Hacker News Reader

You're pointing out the advantages of development as a field and assigning them to Silicon Valley as if the two were identical. Not only that, you're pointing out Detroit et al as though industry were totally location-dependent, without any consideration to one of tech's greatest strengths (for many of us), that you can work in the field from just about anywhere.

Accusing Silicon Valley detractors of jealousy and envy contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion, particularly when they are talking about the culture of a place and you are conflating it with an industry.

No, actually what I pointed out is that Silicon Valley has benefited tremendously from riding said field. I did not say Silicon Valley == tech sector; it's the greatest embodiment of it. The only reason Silicon Valley has the culture it does today, is courtesy of the technology sector and the wealth that has come with it. I'm not confusing the concepts, they require each other. The reason FWD.us is able to make waves is because of the wealth and influence the technology sector has made possible.

You can attempt to work in a field from just about anywhere, but that's not how most companies are started, that's not how talent pools, that's not how rich geographic ecosystems of labor + capital are formed, and that's not how Big Things happen. You'll also find, education from anywhere is not as beneficial as the total punch of collaboration + social + network value of actually going to MIT or Stanford or Wharton or Harvard et al.

There are very good reasons why so many of the great tech companies have come from Silicon Valley. There are very good reasons why - in the age of being able to 'work from anywhere' - Silicon Valley continues to be Silicon Valley.

14 out of the youngest 25 members of the Forbes 400 are products of Silicon Valley.

I launched, ran, and sold a software startup from Akron, OH (an old rubber manufacturing town in the Rust Belt). I'm now the CTO of another startup in Durham, NC (an old tobacco town).

Is it easier for a software startup to succeed in Silicon Valley? Probably. Is it necessary? Absolutely not. The most compelling thing about the software industry is that you can start and run a company from literally anywhere in the world.

My issue with your mindset is that you're only considering "big" companies. For every Facebook there are hundreds or thousands of startups, many of them profitable or otherwise successful, and many of them not located in Silicon Valley.

No one hear I think is doubting the fact that companies cannot be built outside silicon valley. They can be and do get built outside SV. But, the point is, large percentage of successful tech companies have originated from silicon valley.

"The only reason Silicon Valley has the culture it does today, is courtesy of the technology sector and the wealth that has come with it."

I'd give a fair amount of credit to the universities, the gold rush and the acid craze, too. Tech culture didn't just pop into existence at unixtime 0.

Don't forget, Hewlett Packard - Founded in 1939 in Palo Alto...

I give a big hat tip to universities (as I noted the benefit of going to schools like ... Stanford).

Plus, the universities + tech sector have worked extremely well in tandem. They fund each other, one with labor talent, the other with money being donated back.

> ...without any consideration to one of tech's greatest strengths (for many of us), that you can work in the field from just about anywhere.

That's not true. You can develop software anywhere but you cannot fully sell, recruit, and support being outside the central economic places. There are exceptions (if buying is just a click without a sales force) but there is a hard limit of scale.

This is an argument on par with "they hate us for our freedom".

This kind of intellectually lazy and arrogant attitude will only serve to alienate SV further from the rest of society, which, not coincidentally, is one of the core arguments of most recent criticism directed at SV.

I didn't have the same takeaway. I believe his point is that SV is known for tech, and tech itself has been bountiful because it is free of so many market restrictions. Therefore SV has been able to thrive.

You cannot, for instance, buy a $10K CNC machine and start building production cars because you will find yourself mired in red tape for until you are completely broke and never ship a single unit. Because of that, Detroit, the place known for cars, never got to see any real innovation beyond what the established players could generate and eventually started to die out as a result. That is not a failing of Detroit, just a failing of the industry Detroit is known for.

Intellectually lazy and arrogant attitude? You just replied to paragraphs of text with two lines, both of which are empty of substance. You didn't actually debate a single point. Intellectually lazy and arrogant indeed.

Why do you talk about cheap software or abandonware, like Windows XP, WSFTP etc, when there are so many truly free (in every meaning of the word) alternatives readily available?

I would argue that for company that is going to be based of of something web-related (since you mentioned AWS), a Linux based work environment would be as productive, if not more productive than Windows 95 (or XP).

I agree with the gist of your comment though, that you can get up and running extremely cheaply. But thanks to the huge efforts and progress in free software, you can even do so without compromising in most areas.

Because it was a joke meant to amplify the point that it takes practically nothing to dive in.

