alexecldn

I move from London to the Bay Area 5 years ago, specially to get immersed in the “Silicon Valley” culture.

The differences seemed small initially, but they add up. I find people are bolder - less risk adverse. The energy is about 4x London, the scale 10x (the USA market is 10x more valuable vs the UK: 5x the population worth 2x the dollars). Genuine success is important, you cannot arse about pretending to work (like MANY Brits do).

It was a move to a much worse work-life balance for me.

The downsides are significant, lack of quality art and culture. You earn 2x or 3x but everything from cheese to housing is 2x to 3x more expensive. The Bay Area is geographically isolated, no more weekend tries to Paris or Berlin. You’ve got Hawaii and LA (a 8h drive to a city uglier, more polluted and dirty than Delhi). Skiing is Tahoe at $160/day, whereas London gives you access to dozen of much better resorts at a fraction of the price. Tahoe was especially disappointing.

I drove through SF last week and there was only one billboard that wasn’t about a GenAI company selling a CRM system.

I’ve used CVS, SVN, Arch, and Git. The main benefit of Git seems to be performance and atomicity. Arch was garbage. CVS works on files rather than directories. Git is a bit or a lot faster than SVN. That said, Git is much slower when there are large files in your repo.

Git is much harder to use than SVN. Particularly you see engineers struggling with resolving conflicts.

One benefit of Git was decentralization, but now Git is Github, it is centralized again.

Builds, IDE, programming languages should be 1st-class citizens. I don’t want to wrestle with .gitattributes or .gitignore.

What would I make better?

- Fast with large files. - Simpler. - Improved commit meta-data.