, and soon to be hackathons.

Visit us at <http://sfhackernews.com/>

We'd love to meet you!

</comment><comment><USER95> Wonders how anyone can live without being in the tech industry... then chooses not to buy local..

You are making things a lot harder on the families of SF that have been here for a long time by not shopping local.. please think of that next time you order on amazon from your soma office.

<comment><USER96> Buy local is the biggest crock (with one exception: if you honestly and truly believe the food is better quality). It causes a net loss for society. Consumers can't purchase as many goods, and the goods being purchased are not being produced as efficiently as the 'non-locals' version. Which means your groceries cost more every week then they would have otherwise. <http://mises.org/daily/5283/The-BuyLocal-Canard>

<comment><USER97> Ah, a Mises Institute article, definitely a non-biased source not trying to push a certain socioeconomic agenda. </sarcasm>

<comment><USER96> Ah, a personal attack against the organization whom hosts the article and yet complete avoidance of any consideration of the points made in the article, so refreshing. </sarcasm>

<comment><USER98> The problem is that the article isn't worth even reading because of the source.

It's like linking to the AEI or Heritage Foundation or some US Chamber of Commerce stuff. You know what you're going to get, and there's no point wasting cycles.

<comment><USER46> Regardless of the source (I didn't read it), there are some good arguments for buying non-local, non-organic being better for the environment. Efficient farms use less land to produce the same amount of food. Taxing carbon and pollution appropriately would allow lowest price to correctly indicate what is best for society, including environmental concerns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> I wrote a blog with pretty much the same feelings a couple days ago (Although slightly more cussing): <http://bufordtaylor.com/post/40632724667/on-san- francisco>

Love this town.

</comment><comment><USER100> Very thorough write-up, and, as a longtime SF resident, I concur most of it is accurate.

One thing I want to add is that even if you aren't into startups when you get here, there is a great chance that you'll get swept up into the tech industry by sheer osmosis.

</comment><comment><USER101> Well, of course it's going to come as a big shock coming from Boston, because I don't consider Boston to be a "big city." I was born and raised in Los Angeles, I lived in San Francisco for a while, and now I live in New York City --Brooklyn, specifically. Much of what you said applies to New York, too.

I don't agree with the weather thing. I've been to Boston where it was 60 during the day and in the low 30s at night, and San Francisco will never, ever get as cold as Boston does during the winter. Hell, it doesn't even really snow in SF except for a few weird flukes in the past.

Rent, cost of living, etc. is the same in NYC, too, which is fast becoming a startup city.

<comment><USER102> I find it interesting that Boston often gets the rub of being a "small city". It certainly is when compared to New York or LA, but when looking at the metro area it's on par with San Francisco: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistica...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas)

Not that there's anything wrong with being a small city!

<comment><USER103> I think it's because most people don't really consider the metropolitan area to have anything to do with the city itself. For New York, parts of Jersey and Connecticut count as the metropolitan area, but you'd never say New York and mean New Haven.

With that in mind, Boston is 600k or so people, which is tiny in city terms.

<comment><USER104> That has nothing to do with the actual size of Boston. That's a political artifact more than anything else, as neighborhoods around Boston didn't want to get annexed around the turn of the century. Boston's continuous urban population, which includes Cambridge, Brookline, etc. is over 4 million.

Having lived in Atlanta, Boston is a much bigger city despite Atlanta having a population of 4 million within it's proper city limits. That's why you never use city population over metro area or continuous urban population statistics to determine actual city size.

<comment><USER103> 4 million? That seems like a lot. As a New Yorker formally from Boston, I tend to think of the city as the places that the subway can get you. Coming from wikipedia:

Boston: 625,087 Cambridge: 105,162 Brookline: 58,732 Somerville: 75,754 Newton: 85,146 Chelsea: 35,177 Revere: 51,755

Which is 1,036,813. Any others I'm missing?

<comment><USER104> Actually, there's quite a few, if you you by what you get get to via the subway. That means Everett, Braintree, Quincy, Newton, Medford and several others.

