I blame the group of scientists who go around declaring successful nerds as "being autistic" and who are taking action to stop the trend by treating every smart child as autistic as the root cause of it becoming a pejorative term.
This headline is so dangerously bad that it makes me want to tag slashdot as a troll.
Seriously, this is so bad lawyers can get involved. Some editor needs to go fix it.
CoL is quantitative. "I don't want to live in X" is qualitative, highly subject to individual ignorance. NYC is what I have experience with, having lived there off and on for 20 years. Most people I talk to there have absolutely no clue about anything south of Maryland or north of Connecticut. Jokes have been published to this effect. I'm honestly not sure they ARE aware how much they're paying, and have considered what they're getting in return.
If you're married and have a family, CoL is probably the single most important metric. It determines how much free cash you'll have for luxuries, how you'll be able to put your kids through college and generally your overall quality of life. Every few years we fly back to NYC to visit the inlaws, we see a play, the kids get to see the sights. We're as happy to leave as we were to arrive after about 2 weeks. It's a nice place to visit, but I don't want to live there anymore. And this is why we don't measure non quantitative things. I have friends who could not stand to live in a suburb, who don't have or want families and who will not be happy staying at home and entertaining themselves within.
My hunch is that the places you'd want to live in Austin will not be covered by its public transit. Few of the tech companies that are here are near bus stops.
Of all the things that actually bother me about Austin, I have not had any real problems with the government. They're useless and ignorable, provided you don't intend to CHANGE anything, it's all good.
, you can get a decent place for 1 person for $3000/month
You can own a 4ksqft+ house for $2000/month in any close burb of Austin. If you want more land, Georgetown is in commute range and has some more ranch-style houses. All for cheaper than that rent.
Austin does have a lot of college girls, and the weather ensures minimal clothing. I would list this as a huge benefit of living here, if you're not married and you're a straight man.
Having moved to Austin from NYC, I'm struggling to figure out exactly what part of NYC is a luxury. Even when I was there I did my best to either live in NJ, or some burb with train access. NYC has a lot of great food of all types and mass transit, but I'm not sure I'm missing any of the rest of it.
Austin isn't any better. Yes, google fiber, but we still don't know where it will be, and likely if you want to take advantage of cost of living you will LIVE in Round Rock, Cedar Park or Pflugerville and Google is not coming to those places. Much to my chagrin.
Seattle is pretty expensive, and while Portland is much cheaper, it is still more expensive than Austin. I would love to be in either of these places, the Austin heat is not for me, but I've never been able to get parity on CoL from job offers there and honestly that's all that matters to me right now.
Washington has no income tax, which like Texas is a big help, but you still can't beat Texas. Oregon has no sales tax, which is less valuable and likely offset by depending more heavily on income tax. I can see why these places may not have made the list.
However if you lose your job in Texas, you are basically shit out of luck. So it's NOT a great place to come to try out a start-up where cobra may not exist, and where the ACA is laughed at. It's only good for big, established companies.
The editorializing is kind of silly, that's what comments are for.
No mere employees can afford SXSW.
Unlike Fox news, most of this is actually true. Also, you must be new here, slashdot has been digging on MS since the day it was created. It's why many of us keep coming back.
If you're going to use MPI to make pie, you've got too many cooks in the kitchen.
That is not necessarily the case with regard to learning to code. In fact the post you are replying to is making the claim that it is definitely not the case.
Nonsense. Humans are also born with an innate ability to reason and problem solve. Any 2 year old knows that before she can put the cube in the shape sorter, she has to turn it first. By 5 years old children are expected to be able to create and follow complex tasks involving many steps.
That's exactly what computer programming is. It starts without any computer language, it starts with a flowchart. I cannot help but think this is actually a really useful thing for everyone to learn, given how many white collar jobs out there (that don't involve computer programming) involve implementing and modifying flowcharts.