alot of people are saying it's just a dead cat bounce. REalVision presented that in most of the past drops of this magnitude, you typically see this type of rebound before it goes lower back to retest the recent lows.

not only that but in highly competitive markets like the bay area, they may even hold out for buyers that use one of their own agents (and try not to sell to others). That way, they can make 3% commission on both the buying and selling side. It's a huge conflict of interest to their own client which technically isn't legal ~ they're supposed to consider all offers.

As a consumer of Zillow and Redfin, I like their website. But, as a house buyer, I really dislike the fact that they always try to push their buyers Agents on you.

To get people to move somewhere, you mainly just need jobs. Everybody wants jobs. There's no choice, people have to go where jobs are because employers have much more bargaining power.

So, create some large enough tax incentives for companies to move there, and people will follow.

Jobs alone aren’t enough - look at oil and gas fields in North Dakota and West Texas. You need stable employment, schools, police and fire - you know, Sim City stuff. Also, you need economic opportunity beyond just “jobs” - you need bold entrepreneurial types that tend to get stifled in a pure company town. Kind of like how a company can lose its edge if investors own too much of the company and founders too little. It’s hard to create from scratch.

The closest example to what you’re saying are the artificial capital cities like Brasilia and Canberra, but then you’re talking about the backing and resources of an entire country’s federal budget.

> So, create some large enough tax incentives for companies to move there, and people will follow.

Except companies don't just go to places because of tax incentives. Indeed, many companies (and people) stick around CA despite the super high tax burden because it has so many other things going for it. Conversely, places with very generous tax incentives can sometimes still have trouble attracting companies because the reason their tax incentives are so high is because they are lacking in other respects.

well, it depends on whether your in a high margin or low margin business or and whether or not your a monopoly business. Amazon, entertained many offers from many cities to find the best tax incentives.

I would imagine businesses that compete with low margins would be looking for such incentives.

If you're looking for the best ROI where there are the highest SE salaries per living cost, check out: https://skilldime.com/blog/see-which-cities-pay-the-highest-...

There's many places that have great ROIs but Palo Alto isn't one of them: they're dead last.

There are many examples where that's not true: places like the beautiful college town of madison, Houston, Chicago, etc.

High living costs are a self imposed problem: housing regulation and zoning.

I agree, generally, but that's ignoring geographic boundaries which are huge for cities like Seattle and San Francisco. It's not the main issue (regulation and zoning are) but it's still a big piece of it.

Yeah I guess you could get around it by building a ton of infrastructure like in Japan.

It's important to remember a simple fact about artificial sugars: they're about 10 times less dense than sugar (at least the one i use, which is a combo of maltodextrin and sucralose). This means that 10g of sugar is sugar sweet equivalent of about 1g of artificial sweetener. Which means if you're switching your sweetener from sugar to artificial you're getting 10 times less sweetener! Which means, even if sugar and artificial sweeteners were equally bad for you gram for gram, you're still getting 10 times less of thus 10 times less bad for you.

To me it comes down to this: sugar is bad for you in a multitude of very measurable ways, both short-term and long-term. Artificial sweeteners, at the very least, seem to be more subtle in any adverse effects. (And some which I wish got used more, like Xylitol, even have some benefits, in addition to tasting better than Sucrolose or stevia, etc.) Personally, I would rather have my son drink an occasional diet soda than one containing 40g of sugar -- his mom thinks the opposite.

> gram for gram

I have no earthly idea if these are comparable gram for gram.

Exactly - there are plenty of things I will happily eat 500 grams of, and there are a great many things in this world I should never eat even a single milligram of.

This comparison is not even close to a given.

Comparing the maltodextrin content of granulated splenda to sugar is completely irrelevant to the question of whether nonnutritive sweeteners are themselves harmful.

It's to keep fear of lay offs high thus making people work harder. this is especially effective with H1Bs.

However, some well qualified engineers won't be bullied by such routines: they'll simply go work somewhere they're appreciated.

i think it's just standard hire/lay off routine. It's not about the employees that get laid off.

The purpose of the lay offs is to keep everyone else working even harder. People will work even harder to keep their jobs.

I don't get why it's been downvoted so much. I'd expect a much warmer reception from the HN crowd.

Well, do you think it adds to the discussion?

I do think it's almost, but not completely off-topic.

It introduces the feed feature as an integral part of a social network's success/failure, stemming from real domain experience. If GP included maybe one more sentence on how/why the feeds mentioned failed I think it would've been much better received. Sorry GP you didn't deserve it.