But there's a more systematic way city size is measured: MSA and CSA. Boston's MSA ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston-Cambridge-Quincy,_MA- NH_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston-Cambridge-Quincy,_MA-NH_MSA) ) is 4.5 million, with 4 million being defined as "urban" population. These are all places served by MBTA (which claims to serve 5 million).

Now, the main issue in the way you're looking at it is that those of us from the northeast have an entirely different view of what "urban" is. There are places in the center of Atlanta that have laughable density compared to any northern city, and the Atlanta subway system serves maybe half a million people. And yet Atlanta has a metro population of 5 million with an urban population of 4 million. The threshold for urban is very low compared to what we're used to.

The truth is that the vast majority of American cities feel like they're mostly suburban sprawl. Yes, Boston is dwarfed in size by NYC, LA and Chicago, but Boston is also roughly the same size as SF, DC and Miami. And no matter what the statistics of city-limits population say, it's has more people and is more densely populated than most other cities in the country, including San Diego, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Detroit and Seattle.

As I recall, it's the 5th largest CSA, 10th largest MSA and 4th most densely populated city in the country.

<comment><USER103> Yeah, it probably has to do with what we consider urban, or feel to be urban.

The MSA for New York includes places no one would ever consider parts of NYC -- if I'm out on long island or in connecticut I'm not in the city. Just like if you're out in the Boston suburbs you're not really in Boston/Cambridge.

If it really is technically 4 million that's cool, but when I'm in Boston it doesn't feel like a city of 4 million. Just like NYC doesn't feel like a city of 19 million, even if that's what its MSA is.

Boston feels like a small place, just like SF. Nothing wrong with that, it just is what it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER105> Marin headlands is one of the most beautiful places to go when you are there. For someone from the east coast, walking along those dramatic cliffs was very exciting. My wife and I imagined we were in Scotland!

</comment><comment><USER106> All of you can always move down here to Miami (South Florida). I actually live in Fort Lauderdale across the street from the beach. I do a lot of work in Miami.

For the price you pay for a tiny apartment in NYC you can live VERY well down here. Of course, Florida is crazy.. :) Not to mention you lose your net connection when a storm flies by.

And if you in tech, spanish is a must. Since much of the tech work here is linked to South America. The one exception is medical. Though there is a fair amount of banking work down here too.

Of course you'd be living outside the bubble. That brings it's own drawbacks.

</comment><comment><USER107> Not mentioned is one of the great San Francisco treats: THE EXPLORATORIUM. <http://www.exploratorium.edu>. The Exploratorium is moving in April from the old facility near the Palace of Fine Arts to a more central location on the waterfront. While it's a great place for family and kids, it's also a great place for the rest of us. And, in the new location there will be more events like the popular date night "after dark" gatherings. And if you've got spare cash, donations are always welcome.

</comment><comment><USER108> I like Paul Graham's comparison of cities, "you should be smarter" vs "you should live better" vs ...:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/cities.html>

</comment><comment><USER109> The really big point to consider, IMO, is within SFBA -- there are huge differences among SF, Peninsula, and East Bay, and variations within each of those as well. I personally put SF below many other places in the US to live, but really like the Peninsula -- the big issues being crazy California-level politics/taxes/regulations and really high cost of living (mainly, housing and tax; fixing zoning issues would bring down housing prices, and fixing prop 13).

It's like comparing West Texas and Austin.

</comment><comment><USER110> Prep for an earthquake. This is not techy but very necessary.

</comment><comment><USER89> I really envy the people who think "SF is amazing!!!"

If SF is amazing, what the hell is Rome? New York? Taipei? Istanbul? Tokyo? Paris?

San Francisco is the biggest village of US.

<comment><USER98> While I agree with you in that San Francisco is nowhere near "global city" status (I don't know what people are thinking when they say stuff like this), unfortunately this is where most of the tech world is. So you're going to get articles like this.

The funny thing is, the food here really isn't that great, the coffee is also average at best, but these are all relative to the rest of the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER111> As for the high cost of living, try looking at it from a different angle. Instead of thinking about how much more you can get for your money elsewhere, ask why are all those other places worth so much less.

