And? My development over the years has gone from IRIX to Mac to Linux to Windows. The graphics software I use is Windows only, but I write web services for data integration - they run on Linux, but my local development environment runs under WSL so that I don't need to be connected to work in order to work on it - it's fully functional and recently, while on a remote operation, I just ran my web services from it so that I could continue working in Windows. I had zero problems and was very impressed. I had the Linux partition all up to date with my latest code just in case, but didn't need it. I've been a big MS detractor since before most slashdotters were born (I was in college during the DRDOS escapades), but when something works, it works.

Yes - near. Not "in," but "near." The reason people live in subburbs is because it's less expensive, but they still have access to sporting events and concerts and stuff that the city offers.

I'm not suggesting the move to Montana, I'm suggesting they pick a subburb that has half the cost of real estate and much less congestion.

IDK if you're being sarcastic or not, but while I still have Linux partitions I can boot with, I use WSL and find that it actually works great. Of course, it still requires installing a distribution (and there are now several to choose from).

Of course - there's a lot of ways to be "best." Best end-user experience, best server, easiest to maintain, etc., etc.... offering an opinion here is pointless.

That may be true, but it was already expensive before Google, before Facebook, before a lot of the tech companies who still want to open their offices there because that's where the action is - only being a little bit farther away still keeps you near the action and lowers costs dramatically. Several of these companies recently opened NEW campuses in those expensive areas - it makes little sense.

You are.... you're... duh. I get it.

If your a direct consumer related business, like a branch of a bank, or even a sport stadium, I get why you want your location to be "in the thick of it," but why do tech companies insist on building their work places in super expensive cities? How much money could these companies save by building in a nearby suburb where their employees could actually afford to live?

4% of the staff - or under 5%, in any event.

And the bigger question is simply if you think they'll actually say "we can't track and forecast this hurricane because of 4% budget cuts because the person forecasting rain in Seattle and the person forecasting wind in Chicago can't help."

I've been noticing the uptick (or avalanche) of misleading stats in articles. Cuts aside, why did the article need to mention $300M (sic, it's billions, of course) in weather related damage last year? Without context, it's absolutely pointless except to spur an emotional response from the reader. That leads me to the conclusion that we're having a "discussion" based on an article written by someone with an obvious agenda, and that leads me to the conclusion we're just having another pointless us vs. them argument.

Even if that's a record (it is, actually, but you don't get that from the article, so there's no perspective), it's pointless for the discussion, weather trends up and down; the previous record was from 2005 (Katrina), but where's the link that reducing or adding forecasters (and we don't even know that, it's just "staff reductions") will impact how much a disaster will cost? Certainly preparedness is important - but do really think they would skimp on a major event, as opposed to the daily "it's raining in Seattle" type stuff?

Wikipedia:

No, I shouldn't have had to look it up. This is a nerd site - we know RAM, ROM, IC, STEM, we don't all know all the U.S. Navy lingo.

No disagreement.

That's not really what they say, though - if everyone is driving themselves, then there's nobody to pay for a ride.

The obvious self interest doesn't escape me, but for the goals they are stating "to 'actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas.'," they aren't wrong, either.

I'm not saying I agree with these companies, but a lot of good ideas get shot down with knee jerk reactions simply because somebody stands to make a profit on them.

I've been using Linux since slackware c. 1994. I actually have come to appreciate some of the things MS has done w.r.t. Linux - running a development web server under WSL makes my life a lot easier when I have to use Windows for most things anyway. Their development tools are actually really nice, too; the .Net system of being able to write interchangeably between different languages is not perfect, but works really well for most of my Windows development.

Yet, the marketing speak is absurd.