In order for someone's existence to be acceptable, they should provide value? Monetary value? Or does human life intrinsically have value, making this a tautology...?
Your virtual assistant is not going to remind you of things that you did not devote to telling a virtual assistant in the first place. Your spouse is more likely to help fill in the unintentional places you might have missed in your intentional day to day actions.
The people "in power" have a vested interest in making the most-walked parts crime-free. That is not the case in SF where the wealthy don't have a Manhattan to interact with on a daily basis.
> That said, there is still an appetite for talent at well-funded, early-stage companies in emerging areas, including electric-vehicle batteries, as the auto industry shifts away from gas-powered cars, and artificial intelligence, a technology with the potential to change industries that has prompted a global race to build AI products.
My Wellfound (previously AngelList) inbox begs to differ!
It is a question of investment. You move to SF to make some cash and leave, never really investing in your neighborhood or in policies that work on a longer scale. And that each area/city functions as its own fiefdom where you can privatize gains and externalize losses (e.g. tech companies and property owners making fortunes but not putting the gains into building nearby housing or comprehensive, safe public transportation) without a need or an incentive to invest in ways that fabously wealthy cities tend to. There are cities where you feel the citizens are truly invested in. SF is not that.
Some people need to use the bathroom frequently or have dietary needs requiring specific food prep frequencies or styles. Even then, I wouldn't want to share a kitchen with someone who cooks things I can't stand the smell of.