I was in San Francisco that week. Ecological issues aside, it was the last time San Francisco felt different in a good way rather than a bad one. The “negative energy” is now too much for me and, when I travel to the Bay Area, I pretty much just stay on-track. I wonder if people who lived in San Francisco from 1965-2005 expected it to last forever.
I think this is bigger than just SF. After the great recession the generally positive atmosphere in the western world never really recovered. Any time it even got close to recovering some new horrible event happened.
Positivity has become politically suspect. It's doubly sad to be unhappy about how things are going in the world generally and also to be nervous about enjoying when something goes right. It's sad that making a positive comment about the weather is something I only do with close friends now, and not even all of them. There are people I've known for years, who know what my politics are, who know who I give money to, yet still, if I say something nice about the weather, they have to say "too bad climate isn't weather" or "yeah, but you know in a few months it's going to be terrible, because global warming is real." And none of this drives political engagement or moves anybody's mind in the slightest; it's just a social fashion that arose spontaneously, for no purpose, and which we will enforce zealously until one day it doesn't seem important anymore.
Yep, exactly. God forbid you express any positivity about the weather, the place you live, anything connected to any government/company/nonprofit, any public or historical figure, et cetera. I am lucky to have a large social network where I mostly don't have to watch my words, but this is spreading like a virus through society.
There are a few causes here. One is that everything - absolutely everything - is severely problematic. Another is that people now scrutinize the minor differences among their friends and try to evangelize them. When everything is a life or death issue, you really should fight for the right thing. And the problem is that many things really are life or death matters. People really are dying in horrific ways in the Middle East, and plastics really are filling our oceans, and politicians do often embolden people to kill members of the out-group. The modern internet and social media gives us the most extreme and attention-grabbing examples of any of that, neatly cut and cropped into heartwrenching short-format video. MLK and a fuzzy blanket and a kitten are all positive things, but in an instant the modern internet can fill you in on countless reasons that they are problematic. I mean come on, most fuzzy blankets shed microplastics like mad, cats devastate our ecosystems and MLK has countless words written about his wrongs [1]. If you're positive about fuzzy blankets, kittens or MLK then you're probably naïve at best and a member of the wrong group at worst.
I think the solution is twofold: one, strongly limit the type and amount of internet use, and two, try to be positive. To be positive in these modern times is a revolutionary act. Positivity and happiness are contagious.
[1] https://archive.ph/oKKcC - The New Yorker: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Perilous Power of Respectability. I linked this article because, while it is generally positive on MLK, it gives a good rundown of the various issues people have with him.
As the world grows more interconnected, the proliferation of news about horrible events happening spreads faster, and even if you personally ignore the news, other people don’t, and this colors the overall mood of society.
There is horror everywhere, and always will be until the end of our days.
Suppose you lived in a village where there was no outside news. You'd learn of about two murders and a dozen deadly accidents in your lifetime. Imagine how safer you'd feel compared to a villager who's getting outside news beamed to her face every hour of the day.
I'm not advocating isolation, but our primitive minds are not able to really understand that what is projected in front of us is not the same as what happens in front of us. I don't know how anyone could solve that.
And how can you support funding this beautiful park proposal when there are children starving in ${country}??
I can’t remember where I heard this, but it was someone questioning joy and frivolity in a time of war. And the answer back was that people need to remember what they are fighting for otherwise what’s the point?
If you don’t allow yourself joy until the problems are gone, there will never be joy and the problems will multiply for lack of it.
I was thinking the same thing. It's surprising how many people don't get this, arguing that poverty, wars or some other pressing matter must be solved first before we can go to space or spend money on non essential activities.
It may seem counterintuitive, but that way of thinking doesn't actually solve problems, it only perpetuates them.
While your point has value, there's also value in the perspective that people should take more responsibility for the damage inflicted on others under their watch. For example, it is my perspective that too many people stood by idly while the U.S. engaged in war for the 90's/00's/10's/20's. Too many people said "I want to go make money on wall street/in law/in consulting" instead of either changing their political system or serving it. There is a fair argument that war, particularly war conducted by your own country, is an exceptional thing and requires re-prioritizing duties over desires. The only other exception I can think of that isn't debateable is genocide.
At least "how can you support funding this beautiful park proposal when there are children starving in ..." is more than a century old at this point (there are Soviet books from 1920s lampooning this sentiment).
