youngButEager

You underestimate things.

Is Tokyo a destination city? Yes. Total urban population? 38 million people.

I don't think you realize how attractive a beautiful city really is to the people of our planet.

While I'd agree that 38 million people is not 'infinite' -- it's a lot of people. Palo Alto is at 66,000 people right now.

Did Tokyo's decision to allow high density housing solve their 'housing is too expensive in Tokyo' problem?

NO. Tokyo is one of the most expensive cities on the planet to reside in.

Again, adding supply to a Destination City will NOT bring down housing costs. The crybaby lawyer failed to factor in the difference between Palo Alto and Stockton.

And it will be a big surprise to her -- Santa Cruz is very pricey. And won't be getting any cheaper.

The east coast of the USA was settled first, recall. What did they do back east to 'solve' this problem of "we're running out of space"? They increased the density of occupants per unit of land -- they built UPWARD.

That will have to happen here too. It's already happened in LA.

There will always be crybabies like this attorney during the growing pains of a popular 'destination city.'

For now, think of turning the Peninsula into tall buildings, concrete and asphalt. Think how the picturesque drive up highway 280 to San Francisco from the South Bay will be affected.

Everyone wants the nature. Not the tall buildings, concrete and asphalt.

Crybabies need to do precisely what this gal chose -- LEAVE. There's the door. That's how markets work -- when the price of a good or service is too high, demand drops. Well, she's a living example of a smidgen of demand disappearing.

People who don't like markets should move to Venezuela or North Korea or Cuba.

Maybe this type of FB behavior will finally kill that awful web site.

Sites like this have become a 'punitive tease' -- it's hard to know when the rug will be pulled out from under you, yet you're lured into using it because "all my friends are on it."

There really is a need for a neutral Twitter, a neutral FB. It won't happen though due to entrenched network effects.

I suspect the only way FB and Twitter could be killed off is if they:

1) listed all the banned users and the reason each was banned

2) disclose the current "reasons to ban" list

3) and freely admit that banning is a subjective choice for these websites, that the "reasons to ban" list is not fixed.

It's only anecdotally we hear about someone being banned, we have no idea the numbers of users, the scope, involved.

If you were invited to a dinner party but were given a list of reasons why you'd be asked to leave ('talked down about person X', etc.) and also told "our list of reasons to kick a person out of our dinner party is evolving and is subject to change without notice" -- hey no one's putting up with a manipulative, baiting host like that, no one's going to that party.

FB and Twitter, were they to be transparent about the scope of their banning, their DAU would crash.

No. No error.

Pot smokers make bad decisions MUCH more frequently than sober non-users.

I am in a position to observe that -- lots of non-users and a few users, at our properties

It doesn't matter if 100,000 non-experienced people tell me my opinion (based on personal experience across 23+3 years) about pot smokers is wrong.

I actually have THE EXPERIENCE.

But, as I've said, and as I tell prospective tenants, it is not for me to tell you how to behave. My job, if you are a fan of repeated intoxication, is to keep you out of my apartments. That's all I do.

And in the past year and a half, 18 people have slipped under the tenant screening radar -- and got evicted for smoking on the premises.

We go to so much trouble to help people realize "hey, these people are really serious about this 'no pot' rule, this place isn't for me"

18 people in a year and half. Despite the fact we TOLD them, UP FRONT, no pot smoking (or cigars or cigarettes) on the premises. Before we even take a deposit.

Think about that. 18 pre-warned-and-now-evicted pot smokers. THAT'S THE POT. That's the bad decision making.

And you don't see or experience that. So I understand it's hard to grok, these pot smokers.

'DGAF' is not always evident in the short time we meet, interact with a new tenant. Unlike a job interview process (several stages of contact: phone, in person several times, etc.) it's not practical for landlords to spend that much time with each prospective tenant.

The 18 tenants I've evicted in the past year and half -- they ALL slipped 'under the radar.'

My "cues/indicators" list above is 100% NOT all inclusive.

Until you've dealt over many years with pot smokers, in quantities, you really, really have no idea how defiant/grouchy/uncooperative/troublemaking they can be, behaviors you can only witness over a period of a lease.

Here's another example. 31 yo male, he should know better, right? About the useless 'crutch' of drugs and alcohol as the foundation for personal recreation?

