Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like? Myspace...no. There are a number of things, factors that contributed and spawned around the same time period. The internet made it possible, but there is no one inventor of social media.
I think it was actually "Friendster". Think whatever you want, the fact is Social Media wasn't invented in the SF Bay Area and that was my only point.
I think it was actually "Friendster". Think whatever you want, the fact is Social Media wasn't invented in the SF Bay Area and that was my only point.
You're technically right, but my point is that it wasnt invented in any one place and if you were to pin the title for the city or area most prominent in its development it would be the SF Bay area, plus the fact theyre all located in the bay area now.
You're technically right, but my point is that it wasnt invented in any one place and if you were to pin the title for the city or area most prominent in its development it would be the SF Bay area, plus the fact theyre all located in the bay area now.
Actually it was, these sites before FB obviously were based somewhere. Great, for like the 3rd or 4th time I wasn't even talking about that so I don't get why you keep bringing it up.
I think this thread has a west coast bias. While I LOVE SF, I do not think it can compete with the urbanity, skyscrapers, and just urban vibe of Chicago and even its suburbs. However, this thread follows a similar theme to where southern and western cities are beating out older Midwest cities in terms of popularity. SF is kind of the exception though. It was also a historic big city as much as Chicago was.
I think this thread has a west coast bias. While I LOVE SF, I do not think it can compete with the urbanity, skyscrapers, and just urban vibe of Chicago and even its suburbs. However, this thread follows a similar theme to where southern and western cities are beating out older Midwest cities in terms of popularity. SF is kind of the exception though. It was also a historic big city as much as Chicago was.
I know. It is more about international things, which in that case probably you give SF the nod due to more foreign born, languages, etc. I think it was importantly noted that SF has more asians, but Chicago has more Europeans, particularly eastern europeans like poles.
I know. It is more about international things, which in that case probably you give SF the nod due to more foreign born, languages, etc. I think it was importantly noted that SF has more asians, but Chicago has more Europeans, particularly eastern europeans like poles.
Well then how is there any "west coast bias" if you just gave the nod to SF for "international things"?
Well then how is there any "west coast bias" if you just gave the nod to SF for "international things"?
That is just my general observation of threads on CD. The west and sunbelt is triumphed over the Midwest, and sometimes, the east coast. But yes, I think SF is probably a bit more international than Chicago, yet Chicago is a bigger and more urban metro. Chicago is a very important international city too, and that is evidenced by the airports alone.
That is just my general observation of threads on CD. The west and sunbelt is triumphed over the Midwest, and sometimes, the east coast. But yes, I think SF is probably a bit more international than Chicago, yet Chicago is a bigger and more urban metro. Chicago is a very important international city too, and that is evidenced by the airports alone.
Thanks for answering the thread. The rest is surplusage better suited for another thread.
Govt and defense contracts came well AFTER Stanford, and BECAUSE of the scientific and engineering community spawned by the university, which was built by a San Francisco railroad baron, and the capital that built Silicon Valley didnt just appear from thin air. LOL. No, it was SF that made it rain on the valley.
The Peninsula was where SF elite 'summered' in massive country estates and the Santa Clara Valley was rich farmland and lovely orchards.
Really, this is not news.
Stanford did not have its tech emphasis nor anything like what the tech community is until after World War II when DoD started pouring funding into research institutions in the area though it had been funding projects in the area since the turn of the century from the navy. This is pretty commonly known. SF old money did have a part to do with it, but it was only part of the picture. I don't understand how you propose to single-handedly rewrite the history of Silicon Valley and think people will just believe it.
The problem is saying one extreme or another. NOLA's extreme where SF and SF's elites had nothing to do with Silicon Valley is inaccurate. Your belief that SF practically birthed Silicon Valley gives SF an outsized role. Essentially, it's something in between.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