Would thousands of colored balls careening down streets bouncing off objects and each other and damaging things in their path be an okay metaphor for this?
I mean, you mean after the 2003-2004 Iraq war, 9/11 in 2001, the stolen election of 2000 & the crash of 2000, the Kosovo war in 1999? There’s always a lot of reasons why the atmosphere can be negative every year.
Yeah I'm not sure what they meant by 2008... After 9/11, things werent optimistic.
Coming up to YEAR 2000, the future felt here. I remember watching the TV shows in preparation for YEAR 2000. Then the future never really happened like predicted. We didn't wear silver suits in 2001.
I do mean after those things. Globally nobody cares about most of these after the initial shock. There were definitely long periods of good in between those events.
The San Francisco I experience is full of positive energy. Sure, maybe if you're visiting and stay in Union Square, that's not what you see. But if you live in the residential neighborhoods and work somewhere nice (such as in the Presidio), there isn't another city in the world I would rather be.
It seems to me like working from home has transformed the residential neighborhoods. I recently visited Inner Sunset as was astonished at how many people were out and about.
When I visited in the 90's I remember conversations mentioning seeing the signs and trying to delay the inevitable end. Whether someone sees that as dooming or prescient is probably a matter of if they moved in before or after 2005.
What city regions have better energy, are good economically, and have natural beauty (ocean, mountain, plants)?
It is easy to find faults with the SF bay area (politics, costs, and derivative issues), but is somewhere actually better?
EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes. It was an honest question, and I badly wanted to be informed, having given the issue in-depth consideration over the years. I wasn't being snarky.
Yeah, it's good economically in the sense that it's still near top of market, due to having a large-ish existing economy (even if aspects of said economy seem fundamentally whack).
As in: if you want something at decent quality you can pretty much get it pretty easily with a bunch of options (assuming you can afford it).
Caveat - not necessarily the top of everything for all markets is available, but overall stuff is still around -- even as some things are disappearing from the area.
In contrast, other places are just poor, and you "cannot" find as large a variety of lots of goods and services, I imagine. But I could be wrong -- I'll check my assumptions. Thanks.
Are services really easily available in SF? I was shocked when we went to restaurant at evening without a reservation. Server give one hour waiting time for a table! At normal city you just drop into nearest good restaurant, and if they are full (very unlikely) you go to next.
How easy is to get a dentist or masseuse, with a few hour notice?!
> In contrast, other places are just poor, and you "cannot" find as large a variety of lots of goods and services
I think you need reality check on "poor". The place with the widest selection of services and products (for example types of meat in supermarket, or hand made tailored clothes) is Bangkok in Thailand. Places like SF just do not have enough people to provide all those services.
IDK about in the city itself, but in the surrounding metro area I would say yes.
> At normal city you just drop into nearest good restaurant, and if they are full (very unlikely) you go to next.
Right, I was biased toward considering the surrounding cities in the SF metro. I think popping into next open restaurant with seating applies to the healthy downtowns in the area metro area. But the city itself, I wouldn't know.
> a dentist...with a few hour notice
I don't think that kind of dental scheduling is typically found/done _anywhere_ in the US AFAIK.
> meat in supermarket, or hand made tailored clothes) is Bangkok in Thailand
It used to be found in sf, and I've still found it in slc
Back in 2012 I had a raspberry seed work it's way down into my gums and not come out. Made an appointment at Townsend dental and saw him 3 hours later.
A few weeks ago I had a filling fall out. Called up a local dentist here and got it fixed 90 minutes later
Yeah if you’re in a culture where everyone gets a reservation for a fancy restaurant (just like in Paris), you’ll need a reservation, that’s just how the market works.
> How easy is to get a dentist or masseuse, with a few hour notice?!
I mean, everyone who lives here is already affiliated with a dental office and they’ll take you in same day for a real emergency. You can get a Thai massage in two hours very easily too.
The quality of medical care is also stupidly high compared to almost anywhere outside the US. Sure your insurance will pay $$$ for it but who cares?
Because you meet tons of talented engineers whenever you go for lunch, and they just need to cross the street and walk in to ask for a job.
Because you're around a ton of people who are interested in the same thing as you are. Caveat: If you're not interested in the things SF engineers are interested in, that means you're surrounded by masses of incredibly boring - to you - folks :)
Because that introduction you need to make things pop is super-easy compared to other places.
