Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

nme.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 545 posts

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#321

Post by paublyrne »

throwaway43532 wrote: post #307
cglace wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What type of information would you receive on your phone during a concert that would make you safer? I'm honestly curious.

"Hey throwaway43532, [PERSON] just found out you're at [PLACE] and is on their way with a weapon. I contacted the authorities, but you need to get out of there now!" might be a severe example. There are many situations where a cell phone can allow you to send or receive information that could tip the scales in your favor.

The possibility of me ever getting a message remotely like that is so remote that the very idea could power the infinite improbability drive and take me to the restaurant at the end of the universe.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#322

Post by bootlooped »

rconti wrote: post #259
ken wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the viscerality of this response is fascinating. Putting your phone in a case is a "prison", and you must check it every time you go to the toilet, and you're concerned about a terrorist attack -- enough to want your phone, but not enough to stay home, as if your apps could somehow save you. > Treat people like adults. If they break the rules, ask them to leave. Isn't that what we've been trying for the past…

Acting like adults is working just fine, unless you get irrationally annoyed at everything that doesn't go 100% the way you want it to. I went to a movie a few weeks ago where a woman actually took a call and wouldn't shut up for 30-40 seconds while others heckled her. That's the worst incident I can remember in the past decade or so. It doesn't annoy me if someone wants to video a concert on their phone. That's thei…

Having 5% of the audience holding their phones up as high as they can to video tape the concert at any given time makes it harder for everybody to see. Then it's my crappy experience.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#323

Post by j_s »

knodi123 wrote: post #178
bonesss wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people drop buttloads of money getting to the Grand Canyon and then spend their time behind a viewfinder taking landscape pictures that are infinitely worse than you'll find online or purchased from pros, ensuring they spend less (and sometimes no), time enjoying the scenery and environment?

I actually tested this theory recently; when I went to Machu Picchu, I took several pictures with my wife in them, and absolutely zero pics of the scenery or the monument. When I got home, I inserted some random high-res professional pics from recognizable vantage points into an album and called it a day. I don't feel shortchanged. Although I'm somewhat glad for the tourist "gotta take my own shitty photo" attitude,…

My perspective grows stronger every time someone close to me dies: the true value in photos is the faces. As a tech person, that is where I try to maximize my pixel budget.

I actually prefer candid home video infinitely more -- most pictures on social networks are as authentic as pornography stills.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#324

Post by InitialLastName »

INTPenis wrote: post #23

A suggestion. If entertainers ban phones at events they should at least record the event themselves and publish the video for the participants or everyone. I noticed at the Mark Twain wards for David Letterman when my hero Bill fucking Murray came out a woman was literally watching him through her phone. And I was watching the whole thing on youtube at a much better angle and quality. Of course my video was probably…

On a similar note, the band OK Go (when I've seen them, at least) would let you buy a burned CD of the show immediately after. IIRC you also got a code to download the post-mixed version online.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#325

Post by user9182031 »

whatyoucantsay wrote: post #299
gknoy wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a fire breaks out and I have to evacuate a venue, there is a _distinct_ difference in the effect on me if I have to have had my phone locked up. In one case, I leave the facility, get to safety, and then _go home_ (eventually), at which point I have my phone. In the other case, I leave the facility, get to safety, but my phone is either destroyed, or in a pile with 900 other concert-goers' phones, and I need to ei…

> In the other case, I leave the facility, get to safety, but my phone is either destroyed, or in a pile with 900 other concert-goers' phones, and I need to either wait around (in a place where emergency services probably don't want extra people), or _replace my destroyed phone_. You should check out how Yondr works: https://www.overyondr.com/howitworks/ The phone stays with you.

Wow, this looks super neat. How does it work in practice?

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#326

Post by paublyrne »

monksy wrote: post #308
valuearb wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL using the Manchester bombing as reason. First terrorist incidents are so rare you might as well argue that you need your phone in case of a plane crash. Secondly, these events have security, crowd control, management, etc, all with their own phones. Emergency services doesn't need a thousand simultaneous calls. In a genuine mass emergency there is a lot more important needs for network access than providing peopl…

The Manchester and Bataclan incidents are perfect examples. That's the whole point of terrorism. The groups are not effective enough to influence who they want without fear tacits. They're going to target large groups of people, and events tend to do that. The situation of the Bataclan, the emergency services does need to know whats going on inside, and at multiple points of the building. For Manchester, they needed…

I think the point is those types of incidents are incredibly rare.

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#327

Post by imchillyb »

knodi123 wrote: post #178
bonesss wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people drop buttloads of money getting to the Grand Canyon and then spend their time behind a viewfinder taking landscape pictures that are infinitely worse than you'll find online or purchased from pros, ensuring they spend less (and sometimes no), time enjoying the scenery and environment?

I actually tested this theory recently; when I went to Machu Picchu, I took several pictures with my wife in them, and absolutely zero pics of the scenery or the monument. When I got home, I inserted some random high-res professional pics from recognizable vantage points into an album and called it a day. I don't feel shortchanged. Although I'm somewhat glad for the tourist "gotta take my own shitty photo" attitude,…

> ...I did NOT need to know about what a slut your cousin is.

Especially if she's not, ya'know, there...

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#328

Post by reaperducer »

davb wrote: post #87

I experienced the Yondr phone prison last night for the first time (at a Chris Rock show). While I detest people being disruptive with their phones, I don’t think this is the right solution. From a practical standpoint, it took a lot longer to get into and out of the venue when phones had to be locked up. Checking your phone when you pop out to the toilet meant waiting in a queue to have your phone unlocked, and bein…

> In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea.

What did people do when bad things happened at stadia before there were cell phones? Mass casualty incidents at arenas aren't exactly a new thing. (Who concert in Cincinnati, Disco Demolition in Chicago, etc...)

Re: Jack White bans phones at gigs for “100% human experience”

#329

Post by j_s »

maxerickson wrote: post #103
hungerstrike wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...if you can't respect the reasonable wishes of the person who you paid to go see what are you doing there? Why the false dichotomy? A person could easily lack all respect for an entertainer and still want to go see them... Heck, I've gone to concerts before just to make fun of the band and its fans with my friends. One could be there doing a lot of things but the blindingly obvious answer in this case is that peo…

Things that aren't in the guidelines: HN asks you not to treat the DOWNVOTE button as a DISAGREE Things that are in the guidelines: Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.* Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

Unfortunately downvote to disagree has been officially endorsed as inevitable. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12330029#12330373

I wish there was even the tiniest bit of public accountability! Even user profile totals of upvotes, downvotes, comments, and flags would be a usable signal. Maybe one of the perks of being a YC company is seeing which accounts downvoted yours... ;)

Post reply on HN