The only thing that might be better is: you're a hell of a lot closer to nature and it's a lot safer (I wouldn't be comfortable walking around LA past 1AM).
Ive lived in Tijuana (Mexico), near Juarez (Mexico), near Bern (Switzerland), 29 Palms (California), and Los Angeles and traveled all over western Europe and I have yet to find a place as homogenously boring and fake as the Bay Area. With the exception of Juarez I'd choose any of those places over the Bay.
I don't mean to be insulting (I'm really just upset at myself for moving to such an over priced boring place) but saying you're the only one in tech that likes living in San Francisco is like complaining that you are the only one who enjoys Mcdonalds; it's for good reason.
Having traveled to both LA and SF briefly (from Sydney) my impression was that LA was much more sprawled and car-centric than SF. I really like cycling and public transport so I think I would struggle with LA.
Does the method of getting around have a role in which cities you prefer?
Also, why do there seem to be lots of people impersonating others in the Bay Area? I don't think I've ever met someone like that in Sydney - at least never realised.
I really miss the quiet cheap town but for now I'm pretty happy. If you surveyed me I still might say I want to leave but don't really have plans/better options. Nothings perfect but the bay area is pretty good.
The contrarian dynamic is particularly visible in political threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15701584.
Yogi Berra
Not to say the Bay Area is perfect, but I don't have to be continually fighting issues of life and death as much here compared to some other places in the country. My main gripe is the cost of living, but basically nowhere else in the country marks as many checkboxes for me as the Bay Area (and even cost of living is muted by my drastically increased income compared to anywhere else).