I'm not saying the math adds up to you needing to move to SF, NY, Boston, or other city. But this post helps explain why SF is valued so highly by the many people who choose to live in here.

</comment><comment><USER112> Thanks for all the great info, it's very helpful for someone like me, who's gonna come to the SF area the first time in march (attending / giving a talk at GTC San Jose 2013).

One more question, is there something like a weekly pass for the Caltrain, such that I could visit SF in the evenings after conference?

<comment><USER113> No, but you can buy an "8-ride ticket" for a slight discount.

From San Jose, you'd need a 4-zone ticket, which would cost $64.75 -- this gives you 4 round trips to SF.

<http://www.caltrain.com/Fares/farechart.html>

(Note: You'll need to acquire and use a Clipper Card to use 8-ride tickets, see <https://www.clippercard.com/ClipperWeb/index.do> \- or just go to a Walgreens when you get here and you can buy the card and the 8-ride ticket at the same time.)

<comment><USER52> The 8-ride ticket was recently nerfed+. The discount is smaller, and you have to use all 8 rides within 30 days now instead of 60-90-whateveritwas. So if you're going up and back at least once a week, it's a small savings, but if you miss even one ride then you've probably wiped out several 8-rides' worth of savings.

I think they're doing a paper-ticket surcharge anyway so get the Clipper card, and consider paying with Clipper-loaded cash value instead.

(+ They were planning to get rid of 8-rides entirely and making it paper- ticket or 25c-discount-for-Clipper in something that amounted to a stealth fare hike - of course they denied that was the main motive).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER114> Does anyone have the time to do a similar writeup for the tech scene in and around LA? I'm probably going to be doing the move from Boston-LA myself in just a few months.

<comment><USER115> Perhaps you should write that after you make the move. :) And even then it would be difficult.

As you likely already know, one thing sure to be on that list is "have a car". Which stems from the reason making such a list would be difficult. LA is so spread apart, what's true for someone on the westside isn't gonna ring as true for someone downtown, to south bay, to OC/irvine (if we're even counting OC/irvine).

lots of tech companies here in LA but due to the lay of the land and 30 mile commutes, they don't mingle as much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> Spent some time in SF after PyCon last year.. a good pro tip is dont attempt to walk home if you live in the hills! :)

Really great experience.

</comment><comment><USER117> "To put it all in perspective, I used to take home about 75% of my pay in Boston and here it's only 65%."

Is this because of state income tax?

</comment><comment><USER118> Can someone please explain to me why PBR is so popular in SF?

I really want to know. How did it become trendy to drink bottom-rung beer?

</comment><comment><USER119> The dood nails it. If you're considering moving to the Bay Area, read this, every word of it. Very well done.

</comment><comment><USER120> Except for the weather that sounds almost exactly like my life here in Brooklyn. I gotta get out west.

</comment><comment><USER121> Just want to say thanks, this helps a lot since I'm in the process of migrating there right now.

</comment><comment><USER122> Great write up! I stay by the south bay but I still find useful information in your article.

</comment><comment><USER123> I don't think I have head-nodded as much on any other article. Thanks for writing this up!

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra For some reason I only got to read the article after I null-routed r-login.wordpress.com.

</comment><comment><USER124> You nailed pretty much everything, but shouldn't the Castro bike be missing a saddle?

I quite enjoy visiting SF, I actually love the place & diversity. Favourite season has got to be the Indian Summers :).

<comment><USER57> _shouldn't the Castro bike be missing a saddle?_

Wow. Really?

<comment><USER125> because it got stolen, what did you think he meant

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER126> are those rental prices really per quarter?

if so they're making central London look exorbitant, I have friends paying that per month for studio flats!

<comment><USER127> They're monthly rents, sampled in the respective time spans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER128> that rent is unbelievable. I pay 505 a month for a very large 1 bedroom in a gated community...

</comment><comment><USER129> Manhattan is a lot more expensive than San Francisco. Even Brooklyn is more expensive, just not by much.

<comment><USER130> Moved from SF to Manhattan 6 months ago, this characterization is no longer entirely accurate. Manhattan now is _barely_ more expensive than SF, and most of SF is more expensive than most of Brooklyn.

