Who killed the rave? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who killed the rave?

#581

Post by ty6853 » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 10:01 PM UTC

listenallyall wrote: post #546

gosub100 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My fantasy solution is that ALL businesses near expensive areas must pay a minimum wage high enough to rent a place (or a room) there. If the barista must be paid $109k to afford to live there, then let Starbucks jack the price of a plain black coffee to $17 for a small. Fewer people will be willing to pay this, Starbucks will go out of business and virtually nothing will fill its place. Suddenly these multimillion d…

Not sure I understand - is your goal to live in a barren wasteland? Because you can do that today, very cheaply.

Sort of. In the US if you don't have running water and power soon enough the teacher or some 'concerned citizen' will rat you to CPS and get your kids taken or at least badly hassled. As soon as you connect to water or power the grips of regulation force you into an expensive treadmill.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#582

Post by int_19h » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 10:02 PM UTC

xerox13ster wrote: post #368

s1artibartfast wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it depends on your idea of the suburbs. I can walk to a major grocery store, coffee shops, restaurants, and breweries, but have a quarter acre with fruit trees and gardens. Im happy to trade that for having to spend an hour in car/train a few times a year to see a show or museum. I would take a pay cut to work closer to home.

Like many in the suburbs have convinced themselves they're rural as a result of oil company propaganda (rural identity sells big mall crawler trucks), it sounds to me like you live in a central, quite urban area that's otherwise sparse on local options and have convinced yourself it's your extra special private enclave in the hills, completely separated from the economic center, despite it literally being your econom…

I find it amusing that so many activists in US believe that the sole reason why people like the suburbs over the cities is some kind of "propaganda". I'm from a country where suburbs are far less common and I grew up in a city of 300k and then lived in a megapolis for several years. And yes, we did have public transportation etc.

When I moved to US, I chose to live pretty much as far as I can from the nearest large city that wouldn't be considered straight up "rural" (although we do have a bunch of farms around here). And the reason is because I don't want to live in what is, in effect, a giant human anthill.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#583

Post by cooper_ganglia » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 10:03 PM UTC

JW_00000 wrote: post #405

cooper_ganglia wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but a "land value tax" is one of the worst political propositions I've ever heard. This is a great way to further erode the middle class, ensure that owning is always prohibitively out-of-reach for anyone born after 1980, and to promote corporate consolidation of land by BlackRock and other corporations.

I assume the parent comment proposes land value tax as a replacement for existing property tax schemes. In other words, instead of taxing the value of the land + whatever is built on it (current system in most parts of the world), you only tax based on the value of the land, regardless of what is built. Such a system would incentivize using the land as efficiently as possible, as that part is not taxed. If you have p…

So what happens when someone owns land, and then has a bunch of neighborhoods and developments pop up around them? I know a lot of poorer people who bought their home when the area wasn't developed, only for things to spring up around them. That would increase their land value, sure, but also their tax, and I don't think that's fair.

It feels like a way to force these people out of the towns and family homes they've grown up in, in favor of some rich guy or corporation. They can be strong-armed out by increasing their property value around them past a point they can afford the taxes.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#584

Post by AtlasBarfed » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 10:04 PM UTC

sydbarrett74 wrote: post #531

deanCommie wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are integral to capitalism, because those are the essential outcomes of almost all game theory.

Because the principle of capitalism that shall not be said d is that the value of a human life is zero

... The second unspoken principle of capitalism is that the environment is worth zero

Finally, the third is that the human race is worth zero

Re: Who killed the rave?

#585

Post by mikepurvis » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 10:04 PM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #489

mikepurvis wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a millennial (38) who never participated in the "risky behaviour" that is raving, clubbing, hooking up, etc. What I do do though is travel for swing dance events [1], which often involves live music, bluesy late night parties, etc. I also have friends who do similar for salsa dancing and board game / anime / nerd conventions. So I wonder if part of this is that "staying up late doing fun thing with semi-strangers…

Swing dance is down overall compared to ten+ years ago in NA. There are way less events. The events don't go as late either. It used to be that almost every event would go to 5am. The crowd at these events is much older now too. It used to be primarily under 30 and now it's well over 30.

Losing all the campus clubs for two years really impacted things, and I think there was also a big loss in mid-sized events, but hopefully things do still continue to recover. Certainly there is still loads of enthusiasm, especially in the Balboa world, where the flow aesthetics and high skill ceiling really appeal to obsessive types.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#586

Post by guynamedloren » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 10:05 PM UTC

kstrauser wrote: post #120

One big change is that they got better and much more organized. I go to an annual event with a few hundred of my friends and family. We rent a lodge in a national forest, set up an enormous sound system, and dance for 3 days around some very confused deer. There are food trucks and coffee bars and dozens of portapotties scattered around, plus daytime poolside sets while we swim around and listen to 100dB house. We gr…

I’m confused. You say that you “go to” an annual event, but then you describe it at a massive private festival that you’re self organizing. Which is it?

Re: Who killed the rave?

#587

Post by dnissley » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 10:06 PM UTC

jamestimmins wrote: post #157

steveBK123 wrote: post #118

Probably a bunch of factors... Tier 1 city RE prices have made live entertainment venues harder to run profitably. GenZ studies have found a lower participation in "risky behavior" which late night clubbing may or not be considered. Mobile internet & smartphones seem to be killing all forms of live in person interaction. And finally electronic music of various forms used to be a niche, and now it's mainstream. In the…

It's shocking how often the answer to "How come X changed?" is either the creation of the internet or the cost of real estate. Surprisingly often, it's both.

This is the housing theory of everything

Re: Who killed the rave?

#588

Post by 9rx » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 10:07 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #214

Kiro wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the decline is real in the underground scene as well.

At least near me I've seen a resurgence the last couple years.

The so-called dead cat bounce is oft seen in a decline.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#589

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

ethbr1 wrote: post #558

znpy wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And specifically their appetite for the risk/discomfort that goes along with living in realtime physical moments with other people. The risk/discomfort lasted just that night. Nowadays everyone is posting everything everywhere. No wonder youngsters don’t want to risk it. This is a form of social cooling in my opinion.

When Facebook first took off, I had an inkling radical transparency was going to be a societal outcome. With everyone posting everything, and everyone's digital history recorded (if anyone cares to archive or dig it up), everyone would have skeletons in their closet. I was hoping that would make society more tolerant and willing to accept faults in people. In actuality, it just seems to have produced an industry of d…

This seems like way too complex an explanation when a much simpler alternative is possible.

Most people are simply not that virtuous, because by definition the vast majority of the population has to have mediocre virtues or be in that ballpark range.

So ‘radical transparency’ reveals as much negative as positive, on average.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#590

Post by bastardoperator » Wed, Jan 08, 2025, 10:09 PM UTC

Greed, aka promoters, killed the rave scene when they started charging absurd prices and pivoting to festivals where they could command 100's of dollars for entry.