[Jackpillar]

Exactly. No one is arguing the historical & material reasons as to why Bay Area is the birthing place of many technological revolutions. The Bay Area is special because of said history/staying power - which has systemic downstream advantages that cannot be replicated. 60% of total VC funding is in the Bay Area alone. Being surrounded by Stanford, Berkeley, etc gives the region a constant flow of world class engineers. Theres just no other region like it and won't be for a very long time.

[wubrr]

> No one is arguing the historical & material reasons as to why Bay Area is the birthing place of many technological revolutions.

You're kinda missing the bigger picture - the fact that Bay Area was not always a tech hub, and became one at some point for various reason - which can happen in any other place (and has).

> which has systemic downstream advantages that cannot be replicated.

Seems like a very baseless and meaningless statement.

> Being surrounded by Stanford, Berkeley, etc gives the region a constant flow of world class engineers.

Except for the fact that the vast majority pf Bay Area tech talent does not come from Stanford or Berkeley, and is being outsourced at ever increasing rates.

> Theres just no other region like it and won't be for a very long time.

If you say so.

[Jackpillar]

Yeah except for it has always been a tech hub because the term "tech hub" didn't exist before the Bay Area? I mean the first message sent over the precursor to the internet was from UCLA to the Stanford Research Institute in 1969, and the SF Bay Area having some of the first infrastructure for high-speed internet was a key factor into its position as the tech hub. Mind you this is all preceded by Hewlett Packard 30 years earlier setting the stage for the semiconductor revolution, and even this is preceded by 100 years with Leland Stanford. To much to talk about here as to why there is a unique mix of private capital, industry/government collusion, university research and development, and more that are entrenched in the region.

The makeup of tech companies employees doesn't remotely tell the full story of the advantages of the UC system, Stanford, and other universities in CA through research that feed into SV as the leading tech hub that cannot be replicated (See example of the invention of the internet above). I mean hell, 4 UC alum won nobel prizes this year alone, one of which was the chief scientist at Google's quantum AI.

But yeah sure, if we're talking in the context of "anything is possible" then yeah I concede, it can happen anywhere. Kind of a boring insight. The point is that no - it hasn't happened anywhere else to the extent of the bay area despite cities trying to for the past 30 years- and it won't happen for a very long time because of the converging mechanisms that took place over the past 100 years.

[wubrr]

Places where technological innovation and development happen have existed long before the internet and semiconductors. The industrial revolution didn't originate or center around the Bay Area.

> The makeup of tech companies employees doesn't remotely tell the full story...

What? You made the argument that Bay Area has some kind of special access to tech talent because of Stanford - I simply pointed out that the vast majority of Bay Area tech employees are not from Stanford (not to mention many Stanford alums leave California).

> UC system, Stanford, and other universities in CA through research that feed into SV as the leading tech hub that cannot be replicated

Really? MIT, Harvard, Yale, Georgia Tech, Waterloo don't exist?

> I mean hell, 4 UC alum won nobel prizes this year alone, one of which was the chief scientist at Google's quantum AI.

And several google/deepmind employees from/educated in UK won a nobel prize in 2024... what's your point?

> Kind of a boring insight.

Nah, the same old 'bay area cause bay area' insight is what's boring.

It was more true (but still very boring) 10 years ago, not anymore.

[Jackpillar]

> Places where technological innovation and development happen have existed long before the internet and semiconductors. The industrial revolution didn't originate or center around the Bay Area.

You said tech hub. By all definitions of the term the Bay Area was the first. Nor did I say the industrial revolution originated around the Bay Area?

> What? You made the argument that Bay Area has some kind of special access to tech talent because of Stanford - I simply pointed out that the vast majority of Bay Area tech employees are not from Stanford (not to mention many Stanford alums leave California).

You tend to do this a lot. "Many Stanford alums leave California" and "talent is being outsourced at ever increasing rates". Just vague generalizations that offer nothing to the overall conversation.

I made the argument that being close to these universities gives the region a constant flow of world class engineers and researchers. This is true whether or not they work for Bay Area tech companies you understand this right? Regardless, out of the reported feeder schools into tech 5 out of the top 10 are California universities.

> MIT, Harvard, Yale, Georgia Tech, Waterloo don't exist?

You just named universities from 5 different states/regions? Please keep up.

> And several google/deepmind employees from/educated in UK won a nobel prize in 2024... what's your point?

They weren't from the same school? The UC system altogether has over 150 nobel prizes and thats before including private institutions like Stanford, Caltech, USC, and others. Thus exemplifying the unique system dedicated to research and technology consolidated in one region..

> It was more true (but still very boring) 10 years ago, not anymore.

