Sekhar Kammula pacha media valla pulkaga marada?

[Telugodura456]

1 minute ago, Raven_Rayes said:

you are too stupid to talk to me. its true.

I'm just trying to be kind and nice to you.

then shut up you idiot. I will still expose your posts and your buffoonery. "indian".

[Raven_Rayes]

Just now, Telugodura456 said:

Palo Alto level of density can be replicated in usa - which is a large wealthy country with plenty of land. sustainability neekem thelusura narsi ga.

Sanfrancisco doesnt tax but it cannot tax. People who live there cant afford it. Business will leave if you tax them beyond a point. People who are actually highly productive prefer living in suburbs in large houses.

You stick to shilling for langas and begging no one criticize them. 

US is a large country.. so what?

so it'll make economic sense to build low density neighbourhoods, and wait for innovation to happen aa? emanna na.

you are seriously hurt by what I say online. you should find yourself a hobby.

[Pulkapresident]

4 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

how does it matter? do you want Palo Alto level of density to be replicated everywhere?

is it sustainable? how long are you preapared to spend in transit to work?

anyway last I checked, San Francisco is home to more than 50% of unicorns in the bay area. the percentage is higher.

as far as innovation is concerned Rigetti Computing is Berkeley. Admitted that Berkeley is quite an elitist city, but its not menlo park or Palo Alto.

There are a lot of startups in energy sector in San Jose.. what's that Quantumscape or something.

innovation can happen anywhere. Doesn't need Palo Alto type of suburbs.

Bay area became the Silicon Valley because of Stanford, that torpedoed into everything else. So, no. Palo Alto and Menlo Park still remain the most sought after places to live in. 

[Raven_Rayes]

2 minutes ago, Telugodura456 said:

yea analyze pulkas, moplahs, assamese to death and mock weak people while simultaneously blowing delhi/rss/bjp/congress. thooo nee yavva.

lol. I feel bad that I broke your brain.

may be some day you'll recover.

[Telugodura456]

Just now, Raven_Rayes said:

US is a large country.. so what?

so it'll make economic sense to build low density neighbourhoods, and wait for innovation to happen aa? emanna na.

you are seriously hurt by what I say online. you should find yourself a hobby.

yea it makes sense for YOU to live in parry's corner slum. But americans want to live in large houses, plenty of yards. And they have an economy going for it. neekendhi - stupid fellow. YOu really need to stop your nuisance here after learning some buzz words. In reality you are a toxic fellow who will lust for murder as long as it is put in catchy words.

[Telugodura456]

1 minute ago, Raven_Rayes said:

lol. I feel bad that I broke your brain.

may be some day you'll recover.

yea you can mock as much as you want. but in reality you are sad because you mock like you are powerful but in eyes of world you are  just another pulka - haha.

[Raven_Rayes]

Just now, Pulkapresident said:

Bay area became the Silicon Valley because of Stanford, that torpedoed into everything else. So, no. Palo Alto and Menlo Park still remain the most sought after places to live in. 

Still most unicorn firms move to San Francisco. Very few stay in Palo Alto or menlo park.

young smart people don't care to live in stupid neighbourhoods like Menlo Park. They want to live in a happening place like San Fracisco, New York etc. They want to meet people fcuk each other silly etc.

low density neighbourhoods is for people who are slow moving. Sure some scientists may prefer that kind of environments, but ultimately money is made in high density areas, not elitist neighbourhoods.

[Raven_Rayes]

3 minutes ago, Telugodura456 said:

yea it makes sense for YOU to live in parry's corner slum. But americans want to live in large houses, plenty of yards. And they have an economy going for it. neekendhi - stupid fellow.

yeah, that's why they have to travel from those low density neighbourhoods  to San Francisco. Most companies are based there, whether you like it or not. Not in Palo Alto.

[Telugodura456]

2 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

Still most unicorn firms move to San Francisco. Very few stay in Palo Alto or menlo park.

young smart people don't care to live in stupid neighbourhoods like Menlo Park. They want to live in a happening place like San Fracisco, New York etc. They want to meet people fcuk each other silly etc.

low density neighbourhoods is for people who are slow moving. Sure some scientists may prefer that kind of environments, but ultimately money is made in high density areas, not elitist neighbourhoods.

adhi veedi assal reason. USA is ultro low level density but has been the richest nation now for 60 years. That sounds like sustainability.

[Telugodura456]

2 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

yeah, that's why they have to travel from those low density neighbourhoods  to San Francisco. Most companies are based there, whether you like it or not. Not in Palo Alto.

thats only because their capitalist owners ask them to. If not they will happily work from home. Thats how most of human history has been. People used to work where they live - potter lives in home and makes pottery, smith lives in home and makes smithy, same with butcher. Until modern day capitalism came .

[Raven_Rayes]

Just now, Telugodura456 said:

adhi veedi assal reason. USA is ultro low level density but has been the richest nation now for 60 years. That sounds like sustainability.

such a stupid argument. USA richest cities all have highly density population. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles.

most jobs are in the city center.. why you think?

All asian cities like Seoul, Hong kong, Singapore, Japan are examples of extremely high dense population.

Its easier to provide infrastructure in a smaller area (cheaper). Do you know tuneling costs for subways is upwards of $200m per km?

denser cities are energy efficient is a no brainer. you are an idiot who wants to live in a big mansion. a lot of americans are moving in the opposite direction.

[Pulkapresident]

Ne ekkada start petta merekkadiki teeskellaro, chass pentamokal 

[Raven_Rayes]

6 minutes ago, Telugodura456 said:

thats only because their capitalist owners ask them to. If not they will happily work from home. Thats how most of human history has been. People used to work where they live - potter lives in home and makes pottery, smith lives in home and makes smithy, same with butcher. Until modern day capitalism came .

lol.  what are you even trying to argue for?

[Raven_Rayes]

1 minute ago, Pulkapresident said:

Ne ekkada start petta merekkadiki teeskellaro, chass pentamokal 

one pulka got offended because 'god knows why'.

[Telugodura456]

7 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

such a stupid argument. USA richest cities all have highly density population. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles.

most jobs are in the city center.. why you think?

All asian cities like Seoul, Hong kong, Singapore, Japan are examples of extremely high dense population.

Its easier to provide infrastructure in a smaller area (cheaper). Do you know tuneling costs for subways is upwards of $200m per km?

denser cities are energy efficient is a no brainer. you are an idiot who wants to live in a big mansion. a lot of americans are moving in the opposite direction.

chaaa with another tongue you will argue why do you need cities like amaravati and you should "distributed development" when it comes to andhra.

Most of the well paid jobs in usa cities are done by people who live in wealthy suburbs with huge houses. They dont live within city. Why do they work in city - i explained it alteast two times in this thread. You are just too dumb to register.

Yes compact slummy cities are economical. But people also have preferences and if they can afford it they must live as they please.

Most americans continue to buy huge houses in suburbs. you live on buzzwords what do you know about reality.