From: James Rogers (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 18 2002 - 17:48:08 MST
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 09:28, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> However, one question that's been on my mind since even before then is the
> *ideal* location for the Singularity Institute. To give you an example of
> how I've been thinking, here's how Sacramento would scope out:
> 1) Most major advantage - within a 2-hour drive of Silicon Valley,
> including San Jose, San Francisco, and Palo Alto.
Assuming no traffic. Double that during peak times, maybe 3-hours
off-peak during the week. Sacramento is also 2-hours (in reality this
time) from the Tahoe/Reno area, which has a large population of
interesting and wealthy Silicon Valley expats.
> 2) Cost of living - 2.3% higher than Atlanta.
Yep. Pretty average compared to the national average, but vastly
cheaper than the Bay Area metro.
> 3) Immediate safety, according to a preliminary online check - no
> earthquake problems, no recent civil unrest.
Other than the crime problems associated with those types of
communities, the biggest problem you might have is flooding.
> 4) Long-term safety - not an A-list city for a smuggled nuke or other
> weapon of mass destruction, but as the capital city of a major state, not
> off the list entirely, either. Probably better than Atlanta, but nowhere
> near perfect. Inside the USA, which is probably not the safest place in
> the world right now.
Of course, Sacramento is directly in the shadow of secondary effects
from WMD, and which is also where the major feeder Interstates from the
A-list targets go, but your point is still valid.
I pretty much despise Sacramento (at least if I had to live there), but
it will probably work relatively well for your purposes. Meanwhile, I'm
trying to get OUT of the Bay Area, for a good number of the reasons you
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT