Maybe on the job training is no substitute for not having invested years in learning the maths and skills required to do the job.

In an industry where the average employment length is 2-3 years, and the amount of time it takes to train someone to do a job well is 2-3 years, on the job training isn't going to pay off for anyone.

It matters because people take these treatments believing they'll solve their problems, and don't seek real medical help that's actually demonstrated to work.

That's great for you. Meanwhile I commute from the west of Sunnyvale (takes about 15 minutes), and am about 3 minutes from open countryside.

And you think these things (mod buildings older than the USA) don't exist in San Francisco?

London isn't cheaper than the Valley at all. Average house prices in central London are £5000 a square foot. Slightly further out they're around £1500 a square foot.

Compare that to the valley, where in the south bay they're around $1500 a square foot in central SF, and $1000 a square foot in the south bay. (note, different currencies, so the delta is bigger than it looks). London is both more expensive than the bay area, and they'll pay you less.

As far as urban sprawl goes... the Bay Area is far less sprawled than London. Even if you are in the centre of the largest spread of sprawl in the bay area (probably somewhere slightly west of the centre of San Jose), you're at most 20 minutes from open country side (by car). In London, in the centre, you're roughly 2 hours away, such is the size of the sprawl.

Even if you measure sprawl by the time it takes to commute, and assume a worst case in the bay area (living in Oakland, working at Apple is probably about the worst) - that's a 1 hour commute. That's a pretty short commute by London standards. More so, the commute in the bay area will have been done entirely on nice (not crowded) coaches, rather than over-crowded, not-air-conditioned trains and underground services.

Are there really people who love the urban sprawl that covers the entirety of Greater London?

Cambridge would have been a great choice. An even better choice though would have been Silicon Glen, which has existed for decades already. The games industry is hugely strong in Scotland, and one of the primary drivers of the economy. He should have tried to build on there being a lot of software engineers already there, and expanded it beyond just the games industry.

I agree completely that trying to set up "Silicon Roundabout" in London is complete bullshit. But hey, that's the hallmark of the tories - if it's not about the South East of England, then it doesn't count, and/or doesn't exist.

Speaking as someone who moved to Silicon Valley from London...

Oh god, no, no one wants to be in London.
1) People in the bay area think it's expensive - no, London is expensive. Rents there can be up to 4 times rents in SF. The average is double SF.
2) Pay is lower in London, despite the place being more expensive.
3) The weather is fucking terrible.
4) The people are rude, and unfriendly. Sure, it's not as bad as Paris, but it's much worse than the bay area.
5) It's impossible to get out of the city without travelling for multiple hours (while in the bay area it's typically 10-20 minutes to some open space).

Frankly, I'm very glad that the tech industry is all in the bay area, not in London.

This is what the data protection act is for. It's illegal for them to collect data for any purpose other than the ones stated, and it's illegal for them to collect it without your permission. They are also required to delete the data on your request (for a reasonable fee).

Is that "obvious"?

Is there an industry standard language out there that does the same thing as Swift (is safe, performant, and clear)?

You don't even need an expensive one. Any one that supplies a DisplayPort port will let you hook up 4 monitors straight away to that (daisy chaining ftw).

You seem to be massively underestimating the performance of modern (or even decade old) integrated graphics.

Modern IGPs will run GTA5 at 60fps. They will happily let you connect 3 4k monitors and run them at perfectly fine refresh rates. They will let you do basically anything you want, except for run very high end games at very high end detail settings.

It's not - but it's not practical in the context of any modern operating system's demands from a graphics card.

Being technically correct is never a substitute for understanding that you're completely wrong when applied to the pragmatic normal solution.

No, it doesn't "hang with" AMD's latest APUs, it's about 40% faster in terms of graphics performance and roughly 100-200% faster in terms of CPU performance, all while consuming roughly half the power.

If that's not worth twice the price, I don't know what is.

That would be because any modern operating system (including most linux distros) uses 3D acceleration on a graphics card to put windows on a screen.