Somebody with just basic computing skills (who is not going to understand Linux), able to run Windows XP, can get started right now, learning and building. They can pursue that knowledge to whatever extent they're willing to work for it.

You can literally, as a 19 year old that just knows how to surf and use Windows XP or basic computing, source a junky 2004 era machine for free, fire up notepad, teach yourself to write simple web applications (in whatever language, eg php), leveraging the web for knowledge (or even libraries for books), leverage dirt cheap hosting, and off you go. And yes, there are a lot of ways to go about this, obviously.

Ubuntu (just using it for an example) is a modern operating system and every bit as easy to use for someone who has 'basic computing skills'.

I think the point of his description was for it not to be a modern OS.

I needn't point out that "perpetual erosion" in Detroit is a recent phenomenon, and that Baltimore is a lot smaller than San Francisco.

Not too long ago (say, the year 2000), the free market of the tech industry lost bountiful wealth.

Bill Gates, freshly wealthiest man in the world, laments the limited influence of his $5 billion has in US education, a $800+ billion national expense.

I'm not sure anyone in the Economist is jealous of anything. At least they get to write for an intelligent audience. I'm pretty sure at the highest echelons of SV engineering, all that you can really claim is writing PHP code to help people share dick pics and earning a lot of money.

Why are people so quick to call jealousy when people point out the problems with Silicon Valley tech culture?

It's a certain type of self-centered and arrogant mindset that is especially common in political discourse. We heard it after 9/11 too: "These terrorists hate us for our freedom! They are just jealous!"

I don't know why people resort to calling it jealousy, but there does seem to be some tension between SV culture and the media/general public/economy at large.

People who work in SV are just like people anywhere else, yet how many times a week is there an article published railing on the culture for not focusing on more important problems like cancer, poverty or something similar? Its almost like SV is the child and everyone else is the "Tiger Mom" triggering the rebellion and resentment.

> an article published railing on the culture for not focusing on more important problems like cancer, poverty or something similar?

So what? People say this all the time. I can't remember how many times I hear this about other fields (oh no, smart kids are going to Wall Street instead of curing cancer).

Just sack up, accept the fact that the real money is in areas of the economy that aren't necessarily (at least on their face) the most socially useful (e.g. banking in the case of Wall Street, advertising in the case of Silicon Valley) and that this fact will always rub people the wrong way. People in Silicon Valley are making a lot of money doing whatever it is that they're doing. Do they really need adoring approval from everyone else?

When your piece includes such stereotypical "unpopular high-schooler" catchprases as "Whatever. Their parties sound lame anyway," I think readers can be forgiven for inferring jealousy or insecurity.

I have about as much to do with Silicon Valley tech culture as I do with Tibetan monk culture (I have spoken to people in both, but am not involved in either), but even I couldn't help thinking that this sounds like a lot of sour grapes and unfulfilled schadenfreude.

I agree with you, although I probably would not have a while ago. Now I can say firsthand that it does make a big difference what you are able to accomplish based on where you are.

First of all the fact remains that there is an age discrimination hurdle present in most parts of the country (almost opposite in Silicon Valley where apparently they discriminate against the old).

Second starting out in an area surrounded by individuals who are more likely to embrace your ideas and progress and in general be more open minded leads to faster progress, regardless of if you succeed or fail. If the idea works great if not then you find out faster and move on but at least you don't have to spend time dealing with unrelated hurdles.

Its not that Silicon Valley or MIT are some great magical places, its that the people that are already there are creating the culture that make it easier to succeed. Second regarding industry, again I agree, compare the tech industry to drug development or biotech (my area) which is so incredibly regulated and tough to get an idea approved much less tested that even big money (pharma,vc,etc) is walking away despite the obvious benefit to humanity oh and not to mention boatloads of money that could be made.

Can't you hop on the Baltimore craigslist and find your $150 XP machine and your 17" monitor? Do these things cost much less in Silicon Valley? I don't see how anything in your last paragraph ties specifically into the Valley. Tapping into a digital economy != Silicon Valley. Would Tumblr have looked different in SV?

Baltimore doesn't have the economic / educational / social structures in place that Silicon Valley has consciously incubated. There is no Stanford of Baltimore; there is no Y Combinator of Baltimore; there is no massive talent pool in Baltimore for tech.

Not to mention Baltimore is extraordinarily dangerous, with their crime rate and murder rate being through the roof.

Who said Silicon Valley was the only place you can create a tech company? New York has nearly all the structures you could ever possibly ask for to do so. Baltimore does not however, nor does Detroit.