Going to be honest man from interacting with you it seems like you have a chip on your shoulder about the bay. I don't even live there I live in LA. It shouldn't bug you to point out the objective fact that the unique confluence of geographic location, surrounding education system and research institutions, compounded wealth from prior historical industrial/technological windfalls, makes SV the premiere tech hub that is consistently on the forefront of burgeoning technologies - not by accident.

Are you also confused as to why NYC is the finance capital of the world? Do you think Toronto could usurp it one day if they just try hard enough?

[wubrr]

> You said tech hub.

No, you said tech hub. Which is short of 'technology hub', which is not just limited to mobile apps.

> You tend to do this a lot. "Many Stanford alums leave California" and "talent is being outsourced at ever increasing rates". Just vague generalizations that offer nothing to the overall conversation.

Those aren't generalizations, those are very specific statements, which go directly against your vague generalizations ('oh but there are good universities in the area for tech talent therefore its impossible to replicate'), and which you apparently can't disagree with because they are obviously true.

> I made the argument that being close to these universities gives the region a constant flow of world class engineers and researchers.

Nope, what you said is that because these universities are located in that area - no other region could possibly compete. And I gave you very specific examples of why that's not true.

> You just named universities from 5 different states/regions? Please keep up.

Yeah.. some of the leading universities for tech talent in the world... which are not in California... (which according to you is impossible)... please keep up.

> makes SV the premiere tech hub that is consistently on the forefront of burgeoning technologies

I never said SV is not a major tech hub. I actually said the opposite. What I disagreed with is your baseless assertion that no other region could possibly compete, or that tech companies have to be in SV to succeeded (which is obviously false, and which I see you shifting the goalposts on now)

> Are you also confused as to why NYC is the finance capital of the world?

Maybe you should rewind to back when NYC wasn't a major finance hub, then apply your same reasoning - 'NYC couldn't possibly become a finance hub, because London is the finance hub'.

Your arguments are self-contradictory and not logical.

[Jackpillar]

> "You're kinda missing the bigger picture - the fact that Bay Area was not always a tech hub, and became one at some point for various reason - which can happen in any other place (and has)."

Lol are we children now? No, YOU literally said tech hub.

> Those aren't generalizations, those are very specific statements, which go directly against your vague generalizations ('oh but there are good universities in the area for tech talent therefore its impossible to replicate'), and which you apparently can't disagree with because they are obviously true.

No, they are generalizations. I have given you myriad examples as to why the UC system and its integration with research and development is unique and doesn't exist anywhere else in the US let alone can be replicated. "Many Stanford alums leave California" means nothing to the overall point (despite 70% staying in CA). Yes, some people from one university leave California leave? Yes? And? "Talent is being outsourced at ever increasing rates". Yes, and? Talent is being outsourced at ever increasing rates everywhere in the US. Outsourcing talent has going on for a long time. Again, means nothing to the overall point.

> Nope, what you said is that because these universities are located in that area - no other region could possibly compete. And I gave you very specific examples of why that's not true.

You did not? You named universities from 5 different states and/or regions. I am actually beginning to be concerned. You understand the difference between what I'm saying right? The 5 schools you named have been around forever.. They haven't replicated what the UC system and surrounding schools have create in the Bay Area. So your examples are stupid?

I didn't even say leading universities in tech can't exist outside of California? What are you even saying anymore?

> What I disagreed with is your baseless assertion that no other region could possibly compete, or that tech companies have to be in SV to succeeded (which is obviously false, and which I see you shifting the goalposts on now)

No other region right now is competing - or can compete. I conceded to your overall vibes-based opinion that "anything can happen" and that yes, in a miraculous set of circumstances held over 50+ years that some region could usurp the Bay Area with tech. I then continued with historical and contemporary examples as to why that won't happen anytime soon.

> Maybe you should rewind to back when NYC wasn't a major finance hub, then apply your same reasoning - 'NYC couldn't possibly become a finance hub, because London is the finance hub'.

Please reference my last response. Yes, New York became a major financial capital (and competitor to London) after 150 years of massive historical circumstances (WW1, Bretton Woods, etc). Perhaps this could happen to the Bay Area in tech, sure - but these aren't happening separately in a vacuum. Whilst the title of financial capital of the world traded hands between London, NYC, and even Tokyo in the 80's, one thing stayed constant, and that is the tech industry remained in SV.

There is no NYC in the 20's equivalent to the Bay Area's London in this equation.

> Your arguments are self-contradictory and not logical.

They are not. Here is my argument in a nutshell: Silicon Valley became - and remains - the global tech hub thanks to a unique mix of top-tier universities like Stanford and the surrounding UC system, early government investment in semiconductors, a deep venture capital ecosystem, and a culture of innovation and risk-taking. Other regions domestically and internationally, have struggled to catch up because they lack the decades of compounding infrastructure, talent networks, and startup experience that can’t be quickly replicated.

Your argument: Nuh uh