People aren't really aware of just how _fast_ cost of living is going up in SF. Manhattan averaged, what, 5-6% year over year, and we think that's high. Some neighborhoods in SF have experienced >100% YoY rent growth, but more typically in the 30-50% range (seriously!).

It's really insane out there, to an extent most people outside of SF don't know.

Right now in any of the "cool" neighborhoods of SF a studio would be cost comparable to one in the Upper East Side or Chelsea, though you'd probably get a bit more space for your money (not by that much though). It'll be a _lot_ more expensive than any of the gentrifying Brooklyn neighborhoods, but probably slightly cheaper than the real gentrified bastions like Park Slope or Dumbo.

SF is fucking nuts, that's all I can say.

<comment><USER103> It'll be interesting to see the numbers after this boom, SF certainly is getting a lot more expensive. Latest figures though did put the order: Manhattan, Brooklyn, Honolulu, and then SF:

[http://gothamist.com/2012/09/01/manhattan_and_brooklyn_are_t...](http://gothamist.com/2012/09/01/manhattan_and_brooklyn_are_the_two.php)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER131> PBR? Ew.

</comment><comment><USER132> I left a note and a dollar to a street violinist who was playing Dark Side of the Moon at MUNI / Bart.

The note read: "Where is your <http://gittip.com> URL?"

</comment><comment><USER133> this is inane</comment>


My startup chosen by Apple/ also I am trying to make a better hybrid, crazy? - <AUTHOR>

By day I am the CEO and Founder at Signal360.com ( Complete Proximity Platform:Beacons and more) Just selected by Apple in conjunction with our client the Golden State Warriors for best use of iBeacon. Four years in the space.
Side Project http://bit.ly/10wcCUx Trying to make a better hybrid vehicle.
http://bit.ly/1pSOh0Z
Elon Musk seems to have thirty companies, does everyone call him crazy also? <comment><USER2> Does Elon Musk post on Hacker News?</comment>


Unlikely discovery of a mouth-brooding fish that lives in the deep sea - <AUTHOR> https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/users/361909-randy-singer/posts/61137-finding-dories-an-unlikely-discovery-of-a-mouth-brooding-fish-that-lives-in-the-deep-sea <comment><USER2> From the first sentence of the article:

>The deep ocean is frequently assumed to be a homogeneous system lacking diverse life history strategies found in shallower waters.

I feel like most people imagine the deep sea is even stranger and more bizarre?

</comment><comment><USER3> Today I learned: Mouth-brooding - holding developing young (eggs or larvae) in the mouth of the animal.

</comment><comment><USER4> I would not use the word deep-sea here. The species range from epipelagic to the first middle of mesopelagic and lives in soft bottoms that can still receive light. Is better to save the term deep-sea for the bathyal area.

Mouth incubation is uncommon but happens in some families (mostly Perciformes if I'm remembering correctly). Is pretty interesting to find this in Zeiforms.

</comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me of Mr. Tilapia in Eric Carle's book Mr. Seahorse: [http://tinyurl.com/vmnlk27](http://tinyurl.com/vmnlk27)</comment>


On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive - <AUTHOR> http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/6/6/10.1063/1.4953807 <comment><USER2> This is an attempt to explain a controversial experimental result that appears to violate conservation of momentum. The experiment consists of flooding a resonant cavity with microwaves and measuring the thrust produced, which should be zero but is measured to be some small positive number. The explanation in the paper uses the quantum vacuum. The funding of these type of experiments are always interesting to explore.</comment>


Scientists Are Putting Tens of Thousands of Sea Fossils Online - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-are-putting-tens-thousands-sea-fossils-online-180963792/?no-ist <comment><USER2> Crowdsourcing science! Good idea? Discuss.</comment>


Nobody Can Find the Source Code for Icewind Dale II - <AUTHOR> http://kotaku.com/nobody-can-find-the-source-code-for-icewind-dale-ii-1796724450 <comment><USER2> Have they contacted the original programmers? Maybe someone took a copy home to work on during the weekend.