Smoked up a storm. He befriended surrounding tenants, and so no one complained. NOTE: in our non-smoking properties, keeping in mind that very few people smoke these days and make an effort to only live in non-smoking apartment properties, if a non-smoker is exposed to 2nd hand smoke, do they complain to Management? Oh my god. Especially pot smoke. We get complaints like "the person below me is smoking pot, you said this was a non-smoking property, I don't want to get high from their 2nd hand smoke" -- we get COMPLAINTS. It's understandable, very few people smoke or want to be in close breathing proximity to smokers these days.

Well, I had to catch him in the act, he chummed up with the surrounding tenants "in range" and somehow got them to not complain. It wasn't easy. Caught him over the course of 2 weeks on our security cameras.

We didn't tell him "Joe, we have video evidence you're smoking" we just served the 3 Day Notice. He refused to stop. Went to eviction court, he lied to the Judge. HE'S UNDER OATH. "Judge, I stopped smoking weeks ago." Lied to the Judge while under threat of perjury. DEFIANT.

Then my attorney brought forth the photos and entered them in the record. The Judge looked at Joe. I'm thinking 'it's perjury, is Joe going to jail?' The Judge must have been in a good mood. He looked at my photo evidence for 20 seconds, BAM the gavel dropped, "judgment for the plaintiff."

Pot smokers are T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

It depends on how long they've been smoking. Those 3 years I smoked it as a teen, it was in the final year I started with bad behavior, and bad experiences I finally realized were not me.

So I don't really care how much a pot smoker says "it's fine, I'm fine, it's harmless."

My philosophy with ANYONE who uses pot, and this is solely because of my 3 years personal experience and the screwed up behaviors from pot smokers over 23 years of landlording:

get away from me. Stay away from me. I don't care if you compromise your personal life by thinking intoxication is a good foundation, just don't do it around me.

That stuff is a disaster in many ways BECAUSE the damage is so incremental, that the build of up negative consequences is invisible to the user.

I have personally walked the path and I now also have 23 years of screwups, pot smoking tenants causing weird problems no other (sober) tenant causes.

Let me say, I feel deeply sorry for anyone who leans on drugs and/or alcohol for 'recreation.'

If you find yourself frequently intoxicated for 'recreation' - from pot, alcohol, whatever -- MOST people are going to have problems from it. You can throw the dice with it over the long term if you want.

Imagine showing vacant apartments to prospective renters since 1993 -- for 23 years. Lots of units, lots of prospective tenants.

In 1993 I had no pool of 'before move-in/after move-in' experience with tenants. 23 years on, I have a large number of 'before move-in/after move-in' tenant experiences.

So when a tenancy went bad, over time I started making a mental note of

1) the social cues the tenant made when I first met them

2) what their behavior was after move-in

I started seeing patterns. After 23 years of "before move-in/after move-in" experiences, I developed predictors.

In my mind, I suspect that Judges, teachers, cops, hiring managers, any profession where you have a lot of "before/after" experience with lots of people -- have developed similar wisdom, similar predictors.

It's probably a survival skill humans have -- if you get burned over and over, you start connecting "is there any way I could have used this person's before behavior to protect myself from their after behavior?"

Here are some of the screening-out cues I use:

1) during the initial showing of the unit and meeting, does the person forget something I just told them ("It's a one year lease")? Did they exhibit more than one memory lapse like that?

2) was the person inarticulate in writing (on the application), or in their speech?

3) on the continuum of demeanor (behavior and body language) from "street people behavior" to "my professional peers" -- was the prospective tenant closer to "street person" demeanor or closer to "professional peer"?

4) does the person smoke cigarettes? Over 23 years most of my pot-smoking tenants smoked cigarettes. It makes sense I guess, smoking cigarettes for nicotine, smoking pot for thc.

The list of 'cues' I have is not perfect; people are still moving in and smoking pot inside my properties in violation of the lease.

INSIGHT: Being in a position to observe the behavior of users -- MANY users -- over a period of time, and non-users in the same settings.

Most of you probably don't have that experience.

- Parents do. Ask parents "how did your kid change after commencing use of pot?"

- Teachers do, if they know a student imbibes. These days teachers have a great chance to see the difference between regular students and those who smoke it.

- Property managers of apartment properties do.

