This seems to be an ignored article at the current time, but I'll chime in.

The author admits to having only been to San Francisco three times; and then proceeds to write a tech piece on Silicon Valley. While SV is part of the SF Bay Area, the 2 are pretty different places as far as tech job culture goes.

Some of his main points given in the article:

> To me, an office filled with bean bags and ‘zany’ things is a lot like someone who wears over-sized brightly colored glasses and a loud bow-tie everywhere. In other words, its a desperate attempt to compensate for the fact that you know you don’t have any creativity, and convey a tragic, almost pleading message to the outside world that convinces us otherwise.

Is such a general, sweeping projection really a good argument against a group? First, you have to look at the crowd these companies want to attract. A lot of companies in SV that I've worked with have employees around 25-30 years old. While having cubicles and grey walls may feel more professional to some people, others prefer a more comfortable environment that reminds them of a lounge or living room. It's a sort of freedom of expression as well. Not everybody wants to be restricted to sitting down at a desk, to only get up for meetings and coffee. Freedom of movement, to walk around, to sit in a big comfortable chair, can help break up monotony and stress. I don't see how something being different from the norm has to equal being "different for the sake of difference" or flashy. It's a bit insulting to draw a parallel between people who the author thinks are not creative mentally, and tech workers from a company with beanbag chairs.

> Silicon valley focuses purely on people whose main problem is that they think their smartphone isn’t bendy enough, or that a 2048 resolution for their TV isn’t good enough. Social problems are largely ignored, especially if the start-ups actually contribute to them. Ifd there is a massive property price problem and inequality being caused by the tech workers, no problem! just bus your workers past the poor people so they don’t get in the way!

I highly doubt that every company focuses purely on First World Problems. The fact that we have companies such as Khan Academy, as well as a host of others in the education, environmental, human rights, animal humanity, health, and other fields says a lot about the diversity going on here. Maybe having been here only 3 times may have not been enough to show, but technology is not just the main focus here in SV and SF. A lot of times technology is used as the tool and method to accomplishing other goals, not as the just the focal point.

> As an environmentalist, I’m really sick of business people with short term thinking. Many silicon valley types just want to be rich. They don’t care how, or why. The product is irrelevant to them.

Summoning a title such as "environmentalist" should be used in arguments related to environmentalism, sustenance, etc. Complaining about people who sell their companies too quick because they just want to make a quick buck does not show any relation to the group you espouse. The actual argument is valid, though. There is a huge temptation to people who don't know better and most likely haven't done much business or traveling in the valley. However, actually bootstrapping a company and getting it to the point where it can even be considered at a valuation in the millions is a difficult enough road. I think the issue here is also, "many silicon valley types". Without defining what this term _actually_ means, it's hard to clearly understand who the author is talking about.

> You need to know that driver is paying tax, you need to know that driver isn’t someone with a history of violent assaults. You need to know that vehicle is safe to drive, and taxed. These regulations exist for a reason. The same applies to regulations about renting out a house or flat/apartment. There are regulations on fire escapes and insurance and safety for a reason.

A very valid point. Anytime you have companies trying to shake up an industry, you also have growing pains. Safety laws are put into practice for a reason, and we need thigns such as thorough background checks to prevent future occurances of events like Uber saw happen in Delhi. There is a fine line to walk here. Laws will need to be created to handle things currently happening now with these kinds of companies. However, waiting on laws to be drafted also hampers the progress that can be made in these fields.

> And yup, Positech pays all the tax it should, as a normal company registered in the UK, and paying UK corp tax levels on every penny it earns. It’s really not that difficult to do the right thing.

This is a good thing. However, most companies want to keep any money going out down to a minimum, as that is the definition of a company. I would not voluntarily pay more money for a car or a house. Why would I volunteer more money than is needed by the government. Just the same, why would a company; especially if they have people who understand the laws that dictate how much they should pay, and why—and understand the loopholes that exist within those laws. I would not put full blame on the companies, as they are protecting their own neck and trying to ensure their future success; I would rather say this is a clear indicator that tax laws need to be reformed in cases related to these kinds of companies.

Over all, there are some very good points made here, but the arguments come off as a bit ranty. I agree a lot with the idea behind the arguments, but also feel the author could do better if he tried to see things from the point of view of others (such as those uncreative beanbag sitters). I also would recommend him to actually truly see Silicon Valley, rather than try to ascribe everyone here to a certain way of acting or believing for just our location.