<comment><USER3> Yes, it says so in the article.</comment></comment>


How I used lies about a cartoon to prove history is meaningless on the internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/news/how-i-used-lies-about-a-cartoon-to-prove-history-is-meaningless-on-the-internet-1656188/ <comment><USER2> I find this all slightly terrifying. I've often wondered how easy it would be to create a few fake references for something and start spreading misinformation. I'm fairly certain there have been cases where Wikipedia has referenced sources that were themselves sourced from Wikipedia.</comment>


Show HN: My first open source project - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/zakokor/pegao <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone! I'm Gonzalo, the solo developer of Pegao.co, my first open source project for saving and sharing links into lists.

Check out the homepage and website and tell me what you think, please!.

[https://pegao.co/](https://pegao.co/)

To see how it work: [https://pegao.co/@zakokor](https://pegao.co/@zakokor) [https://medium.com/pegao/how-to-use-pegao-co-to-make-your- li...](https://medium.com/pegao/how-to-use-pegao-co-to-make-your-lists-of- links-on-internet-4b1f121d0483)</comment>


Five Open Questions in Email - <AUTHOR> http://www.gaborcselle.com/blog/2008/07/five-open-questions-in-email.html <comment><USER2> <http://www.gaborcselle.com/blog/2008/07/new-company.html>

"I am leaving Xobni in late August and starting a new company."

"There are lots of challenges left in the email and communication space. I have some exciting product ideas for my new company, and I feel like I understand the space like few others do."

;)

</comment><comment><USER3> Those are good questions. Better email client would indeed be desirable. I am kinda surprised by the slowness of innovation in the space of email clients. I feel there is still a big opportunity in this area for some completely new product written from scratch...just nobody got it right yet.

<comment><USER4> I'm guessing that part of this would be the difficulty in getting the average corporate user to accept a radically different application. Even minor, release-to-release changes bother users--imagine what an entirely different interface might do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> the average person still uses email, not facebook. i think sometimes we think we are the average person and that is a huge mistake.

<comment><USER6> It really depends whether we are a niche or the leading edge. If we are the leading edge then the masses will use these new systems later and it's worth building technologies now.

Bear in mind that your argument applied to email in 1986 when I first got the email address firstname.lastname@example.com.

<comment><USER5> that email wasn't web based was it? thats changed. (unless it was ;)

good point though

<comment><USER6> We're talking 1986 here. That email was based on the command-line, but we did have IM: it was called talk. And we had anonymous peer-to-peer file sharing using FTP. And we had discussion forums using Usenet.

We didn't have Facebook, but we didn't need it. I knew everyone who was using the Internet :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> These posts on email are fascinating.

I see 2 major divergences in email usage (or 3, actually).

1) a lot of people see email for personal use - as a TODO list, as a collection of your own information, etc. I think this constituent is made of of mostly males < 30 years of age.

2) a lot of people use email for conversation; ie, leaving messages to people where they know they will see it. Facebook is gaining ground on email because people feel more at ease gossiping through Facebook (which they associate with social activities) than email (dull, boring, practical). This constituent is probably the younger generation (< 22), and females.

3) the rest, which uses email casually or for business reasons. Email is just an open channel to talk or conduct business. The older generation uses it like this.

Email is difficult because people use it in so many ways that one interface for all the different uses of it fails to address specific needs. I think email needs to be sorted into categories that have their own user-interfaces that are optimal for that type of email (ie, email that is back and forth communication should look more like IM, an email that stores information should have the information distilled and be easily searchable, etc)

</comment><comment><USER8> RE Number 4:

His mention of the difficulty of getting users to trust AI agents is dead right. All the supposedly wonderful Bayes-based filtering today STILL sometimes crashes and burns, to the point where Thunderbird often thinks that fairly important work emails are junk. I would be hesitant to install any other agents unless they performed extremely trivial tasks.

However...

RE: Number 3

Search is _nowhere near_ good enough right now for most desktop clients. Outlook and Thunderbird alike are both terrible at intelligent searches. Only Gmail has a nice search function, which is why I continue to use it over most desktop clients. If he can make a cross-platform plugin that vastly improves searches without turning my client into a grinding mass of gears (hello Xobni!), he will have a red-hot product.