I'm the latter. I made my Silicon Valley startup bucks and have been buying and operating apartment properties since 1993, 2 years out of college.

Here's what I experience:

1) my pot using tenants do not like following rules compared to other tenants.

2) they are defiant in their attitude to varying degrees, challenging things they initially agree to ("no smoking", "new occupants must pass the same tenant screening you did and must be added to the lease", "no guest parking", "no loud parties/noise after 10pm", etc).

RECENT EXPERIENCES - tenant moves in, it's a no smoking building, they begin smoking pot in their unit EVEN THOUGH there are 'no smoking' signs everywhere and the lease clearly calls for 'no smoking cigars/cigarettes/marijuana'. THAT'S HAPPENED 18 TIMES (18 different tenants) IN THE PAST year and a half.

- tenant moves in, gets a warning for their car blocking other tenants in the parking lot, they kept blowing it off, parking and blocking others. FIVE TIMES over a 2 month period until they were evicted.

- tenant moves in someone without adding them to the lease (a requirement), we catch them, the added person does not pass the normal tenant screening process and they have to leave, the original tenant keeps them there anyway, we catch them, gave them a final warning, they ignored the final warning, and got evicted

Just a very small set of examples.

IF YOU SMOKE, you are the LAST person to know if your pot use has changed you, added some negatives to your behavior. "A doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient."

I myself imbibed for 3 years as a teen. WHAT AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER. Normal recreation time was clouded by intoxication.

If you prefer being intoxicated in your leisure time, how would you feel telling people that?

"I like being intoxicated. It's my recreational activity."

OR

"I like being intoxicated during my leisure time."

OR

"When I spend free time with recreational pursuits, I like being intoxicated."

VERY FEW pot users will admit that to arbitrary others. Deep inside, we know to ourselves "I shouldn't need intoxication to enjoy myself."

You should not need to live in an altered state, intoxication, and if you are frequently choosing intoxication from pot as 'recreation', something is wrong.

Money. Money as motivator.

Was building hardware devices for musical pursuits (guitar effects) and my 1st degree was in EE. You can graduate with an EE degree, having taken a course or two or three in basic programming but it falls out of use and the depth was never really there anyway, more of a "here's programming" intro.

When I tried to change jobs as a 'hardware guy' I had limited options, unlike my software engineer friends who had a gazillion options it seemed. Makes sense, hardware is built once, but a piece of hardware can have an infinite number of programs written for it; thus one hardware engineer and an infinite number of software engineers for one piece of hardware.

They (my software engineer chums) also made A LOT MORE MONEY than me.

Went back to school, focused solely on software. Best decision I ever made.

Money as a motivator to learn to code is questionable but I got lucky as I learned to love it after becoming engrossed in it.

EDIT: Point being -- if you have a big enough "Why" you simply will learn to code. If you can't make money or have an enjoyable hobby doing coding, your motivation will be to do something else more enjoyable. Everyone saying "I couldn't figure it out so I quit" -- BALONEY. You can figure anything out, really.

Easy to buy a condo in Silicon Valley on an Engineer's salary. For as little as $350,000 you can have your own place. If you're a first time buyer you can come in with 10% down; an engineer can easily save up $35,000 not long after they graduate from college.

Here's one: http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1060-S-3rd-...

Once you buy the first property, you hold it for 5 years, sell it and move up to a bigger place, single family home.

No one is expecting a newly-graduated engineer to buy a $1 million dollar home. Who CARES what the big ones cost, these types of headlines are hyping a scene that doesn't exist, "a million dollars! I'll always be a renter!" NO, save up $$ for a year or two and buy that first condo. Then you're on your way as a 'move-up' buyer every 5 years or so -- selling the old place, buying a bigger place.

No it's actually true, and everyone knew from the context I meant commerce monopolies in capitalist economies, such as Microsoft, IBM (in the early days of computers you apparently could get fired for writing a P.O. for a non-IBM machine), etc. Not talking about utilities. I meant commerce monopolies in a competitive market place, a monopoly that develops with 'network effects', 'switching costs', etc.

Here's all it takes for a monopoly to fail:

(switching costs become low enough) + (current monopoly has become a pain/overpriced/etc.) = get thee down satan and the monopoly is gone.

Friendster, Myspace lost their market as we all know. SO WILL FACEBOOK. There is no 'secret sauce' there, just network effects, and minor switching costs of transferring/losing the data you've put on your FB account.

