Who killed the rave? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who killed the rave?

#851

Post by randomfounder » Sat, Jan 11, 2025, 8:46 PM UTC

HellDunkel wrote: post #719

anigbrowl wrote: post #660

It's not really surprising, but the article seems to conflate raves with nightclubs, with numerous remarks about the cost of being out at a club all night and paying for things like expensive bottle service. Raves are not clubs, and historically have never done that well in club environments. People who are really into staying up all night dancing to techno music aren't buying expensive alcoholic drinks, they're buyi…

I think you are missing something. Clubs have always been the „mothers“ of raves. This has been the case since the only days of chicago warehouse parties up until what is now the case in berlin. Once the clubs go away, the off location parties will disappear next.

In California at least, I think ravers hate clubs more than anyone. They’re expensive, inconvenient, and the impression is that they’re for superficial people with more money than sense. Raves are much cheaper ($100 to a see drunk rapper show up 45 min late, or $20 for 6 hours of techno on a better soundsytem), more convenient (more parking, reentry, no lines, chill security), and egalitarian (no VIPs, and acting like one is frowned upon).

The crowd that goes to clubs, well at least mainstream clubs you’d find on Google Maps, seems to have almost no overlap with the crowd that goes to raves. It’s common to try clubbing for a bit in college to see what the hype’s about, then “graduate” to raves.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#852

Post by randomfounder » Sat, Jan 11, 2025, 8:49 PM UTC

anakaine wrote: post #848

antihero wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well raves were free parties, and could be outside or in like an abandoned warehouse etc.

I always wondered how they got enough power into abandoned places.

they bring generators! There’s a surprising amount of planning and logistics involved, even for sketchy seeming events

Re: Who killed the rave?

#853

Post by randomfounder » Sat, Jan 11, 2025, 8:57 PM UTC

brandall10 wrote: post #679

nox101 wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what is the definition of a rave at this point? Large crowds of people dancing in or outdoors to techno music is still a HUGE thing. There's video of tons of them on youtube. If often put them on while working. Is it only a rave if it's illegal? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv33bb-C_bo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wy2WYqD2Rs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEacozH2uXs There's also huge EDM and other types of e…

As someone in the culture 20-30 years ago, it was always something that was underground... not promoted in a traditional sense, and hosted in unpermitted spaces. Usually you wouldn't know until the day of the event where the location actually was. Much of the time it would be in industrial areas that were pretty deserted and dark at night, far away from any life that would complain about the noise that would go on un…

The events you’re talking about still exist to a T. If anything, there’s too much interest in them, and now they’re hiding not just from cops but from “tourists”. Think finance bros who just want the exclusivity and a chance to bother women

Re: Who killed the rave?

#854

Post by adverbly » Tue, Jan 14, 2025, 12:46 AM UTC

cooper_ganglia wrote: post #583

JW_00000 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Deferred tax payment.

If someone is lucky enough to win the lottery by buying a pot of land for cheap and then seeing its value rise astronomically, they would be given the option to defer their tax payments until the sale of their profit when they realize their gains.

Obviously, there is still a large incentive for them to move sooner rather than later, but they would not be forced out of their home. I think this would be much fairer than the status quo as it would increase the incentive for them to move.

Ultimately, it is not an efficient use of land to have someone keep their single family home in the middle of high-rises like you see in the movie up. We've got a homeless crisis and random parking lots or low density is making it worse. There needs to be a compromise here. Deferred payments lets you balance the scales in a way that would be fair to all.