Doesn't mean you _have_ to start in SF, but for certain classes of ventures, it's the place that makes it the easiest.
Subculture wise, SF is barely represented in computer graphics or high performance optimization circles, like gamedev or demoscene, arguably a class of field that produces top quality software engineers.
Yes. I'm not implying only SF produces great engineers. I'm saying that for a specific large set of problems, SF is swimming in great engineers for those problems.
For other problems, elsewhere may well be better. Gamedev, I'd say SoCal, NC, TX are all better places.(Though the studios have done a "great" job choking off the indie scene). If you talk high performance non-gfx, I'd go with NYC, HFT is pretty interesting.
But that's the whole point. Pick a place that has people who care about the thing you want to do. Because top engineers are almost always engineers who deeply care about the field they're in.
Any remote job listing gets thousands of applications, with dozens good candidates. I really doubt I could get decent engineer for $80k a year in SF.
> Caveat: If you're not interested ... incredibly boring
Everyone in SF has basically the same correct opinion.
And not just booring, but hostile. People in SF are really not that tolerant. Try to say that Dubai is more diverse, because it has many cultures, religions, people from Africa, India, Philippines... Or someone is not XYZ, but mixed race (whiter than me) and you will understand.
> I really doubt I could get decent engineer for $80k a year in SF.
If you did, they'd be a non-exempt employee, so you'd need to track and pay out overtime. A quick look puts the minimum non-exempt salary for jobs in California at ~$69,000.
Also, honestly? I expect you'd be hard-pressed to find a decent programmer for $80k/year in ANY major metro area in the US... post 2020, housing prices went NUTS across the country and aren't getting any less nuts.
(One of the big reasons I haven't moved out of San Francisco is that my ~50% less than "market rate" rent is not THAT much more than current rents in most other US cities. (Plus, most other US cities don't even pretend to have any sort of useful public transportation.))
I'd say Lisbon, Portugal is probably the closest (including Weather, which places like Seattle are lacking), especially because you didn't mention pre-existing tech industry which is probably SF's main differential versus everywhere else. It even has a big red bridge?
P.S: I'm sorry Lisboetas..you are already getting swamped by Digi Nomads, but it's true.
I visited lisbon last year and was kind of shocked how similar to SF it was, weather, hills, general feel - that it has its own golden gate bridge really just sealed it.
Really depends on what you mean by all those. Some would say Sandy Eggo has the beauty, others would contest that Seattle has the economy and mountains.
The people left there are those who like what it has become or are trapped in someway; others have moved.
Vancouver, IMO, is a far better developed city than Seattle. Vastly better transit, denser, more walkable neighbourhoods, and just overall very thoughtfully developed.
It’s just an enormous shame it’s become grossly unaffordable— on an income adjusted basis, it’s more expensive than the Bay Area. That, and the weather, although the summers are perfect IMO.
You’re conveniently leaving out how pretentious and insufferable many Seattleites are…
It has been far and wide the least welcoming, interesting, and lackluster food city I’ve ever lived in.
Also, the coffee scene there is worse than SF, Chicago, LA..rare stop for bands and musicians touring, and unpleasant transit.
The only people I know who are genuinely happy there are people who moved from Florida, and wealthy white families with young children who moved there (from California) “because taxes and better education”.
Don’t even get me started on the lack of diversity and casual racism.
SF is far from perfect, but Seattle isn’t even in the conversation for places I’d ever recommend someone leaving SF to shortlist.
Sorry you're not having a good time here; that hasn't been my experience of the city at all. There was a moment back in the late '90s when I could have moved to either Seattle or S.F., and Seattle happened to snag me first; I still enjoy visiting SF from time to time, but I've never had the slightest regret about settling here instead.
For tradition's sake, I feel obligated to give you the classic Seattleite response to such complaints: "whatever, man; if there's somewhere you like better, feel free to go there."
Seattle is another tier above. SF people I find far more interesting and smart vs. the smartest people I met/knew/know in Seattle. Seattle is like a pissing contest for nerd snipers. At least in SF we drink our own pee (at Folsom of course)
It really is surrounded by amazing natural beauty. However, everything to do with humans has slowly morphed into an unfixable nightmare and it's heartbreaking. I think it's time to throw in the towel, evacuate everyone from the city and let it return to nature as a wildlife preserve.