Switching costs for desktop operating systems are dropping incrementally for obvious reasons.

Lloyds of London has been around a long time but that doesn't mean they're a monopoly.

Arrogance from a seller of a good or service alienates/pisses off their customers.

SCENE: You walk into a large retail TV/tech/stereo store. There are monitors displaying ads. NOT in a ubiquitous way; in an annoying ubiquitous way (ie. every 5 feet you walk in the store aisles, a monitor drops from the ceiling and displays an ad and you get used to counting your steps and every 5 feet you have to duck around the ad-bearing monitor).

You find a device online that disables the 'monitor drop' and bring it with you to that store.

Staff notice this and tell you "either turn off your device or leave."

What will you do? Phucking leave and never come back, that's what.

What if Best Buy was the dominant seller of TV/tech/stereos and the only place to get the Best Buy experience?

Monopolies don't last. Especially arrogant monopolies. It might take a while but if Best Buy was forcing people to view ads every time they visit the store -- and their customers started not showing up after being harassed by staff to 'stop using your monitor-drop blocker device' --

Best Buy would either

1) stop annoying their customers and find other ways to monetize

2) go out of business

The thing that people may forget here is the arrogant belief of this particular monopolist (Zuckerberg et al). That belief is "we got them locked, they can't get this experience anywhere else, we're #1"). Well that's a mistake on their part.

Can you imagine Jeff Bezos saying "effective immediately we're employing a FB ad model and stopping our users from ad-blocking -- I want more money."

Bezos is 100% opposite Zuckerberg. - Bezos knows Amazon is the monopoly - and yet he still he busts his bauls to make the site as non-annoying as possible; read a case study of how much attention Jeff pays to no-friction interaction for users of the Amazon site

Arrogant monopolists die. Zuckerberg needs to find a different way to monetize.

The mere fact that the dummazz thinks so little of his users that he comes up with "we'll force them to consume ads" instead of a Bezos "make users as happy as possible" shows Zuckerberg is an azz.

But then we all knew that because he stole the FB idea from someone else. NO FREAKING RESPECT. No respect extended from the guy -- so NONE GIVEN.

The Feds are probably furious. Replacing the U.S. currency is seen as a threat; any and all alternative types of 'medium of exchange' have been ruthlessly attacked/shut down by the Feds. They could step in and appeal this judge's ruling in the Federal courts to either overrule this Florida judge, or to extremely limit the application of her ruling.

The Feds one year ago sought to take down coin.mx and they will not likely want this Florida judge's ruling to confuse the legality of transferring bitcoin between parties.

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/newyork/news/pr...

Here's an interview question I might pose to candidates (for a coding job):

"Which torrent site with access to popular songs and movies over the past 5 years has been the best, meaning the one you use most?"

My candidate responds and says "Pirate Bay" or "Kat".

If I have several candidates, this guy will be the last possible choice if every candidate is qualified because I'm assuming he's okay with using copyrighted works without paying.

Consider these scenarios -- stealing in your opinion?

- go to a restaurant, eat a meal, then leave without paying (you enjoyed something you were supposed to pay for but you did not pay)

- use public transit and not pay for the ride

- hail a taxi then run away when you arrive at the destination and not pay

If I asked a candidate "would either of these 3 scenarios above be okay?" -- would they expect me to hire them if they said one or more would be acceptable?

If I asked the candidate "how many times have you enjoyed a copyrighted film or recording -- and not paid?" -- 99.99% sure that every candidate would say 'never' even if they'd done so dozens of times.

Why would they lie to me about that? "If I tell the hiring manager I watch, listen to copyrighted stuff without paying, he might think that was wrong and not hire me, so I have to lie."

"It's not stealing, I just disagree with copyright laws/distribution channels/etc."

No it's stealing.

GOOD RIDDANCE. The example of Zuckerberg stealing the idea for Facebook and getting rich has contributed to the foolish belief that it's okay to "enjoy the benefit of something that was SUPPOSED to be paid for -- and NOT PAYING".

"I didn't steal any copyrighted material, my site just helped people who WANTED to enjoy the benefit of copyrighted material that was SUPPOSED to be paid for but didn't pay. So I'm in the clear!"

NO. Torrentz "Drove the getaway car", taking thieves to where the crime was committed.