</comment><comment><USER9> Point 1 is pretty good, actually. Email for me is mostly for "official" communications and bug reports from people that haven't heard of IRC. When I want to talk to a friend, I wait for them to come online instead of sending e-mail. When I want to talk to the author of some program I am using, I use IRC. At work, we use IRC for everything. Even our clients prefer IM to e-mail these days.

If all the mailing lists I read were on Usenet, I don't think I would even need e-mail. An interesting thought.

</comment><comment><USER10> If you want to revolutionise email merge it with a task list since my inbox is basically a big todo list.

Let me create tasks right in my inbox (at the moment I have to email myself), let me sort the emails myself by dragging them up and down to prioritise them, and let me split single emails into multiple tasks with some link back to the original email.

</comment><comment><USER11> Pretty interesting post. I'm working on something cool that attempts to solve problems 1 and 2, plus what I think is currently the biggest problem with email (and every other form of messaging): incredibly lousy interaction design. I'll launch it here in a few days; I'm eager to get feedback and maybe some technical help from the community.

</comment><comment><USER12> Does this mean Gabor is leaving Xobni to start another email related startup?

<comment><USER13> To clarify: Yes, I will be starting another email related startup. However, I don't intend to make a competitor to Xobni.

Email is a huge space. So many things are broken today that it's hard to know where to even start fixing. I'm very proud of what we've achieved at Xobni but there are many exciting things beyond what our sidebar does - plenty of problems to attack.

<comment><USER14> I hope you're more successful than these guys were: <http://chandlerproject.org/>

They had a lot of great ideas and vision but the project didn't turn out to be a success unfortunately.

I think there is a book called 'Dreaming in Code' which documents Chandler's failure in more detail. Probably worth a read! :)

<comment><USER15> Though the project is a failure, there are some of ideas from Chandler that might worth a look.

They had this notion of items - everything is an item and you can stamp an item into an item of a different kind. For instance, you get stamp a mail as a TODO item.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why do I have a feeling that these 5 areas are not on Xobni's radar? That would explain a lot.

In the startup world, everything moves faster, even evolution.

</comment><comment><USER17> Sounds like someone did not sign a "Non-Compete" :)

<comment><USER18> Non-compete is not enforcable in California. :)

<comment><USER19> And furthermore, Non-Compete is Un-American.

<comment><USER20> I don't think of any good faith contract as being un-American. I wouldn't sign one, but I think the response to companies requiring one shouldn't be to ban them, but to let them lose all the great talent through market mechanisms.

<comment><USER19> "I don't think of any good faith contract as being un-American."

It was kind of a joke. My American friends often tell me that the country's strength is its unfettered capitalism, so I was trying to point out that things that _suppress_ competition are un-American.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Marketplaces are eating firms - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/22/marketplaces-are-eating-firms/

<comment><USER2> "Typical markups in law firms or consulting firms might be 4x, e.g. a worker making $50 per hour would get billed out at $200. The same person on a marketplace might raise their rate to $75 to compensate for utilization, but the end price to the customer might end up at $85 – $95 per hour."

Doesn't work for IT same way, obviously. Luckily the average quality matches the average price + time wasted.</comment>


Apache #Mesos 0.22.0 released, featuring disk quota isolation - <AUTHOR> http://mesos.apache.org/blog/mesos-0-22-0-released/

<comment><USER2> The new features are really exciting. Disk quota isolation is important to pave the way for stateful workloads, and with the upcoming work on stateful primitives ([https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2018](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2018)) it will be easy to run things like databases and filesystems.

The service discovery metadata and labels allow more control over the visibility and naming of tasks. Mesos DNS ([https://github.com/mesosphere/mesos- dns](https://github.com/mesosphere/mesos-dns)) will get support shortly.

Finally the modules also got some additions: hooks and anonymous modules, which can be used to add arbitrary extensions to Mesos.

Exciting release!

<comment><USER3> Yup, the dynamic reservations are going to hopefully make it into the next release 0.23. Really excited to use this for data stores such as Kafka, Cassandra, Postgres, etc.</comment></comment>