gogobio

The average income of Orange county California is over double the national. Safe to say this kind of lifestyle is reserved for the rich and not for the people.

I'm also in the US, in a city in a populous state and I've never seen that, as a matter of fact it counts as child abuse in my state as well. Why don't you mention where you live and what state you see this within? Is it because what you're seeing is anecdotal in some particularly rich area? I can assure you leaving children under 16 unsupervised is illegal in most states.

Sympathy? It's a Microsoft company that is being ran with a consistency of a startup in early seed rounds. Their downtime is abhorrent and unacceptable as far as enterprise goes. Their engineers look like absolute amateurs allowing for such low class work it results in their customers experiencing industry leading downtime.

Yes, this wastes cycle. They dump your cache and deallocate the VMs so that others can use it. This will result in tokens wasted and downtime for others.

You conveniently exclude the third option which is to keep working your ass off, build a family with high total income and grow upwards. Your argument only accounts for personal and professional stagnation. Also - you could try dropping this insane San Fran pride linked to your identity and move to another area that is cheaper. The world is full of workarounds if you're not unreasonably vain, vapid, or lazy.

So go buy land and build a house, just CHOOSE to spend your money and buy land. What's so hard about that? Ah yes we conveniently forget in our youthfulness that we are not original and if thousands of software leeches choose to relocate en masse they will sky rocket the costs on just about everything - simple supply and demand.

You're right about one thing - housing being expensive is a choice, it's a choice of those who have moved to SF and despite it making no sense for their financial situation just "trying to make things happen" there to stay there. These are the people who drive property costs up. It's not about "just building more", that's literally never the answer. Building more is solving just for one factor and when you build more - guess what's gonna happen? More density, even higher costs of living because guess what - more people moving means more demand on local services, shops, transit, so higher costs. On top of it - folks who buy these newly built properties aren't going to be making minimum wage at a local coffee and avocado toast shop - they're business owners, entrepreneurs, founders, etc. Your cost of living will keep rising with every new property built and every new transplant.

The real answer is taxes, taxing the shit out of these rich transplants and the corporations. You're in California I can't believe you lot aren't more progressive about jacking up the taxes on the rich to pave the way for a healthy society for the rest. But given that every single tech nerd that moves to SF sees themselves as a temporarily embarrassed millionaire or a not-yet-founder - good luck with that, I genuinely do not see even the younger crowd being pro taxing the rich in a city full of tech leeches.

"Behaviourally, coffee drinkers exhibited greater impulsivity and emotional reactivity, whereas non-coffee drinkers demonstrated better memory performance."

So as all drugs coffee comes with behavioral trade-offs. Who would have thought!

I've been in CS professionally for 12 years. This a perfect example of normal distribution at work. By increasing the population, you simply increase the number of people across the entire curve, bumping up the number of high, medium, low paid, as well as unemployed folks with the degrees. The real issue has always been greed - people disproportionately dove into CS because like all hype movements it promised significant income after just 2-4 years, and sometimes not even that, but a month long bootcamp. Once it was sold to the masses as a get rich quick scheme - the disappointment paired with a number of low-achieving grads tripling was unavoidable.

To be honest, I found the exact opposite to be true. I agree with the author regarding the happiness during grad school being directly related to being married.

As a matter of fact, I don't think I would have finished my PhD had my wife not supported me mentally, economically, and in spirit. I've observed our single students struggle, complaining about having to do chores after classes, clean, cook, look after themselves. Whereas my spouse was supportive and understanding, she took a colossal load off my shoulders - I could concentrate on my studies and had little to no worries outside of school. We both worked, but she worked full time to support us and got a master's degree, so she knew all too well that grad school isn't peanuts.

I think it's more so about having a good spouse who is understanding and supportive, who can meet you halfway.

I heavily disagree. To preface - I have a recent and a successful PhD in Comp Sci. During grad school I've known active grads who jump onto the "next big thing". Well, long story short - almost every "next big thing" eventually dies down, every single one of them ended up being a generic Software Engineer after heavily specializing in the "next big thing" because, unfortunately, the cycle of the next big thing just keeps on rolling and within 3-5 years the current "big thing" may become entirely irrelevant, which ended up being the case for them. I understand this might not be very helpful, but I suggest doing the footwork to figure out the intersection of something you truly have an interest in as well as a tech with a potential and specialize in that.