The problem with calling out 'jerks, bozos and assholes' is contextual -- social norms/what works in NYC is quite different from small-town Indiana for example.

Two ways to handle someone you think is being a 'jerk/bozo/asshole': 1) what percentage of their behavior is 'bad behavior'? 2) what is my threshold percentage for what I personally consider bad behavior?

After I got married and witnessed PMS in action, the proportion good/proportion bad became essential.

The same is true at work.

And there is no OBJECTIVELY jerk/bozo/asshole behavior. What you think is jerk/bozo/asshole may not even CHART with what your boss, friend, family member think is jerk/bozo/asshole behavior.

If I hire a sales guy who blows away the next 10 sales guys but 25% of the time he is reported to be a jerk/bozo/asshole I'm NOT firing him/her.

This is life and people have different psychological makeups and histories.

If you're going to set your "tolerance level" for bad behavior to, say -- 5%? 10%? at home, or in the workplace -- you'll meet highly effective people who add value to relationships and businesses who will make you unhappy.

They're out there.

"For better or worse." "Take the good with the bad." "Lighten up Francis."

This is a WHISTLE BLOWER situation.

First identify who is trying to persecute the whistleblower.

There, you've found the party that has committed untoward acts who is now trying to SILENCE THE WHISTLEBLOWER/CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

I was a Bernie supporter. A LOT of people were/are. Not at all happy with the DNC.

Having a whistleblower confirm our idea that the DNC was trying to hurt Bernie --

-- now I know how a parent feels when they finally solve the tragedy of a missing family member.

REALLY CATHARTIC.

And really depressing.

Assange hints that the leaks may be from the DNC itself.

Recall that a DNC insider, Seth Rich, who worked on exposing election fraud during the Democratic party's primaries was murdered several days ago. There are undoubtedly others inside the DNC who are actually upright folks who may be the source of the leaks.

Here is where Julian Assange hints that the DNC itself may be the source of the leaks -- the "egg on their face" bit:

"Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces. But to exclude certain actors is to make it easier to find out who our sources are," Assange told CNN, speaking from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

He basically says "if you knew the source of the leak, you'd be shocked because the people complaining the loudest about the leaks -- the DNC -- are the source. And I'm not going to say "Russia didn't do it" because it would help you narrow the list of potential sources of the hacked DNC info."

"Russia didn't do the hack but 'to exclude certain actors is to make it easier to find out who our sources are'."

"And the people making a big fuss about 'the Russians did it!' will have "egg on their face" when they find out the DNC hack was an INSIDE JOB."

Link to the article: http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-wikileaks-dnc-...

I know the founder, Marcus Weller. I've had business dealings with him at the time Skully was just an idea, in the very formative stages.

I wanted to tell him "look dude, anything hardware-related will be copied in China like tomorrow, and your price point per helmet is what?"

Being an entrepreneur myself, I thought "most founders have to fail a bunch, so let him fail" and I said nothing. He also reneged on a commitment he made and in my opinion thinks too highly of himself. Good luck Marcus, try again, but stay away from high-end hardware.

Not sure what point you're making. I did read the article.

There's no getting around history. The reasons are very complex but the facts are this: in our current period, the distribution of creativity/problem solving/invention is lumped more into some groups than others. Perhaps environmental factors led to this -- perhaps genetic predisposition. It's hard to know.

Humans have been walking upright for around 2 million years. The fact that inventiveness has exploded in the tail end of those 2 million years provides no commentary as to the "group distribution of inventions" going forward.

Peter King, likewise, made no attempt to say that one group will ALWAYS be more represented in the realm of scientific/intellectual achievement, inventions, etc.

All of us (well most of us) recognize that a uniform distribution of intellect/curiosity/problem solving skills is best for humans, and since humans share everything with each other, eventually we'll get there.

Edward Snowden was the source of leaks exposing the massive and illegal snooping on U.S. citizens by our government.

The vast majority of U.S. citizens did not focus anger on the leaker -- only the exposed facts mattered.

It really doesn't matter who the whistle-blower is. The facts and the wrongdoing matter.

The people who villify whistle-blowers "can't handle the truth."

Ignoring genetic dispositions and innate traits because they're socially 'inconvenient' is foolish.

