[ghaff]

You can define terms however you like but I do live in a town with a population of about 7,000 people and together with my two neighbors we're on about 100 acres adjacent to town forest. Sure, it's not some remote small town where you have to drive 3 hours to get to the nearest Walmart but it's not exactly urban--at least the way most people use the term--either.

There's a pretty broad continuum between living/working in a city where you can walk to everything and living somewhere that's hours from "civilization."

[seanmcdirmid]

Yes, but you’ve just described about half of the Bay Area, or West Chester county, or even Queens (let alone Long Island).

[ghaff]

It describes a lot of places. If someone argues that tech people tend to prefer the greater metro areas (combined statistical areas) of large cities rather than truly rural areas (as defined by the census), I don't think there's much argument. Of course, by the numbers, so does a significant majority of the US population.

But that's a lot different from people arguing that tech people like big cities specifically, as that tends to suggest that they can walk to coffee shops, take public transit to work, etc. which does not describe the bulk of the space in greater metro areas.

[seanmcdirmid]

The original comment I replied to:

> It depends on what you like to do. Countryside living is appealing to many people.

My reply:

> Technologists are probably not typically the ones that find it appealing.

Your reply to that:

> What do you think is so special about technologists that they uniquely prefer urban (or suburban) living? reply

Putting your last reply in the context of the entire reply chain, I'm confused about what you think we are arguing about?

[ghaff]

I think we were just using terms differently. "Countryside" to me includes everything from really rural to lots of trees and space while still being within the general sphere of a major metro. Quite a few people in tech like the latter. Not so many the former.