Who killed the rave? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who killed the rave?

#531

Post by sydbarrett74 » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 9:10 PM UTC

deanCommie wrote: post #467

ethbr1 wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imho, the internet / mobile apps have drastically atrophied younger generations' face-to-face social interaction skills. And specifically their appetite for the risk/discomfort that goes along with living in realtime physical moments with other people. Human beings are awkward as hell, but that's what laughter and tolerance are the bridges for.

Every instinct I have agrees with you. Yet I can't help but wonder if people also said the same about the telephone (which enabled socialization without colocation) and television (Which enabled entertainment as a passive indirect consumption) I realize of course that the internet, and mobile (and eventually VR/AR) is Yet Another Step Further. But...like every step does it not also come with benefits for some at the…

Agreed. Nihilism and fatalism are both cowardly.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#532

Post by blackeyeblitzar » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 9:10 PM UTC

xeromal wrote: post #375

lostlogin wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they built double the houses they need, how is the vacancy rate just 22%?

Because people want to live in particular areas

This is really the issue. There are plenty of places people can live and afford. But everyone wants a particular lifestyle and a certain job in their desired field and maybe proximity to certain people. That sense of entitlement has been rebranded as an affordability crisis but it isn’t that. It’s just entitlement. People should instead live within their means and make sacrifices. Not everyone gets to live in highly desirable places like SF and that’s okay.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#533

Post by listenallyall » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 9:10 PM UTC

Earw0rm wrote: post #511

stefankorun wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risks are called living your life – there is a inherent risk with traveling, hiking, wandering around as a kid, and almost any activity outside of staring at a screen.

I said by today's standards.. women going home with some random guy without anyone even having a phone number for them. No mobiles, no net, no nothing. And in most cases that worked out fine, but today people would think it insane to even suggest that.

The enormous amount of fear that has been injected into society, seemingly permanently, disguised as "safety" (i.e. framing a negative as a positive) is one of, or perhaps THE, the most detrimental factors to the health of that society, and is actively harming the development of people growing up within it.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#534

Post by andrewjl » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 9:11 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #282

zamfi wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China built enough homes to house its population twice over, yet it's not reflected in the prices. All because everyone and their grandma is investing in real estate. Yes, but this is reflected in China's vacancy rate: 22% by some estimates. In the US, home vacancy rates are sub-1%. Not saying people aren't treating homes as investments, but it seems clear we also have a supply issue. "Real Estate is Investment" sh…

>"Real Estate is Investment" should naturally lead to overproduction as investment-only properties get built to satisfy that demand—as we see in China China had massive home overproduction because the goddamned totalitarian government told builders to build or else . It was not market forces. How do you suppose we do that in the US? Especially with this administration? In the US, builders don't build 100 starter home…

> How do you suppose we do that in the US?

Exempt or lighten planning requirements for affordable housing construction. California is going in this direction now.

There are other levers like subsidized financing for developers building homes targeting a certain price range as well as favorable tax treatment of those profits.

A lot of these have would probably have some bipartisan support.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#535

Post by leptons » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 9:11 PM UTC

alsetmusic wrote: post #391

Animats wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend who used to run big late-night parties in San Francisco said the big change started after the 2008 recession. Many of the twentysomethings who were laid off left town, and the ones who remained were working longer hours.

I was on the scene in the Bay Area in the 2000s. I went to warehouse parties and secret raves that required calling a number to find out where to get picked up to keep the location secret. It was vibrant and a lot of fun. There were at least two sites that I knew of for keeping track of parties (bayraves.com was one, I don’t recall the other). The scene was dying at the same time that I was aging out, but I sure miss…

My wife, who has been a raver since the 90's, is currently out collecting free Narcan doses to deliver to people throwing raves in Southern California. Party organizers need to really step up and have Narcan on hand, but most don't.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#536

Post by codexb » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 9:11 PM UTC

It's not just raves, it's pretty much all "nightclub" type bars. The common nightclub has been replaced by expensive, high-end, bottle-service only type clubs.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#537

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 9:12 PM UTC

quchen wrote: post #501

jrm4 wrote: post #139

I remember the night when I knew clubbing (perhaps not raves per se) died. Blackbird Ordinary, Miami. July 4th weekend. Normal clubby kind of night. Then in comes a dude in bright ridiculous Uncle Sam gear, sparklers and all, making a spectacle of himself. All the phones come out. Sigh. This is not the point of clubs/bars. You're mostly not supposed to be "seen" and certainly not like that.

Putting stickers onto phones, kicking out violators and fostering a culture around that does miracles to that kind of behavior. Once a majority enjoyes the moment and is very openly pissed off by any kind of filming we go back to being ourselves.

[deleted]

Re: Who killed the rave?

#538

Post by sir0010010 » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 9:14 PM UTC

Earw0rm wrote: post #471

lolinder wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a strong suspicion that a lot of it is the rise of the two income household. In the early years it increased household buying power, but as it became the norm many services began raising prices because people could actually afford to pay them now. So the net result is that the increased productivity from nearly doubling the workforce turns into higher and higher executive salaries while the average middle clas…

Yeah, and property is a positional good. Its price is a function purely of willingness to pay. So if you double household income, and perhaps quadruple theoretical discretionary income (after food, energy, gas and so on), give it 40 years and real-estate inflation eats the damn lot.

The price of every good and service is a function both of willingness to pay and supply.

Positional goods cease to be so if you substantially increase their supply - this is why Rolex, Gucci, etc are constantly worried about knockoffs.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#539

Post by anotheruser13 » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 9:15 PM UTC

fuzzylightbulb wrote: post #140

drstewart wrote: post #96

Maybe the same person who killed the disco

Are you by chance referring to the time that "...a Chicago DJ named Steve Dahl detonated a dumpster filled with disco records between White Sox games at Comiskey Park, leading to a riot"? https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230922-the-night-angry...

At the time, I was a punk working in a great record store in the Western suburbs of Chicago (shout out to Johnny B Goode Records & Stuff!). I sent a number of promo disco records we'd received to Disco Demolition Night. I still laugh about how it turned out... Those were the days.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#540

Post by listenallyall » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 9:15 PM UTC

snek_case wrote: post #516

Earw0rm wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Online dating. I guarantee that only about one in five male clubbers were truly "only there for the music". Maybe fewer than that. Women went along with it because, well, what was the alternative, and the contemporary culture encouraged it. Online dating has its problems, certainly, but the risks people took in the 70s, 80s, 90s were kind of insane by today's standards. And also the amount of unwanted attention women…

Having been to raves, another issue you run into if you go there to meet people is that the kind of people who will hook up at raves probably don't want anything serious. It's a super hedonistic environment. If you want more than a one night stand any other form of dating is better.

Yes - sitting at home and looking for companionship on an app is better than leaving the house, interacting with other people, dancing, laughing, singing, making lifelong memories ::eyeroll::