Assume for a moment that all humans have the exact same innate, instinctive traits and tendencies. Same degree of curiosity, ingenuity, cleverness. We'll all the same.

Then look at Bonobos and Chimpanzees. These two primate groups look so similar they're often confused. Bonobos and Chimps differ by only 0.4% genetically. They reside in the same part of the world, in Africa.

Yet their behavior is quite different. Bonobos tend to be less violent than Chimps, and intimate relations play a much larger social role in Bonobo groups.

You can't ignore stuff like that. "Bonobos are sluts! At least chimps have some modesty about these things!"

Or "Bonobos are more intelligent than chimps! They settle things more peacefully and are not as readily violent!"

Can you say stuff like that in mixed company? Sure. Go to any social gathering and bring it up.

But try switching "Chimp, Bonobo" for "Caucasians, Blacks" when discussing professional sports accomplishments and you might be asked to leave the party.

There are innate differences and feeling 'sorry' and 'embarrassed' or 'guilty' or 'judgmental' for assessing the differences between groups with historically different innate strengths and weaknesses -- is a social norm, that's all.

"German Shepherd dogs are better than Golden Retrievers for police work." FINE.

"Perhaps for environmental/survival factors, some groups of humans developed more prominent problem-solving ability and curiosity and became more inventive." FINE so far! Until you identify the groups you mean by 'some groups' then you're being asked to leave the party.

Saying "It Makes No Sense to Judge Groups of People by Their Histories of Invention" reflects a modern social norm. But has zero effect on the facts.

Bonobos and Chimps have been studied. They're only 0.4% different, genetically. But their innate tendencies and behaviors are different.

There's nothing wrong with that! It's NATURE.

For now though, Social Norms are limiting dialog about differences in groups of humans.

The very interesting thing is the degree of denial - of ANY negative side effect -- of using pot among any user. The vast majority of smokers would laugh it off if they were told "there's a notable correlation between suicide and pot use."

I smoked it for about 3 years as a teen, between 1976 and 1978. In those days about zero 'horticultural engineering' was done to the stuff -- the potency was low.

But the effects were dramatic. And negative.

Now? The stuff out there now simply MUST be highly 'engineered' after 40 years of time from when I used it recreationally. The odor is so overwhelming, so strong. The 'skunk' odor.

Back in my day the stuff consisted of stems, leaves, and a bud here and there. The buds had seeds. The seeds would sometimes explode like popcorn. All the pictures of the stuff I see nowadays -- it looks like all buds, and seedless.

In the 1970s, what made me stop it was this. Recall that if you're riding a bike on the right side of the road, cars pass by. Okay, imagine a huge truck passing you and suddenly it swerves to the right -- the huge truck almost hits you but you escape being hit/run over by steering your bike into a ditch.

You are quite shaken, lots of anxiety.

It's NORMAL to feel anxiety at a time like that.

The "I'm in trouble" indicator is -- feeling anxiety for no such reason. No imminent threat, no "I'm late for my final exam", etc. Just smoking the stuff and then feeling anxiety.

You know you're in trouble with that stuff when you cannot seem to shake off the anxiety.

Contrary to what 99.99% of pot users say, the drug -- like most drugs -- HAS SIDE EFFECTS.

I stopped because I felt anxiety and could not shake it.

Stopping the recreational use solved that problem.

Suicidal tendencies from pot use? I had friends back then going to psyche wards and rehab to try getting off that stuff. In the 1970s. When it was FAR LESS potent than today. I don't know if any of my friends/acquaintances back then ever got low enough to off themselves.

I never argue with anyone these days when they discuss how 'wonderful' pot is. My only wish would be -- remember, it's a drug and drugs have side effects.

You'll know you're in trouble when you have anxiety for no reason -- other than the pot use -- and you cannot shake it.

Why didn't Tesla build its largest-in-the-industry battery factory here?

Why did Toyota move out?

"Business relocation expert Joe Vranich has been counting.

“I tracked for 2011, that 254 companies of all sizes and shapes and kinds left the state for primarily other states,” said Vranich, the president of Spectrum Location Services in Irvine.

He told KCRA 3 that companies leave California for three primary reasons: “High taxes, excessive regulations and the threat of really ridiculous lawsuits.”

Chevron is moving 800 jobs from their Bay Area headquarters to Texas, and Waste Connections shifted more than 100 jobs to Texas from Folsom.

