We need budding tech sectors all over the world, and we don't need everyone trying to move to California (and a lot of us frankly don't want to move to California, to begin with).
California doesn't offer anything which can't be found elsewhere.
Except a self-referential belief that California is where it's happening.
Also: s/which/that/
See, for instance, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=5479 .
Well, you're consistent, and let me adopt your style: the above sentence missing word.
On the contrary:
You clearly understood the author, as did I and probably everyone else who read the comment. The objection was superfluous. When the commenter took offense and argued, the polite thing would have been to back down gracefully, since the point is entirely unrelated to the greater discussion. Picking on the missed-word typo is just a childish dig.
There is, of course, a difference between occasional errors and the way in which millions of competent English speakers use their language, but I'm sure you're aware of the distinction.
And yes, I'm aware that many "errors" can be defended as conscious choices. But most of them are neither intentional nor contribute to effective communication.
For further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#Problem...