This article confuses direct causes of problems to make the story pull in more traffic. If the goal was to have a wrapper story around the battle for the soul of San Francisco, then the lead-in should have been shorter.

The root event was author getting robbed, chasing his attacker, and getting back the stolen item though it has been destroyed. If he'd lost anything other than a Google Glass, almost none of the other topics in the article would be relevant. He even suggests something close to that, but there are thousands of words to be published.

A lot of childish and bitter people replied to his tweet. It takes a special sort of immaturity to respond to "I got robbed of $1500" with "I'm going to shove your pathetic nerd body into a locker." Gee, I guess ninth grade hasn't ended for some people.

However the author is almost giving into his attackers by letting his story get tied into the other stories he covered that day. You got robbed, but you did the right thing by giving chase. You lost some expensive equipment, but you learned how to avoid that in the future. No one died, no one got assaulted.

Does San Francisco have problems? Oh man, does it! At this point, the only solution would be a major advance in rapid transit, such as a flying streetcar or a matter transporter. San Francisco is only 47 square miles yet it has lots of middle and low-density housing.

However you only enable bullying when you hint that you deserved the mugging, dressing all geeky like that. We don't accept that kind of thinking from rapists, so we shouldn't accept it from muggers.