"Two dozen companies commit to leaving California -- Prop 30 triggers business backlash"

http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-companies-commit-to-leavi...

Detroit took 50 years to crash.

Not sure if most people are aware, but Silicon Valley led California with jobs growth, led California out of the recession.

If the rest of Silicon Valley moves to Austin et al, California's highest-in-the-nation personal income tax will need to go much higher.

As a small business owner, the taxes and regs just scream "don't hire anyone!"

Arizona, Texas (no state income tax), Nevada (no state income tax) -- weather not too bad, real close to California.

Actually, no, you're 100% wrong -- dangerously wrong.

Failure to follow the law has consequences. My point is that, simply. "Getting a benefit that is legally required to be paid for AND NOT PAYING" is stealing.

Staying out of trouble is a SURVIVAL STRATEGY.

A lot of people out there have very poor survival inclinations. Making bad decisions can really hurt you.

While stealing from the author of copyrighted works may not land you in prison -- by so passionately arguing in favor of stealing from the authors means you only respect the law when it suits you.

In my experience (running engineering teams, startups, rental properties, military experience) -- a sign from anyone that they play 'loosey-goosey' with the rules/law etc. is a WARNING. I've noticed, as have most parents, managers, etc. that when a person violates the law in one area -- "makes a bad decision" -- they for whatever reason cannot seem to restrict that poor decision making to only 1 area of their behavior.

I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not sure why, for example, when a person rationalizes stealing copyrighted material -- "gets the benefit of another person's effort that they were required to pay for and DID NOT PAY" -- I'm not sure why they seem to 'rationalize' a lot of other bad decisions. Maybe there's research in psychology that studies this, not sure. Would not be surprised. Maybe in criminal justice psychology.

But ask any parent with a troubled kid; or a cop who has 'regulars'; or a judge who has 'regulars'; or a long-time tech manager; or any other person who over time was exposed to a broad spectrum of people and behavior.

If you folks are rationalizing away stealing an artist's works, you would lie about doing that in a job interview.

Why? Because it's wrong to get the benefit of copyrighted material without paying.

Richard Stallman rebelled against 'closed IP' and look at the positive results.

So go out there and channel that rebellion. DON'T STEAL THOUGH.

If I'm interviewing you and I ask you "ever seeded a torrent cloud?" and you say 'No' and that is a lie -- YOU JUST LIED TO A TOTAL STRANGER. One 'bad decision' -- stealing copyrighted works -- led to another -- lying in a professional setting.

Where does that bad decision-making stop? HARD TO KNOW.

But having suffered the consequences of 'letting it slide', and since 1993 some of those consequences were quite painful -- if I catch someone exposing me to possible risk by their conscious volition -- I KNOW I'VE BEEN WARNED.

Once you get older, you'll either (1) take a Richard Stallman approach, or (2) realize the benefit of stealing from people is outweighed by the negative effects (lying to a hiring manager for example).

If you solemnly believe "there are no consequences to stealing from people" I'm here to tell you, you are dead wrong.

The Left has not helped Silicon Valley much.

1) ageism -- once you hit 40-45yo, you're done. Take a survey of the ages of the people at your company for evidence. Most engineers in their 20s; some in their 30s; almost none in their 40s and beyond

2) sexism -- females are about 50% of the population. But in Silicon Valley? Hiring favors males. Again, look at the companies you have worked at in Silicon Valley over your career. Mostly all male.

3) racial stereotyping -- take a look again at the companies you have worked for over your career. How many blacks there? How many Hispanics? VERY FEW.

So the idea that the Left is playing an effective role in the Valley is BOGUS in several dimensions:

- AGEISM

- SEXISM

- BLACK AND LATINO HIRING

You often need permission, then pay royalties, to copyright holders. That is the theft. In cases where you enjoy then distribute the copyrighted works of someone without their permission and avoid paying them the required royalties -- you have stolen money $$ from them. It's the same as eating at a restaurant then not paying. STEALING. You got a benefit you were supposed to pay for -- and you DID NOT PAY.

Stealing from others habitually is a very bad decision. You can justify it using any inner dialog you like.

The only caution is this: there are consequences to bad decisions you've made.

