3 ms·

I used to live in LA, now I live in Austin and travel all over Texas for a living. I have no idea what you're talking about. Texas has shitty roads that are wa

I used to live in LA, now I live in Austin and travel all over Texas for a living. I have no idea what you're talking about. Texas has shitty roads that are way too narrow and full of potholes, a non-existent public transport system, and quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF. The difference with the last one is that you don't see them as often, because Texans aren't nearly as tolerant as homeless people as Bay Area residents, so the homeless hang out in places such as highway underpasses and the wilderness areas surrounding the cities. You know, out of sight of the rich.

kodablah 10y ago
> quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF Citation please. This is an issue with comparing large states with cities. You can't compare LA or SF w/ Texas anymore than you can compare Austin with Dallas. It makes statements like "quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF" unfair (or possibly just straight false in your case). For instance, you could easily say "CA has WAY more homeless per capita than Texas" and actually be accurate. Similarly, you can't making sweeping generalizations about potholes across the state in TX or CA since people don't live in every area of the state all of the time. And wrt quality of life, which is an extremely subjective measure, public transport may not be what the local citizens want compared with road infrastructure that isn't well known to be mired in traffic (again, depends on where you are, but CA consistently ranks worst here). It's bad enough comparing two states at that high level, it's even worse to throw in subjective opinions about quality of life on specific things.