Here is the biggest consequence: if you purposely decide to hurt someone else (financially in this case), unless you are sociopathic/career criminal, you'll have an internal conflict about it. You will 'explain it away' so it doesn't feel as bad: "I do this because the law is unfair" or "everyone else is doing it".

YOU ARE LYING TO YOURSELF. You know darn well you shouldn't act that way. Once you start lying to yourself, you're going to green-light lying to yourself again.

For example: If asked in a job interview with the IRS "let's say we hire you and you have access to the IRS secure network, and after a week you discover that a lot of your IRS coworkers change personal data in our computer system and underpay their taxes. And you find your coworkers also download and seed torrent clouds with copyrighted material. Which activity would you find acceptable?"

YOU'D HAVE TO LIE TO THE IRS INTERVIEWER!! See? You'd have to say "I would never cheat on my taxes. And I download copyrighted material and seed with copyrighted material all the time."

YOU WOULDN'T SAY THAT!

Nope, you wouldn't get hired if you admitted to the IRS interviewer -- OR ANY OTHER COMPANY INTERVIEWING YOU FOR A JOB -- that you make illegal, unauthorized use of copyrighted works.

Why wouldn't you admit to the IRS job interviewer you seed torrents with copyrighted works without the owner's permission?

BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG. That's why.

RECAP: (1) you're stealing from an artist by not paying royalties on their film/music/etc. when using sites like KAT; (2) YOU'RE LYING TO YOUR FUTURE EMPLOYER in a job interview.

Slippery slope. In managing large groups of tech workers, what I discovered was this: if an employee is unethical or dishonest in one area of life, they seem to have a hard time restricting those bad decisions to only one area.

You can try but you'll never be able to rationalize stealing from someone. Especially when you use someone(s) else's actions to try to justify stealing from them.

You folks are young. If you're lucky enough to learn some of these things, the fact that a lot of bad karma will suddenly disappear from your life and things will go shockingly smoothly -- will only be the dessert. The real banquet will be knowing that you went through a time when you made bad decisions but by a stroke of genius, realized you were actually hurting someone (financially in this case) and were able to set aside your selfish wants on their behalf.

One of the best things you will discover is this: when a person is making bad decisions in one part of their life, they're rarely able to confine that bad decision making to just one part of life -- they're making bad decisions across the entire spectrum of their behavior.

That was a cool lesson to learn. I had to become in charge of a lot of young techies to discover it. A near-karma-free life is waiting for you guys. Shalom.

"Do you have a legal right to distribute this content?"

"No."

"Do you respect the people who spent their personal time and their money to make the content you distribute?"

"Yes of course."

"No you don't or you would get their permission first."

"I don't think whether I respect the creators or not has anything to do with making their content available, which is what I want to do."

"Will you please get their permission to distribute what they spent their time and money -- part of their life -- to create?"

"Nope, sorry. I'm distributing it for free. They can take a hike."

Real sad, these modern morals. Real sad. If you don't respect others, they ain't gonna respect you.

$50 million burn rate per month? Time to go public!

That president broke a cardinal rule of VC-backed startups -- never reveal your numbers. Although some do, admittedly.

But at that rate of burn, it's pretty surprising he got approval to disclose that. If I'm an LP -- looking at the #2 in the space -- and they're treading water against #1 while losing $50M a month -- I'd rather check out the #1 in the space.

Although Uber's burn rate is also quite high -- losing $1 billion dollars in China alone: http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/19/technology/uber-losing-1-bil...

H1B story. I was contracting as a middleware software engineer a while back.

They posted job descriptions for two senior-level programmers, both positions requiring Masters degrees.

These two 'job opening' announcements were placed in the break room so everyone saw them.

The pay? $65,000 a year.

The steps to hire an HIB require: - the employer make a documented effort to hire a U.S. national first - by posting a 'Job opening' - by interviewing

A lot of times, tech firms are hiring H1Bs from India etc.

Right? Just take a look at the over-representation of foreign nationals, compared to U.S. college grads/citizens, at the tech firms you've worked at.

When I saw "$65,000 annual salary" well my goodness. Do you think they'll find someone, a U.S. national, to take that position? No.

It's an unhappy truth, but if you know you're qualified, not too old, and felt a lot of rapport with the interviewers, and did well on the tech part of the interview, and don't get an offer, the firm my not WANT to even be doing that interview but they must before hiring an H1B.