I think a lot of those illegal warehouse parties died with the DeBlasio administration. At least, that's when I stopped hearing about them so I am open to the possibility that I'm no longer plugged in to the right scene.
The DeBlasio administration was the first to add a "night mayor", and they made it easier to open legit venues in the same neighborhoods that used to host the illegal warehouse parties, like that triangle just west of Flushing avenue centered around the Morgan L train stop, where Elsewhere and The Brooklyn Mirage among a few other big, high priced venues are now.
In exchange for making it easier to open more venues and have more legal dance parties, they cracked down on the illegal parties pretty hard. This had the effect of pushing the prices up, changing the scene and crowd, and introducing more regulations. Before, you had to be a little more plugged in to know when and where the parties were because they were "underground" (but only a little). You could also reliably dance until 6 or 7am and buy all the alcohol you wanted whenever.
Now, these parties are way more mainstream so people who are less enthusiastic about dancing show up because it's something accessible to do, and everything must legally shut down at 4.
I remember being excited that things were going legit because I thought it would make the parties that I frequented better, but now with the benefit of hindsight over the past 8 or so years, I think it's had a negative impact on the scene, along with all the other issues related to the ubiquity of cell phones and the changing gen z tastes.
I still long fondly for Bushwick circa 2012, but it might just be more "Back in my day..." nostalgia.
I think pervasive (invasive?) social media and the "always-potentially-on-camera" reality, paired with cancel culture, has also killed a lot of "underground" scenes (and counter-culture in general but that's a whole other topic).
If you haven't read it, you might like Emily Witt's recent book Health & Safety. She writes about her experiences raving in Brooklyn (and Berlin) from roughly 2015 to present day and many of the changes that have occurred (as well as dropping in her own personal story which may or may not be interesting to you).
I did a lot of partying around NYC (pre baby) where this rule is rare. There are usually close to 50% of the crowd taking selfies, putting the phone in the air to "record" the DJ, or generally scrolling through instagram instead of dancing. I thought this was the norm, but then I spent a summer in Berlin. There, people actually dance, and are there to appreciate the music. The vibe is so much more fun because everyone there is contributing to the energy by actually having a good time, instead of being preoccupied with showing people who are not with them that they are having a good time. I think nightlife in Berlin is so much better than NYC because of a combination of the cell phone rule along with the stricter door policies, and I hope those come to NYC by the time my kid gets old enough for me to be able to go out again.
Berlin does this for a completely different reason. Most of the clubs are FKK/kink/drugs zones. Having sticker on the camera stops people from taking photos of others doing the deed, making club goers more comfortable.
In berlin clubs where those things are not allowed, they generally don’t ask you to put sticker on cameras, unless they want to look cool like those places.
Its not so clear cut why its done. For sure its for privacy which has higher requirements in some spaces but nowdays majority of clubs have no photos rules. Thats trend around europe not only Berlin. Even when there are no stickers there will be no photo signs and bouncer will remind everyone about this.
> everyone there is contributing to the energy by actually having a good time, instead of being preoccupied with showing people who are not with them that they are having a good time
this screams "economists, behavioral economists, game theorists, sociologists and anthropologists" would love to study this"
people from all the above disciplines, where are you? this is your phd thesis
I watched several groups of “tech nerds” get rejected from night clubs in the Bay Area after the huggingface open source meetup.
It doesn’t matter how much money you give to them, society think they’re still ugly, four eyes, nerds who deserve to be shoved in lockers. Remember that the only reason high functioning autists weren’t murdered by the nazis was dr.Hans Asperger intervening to convince the German high command that they can build rockets.
Look to how the internet uses “sperg” as a pejorative similar to intel. Forcing a neurotypical to listen to your “*tism” rant makes them literally want to murder you. Resentment against tech workers with money is off the charts in trump voting America. Ungrateful to say the least…
> What’s stopping tech nerds from putting effort into their appearance like everyone else to get into a club?
For those who put the effort, nothing will stop them, and they will be more than welcome. The idea is to filter out the smug ones who think they are higher human beings who don’t need to conform to the norms of such places like everyone else, and putting any effort toward such “intellectually plebian” entertainment is beyond them. So everything is kinda working as intended.
The glue from the stickers needed a solvent to remove from the lens after going out in Berlin and Amsterdam. Ruined my photos until I got it clean.
Generally I like the idea of people not being photo focused and if this is the fix, I’m fine with it.
But, to put Berlin on a pedestal of partying, especially compared to NYC, just screams “I have a very specific and narrow bias of what a good party is”. Let’s stop promoting a city that has formalized racist / nationalist bouncers into a “cool” thing.
I think you need to make insightful points for that. Having credentials is not a requirement for having insight, although they are sometimes correlated.
It would work like everything else. That "expensive" grocery store that continues to stock the high quality products that you love would still get your business even though they raise prices. In the meantime, the mediocre one would not, and they would be forced to lower prices accordingly.
I just want to know what the price of something is and make my own decisions about whether or not it's worth it. The social and mental gymnastics over tipping is just exhausting.
Except here the grocery store pricing is “name your price” and folks are free to pick the price that suits the level of service they desire/receive.
It’s a leaver we have, and it’s rather powerful if you know how to use it. Doing away with it because “the mental gymnastics” of calculating ~1/5th of a total is too much for some folks to handle is just ridiculous pandering to the lowest common denominator.
I’m happy to receive the best service available at the places I frequent because the staff knows I will compensate them generously. If folks are unwilling to do so, that’s fine: they can still get food/drinks. But they’ll always be further back in the priority queue than me, because I value the time of the wait staff.
Interstellar Low Ways is one of my favorite Jazz albums of all time. Scratch that. It's one of my favorite _albums_ of all time. It's another one that won't scare you away if you're not used to listening to free jazz, and it's just epic from start to finish.
I don't think that's the issue. The issue is they use your "profile" from other companies like facebook and linkedin to decide whether or not you're worthy of joining. What other things will people who refuse to use these apps be rejected from if more companies adopt this screening strategy? Jobs? Schools? Grocery stores?
Problem is that web3 tries to tie everything to a cryptocurrency token, not willing to accept the fact that as soon as something happens off-chain and in the real world, most/all advantages of using cryptocurrencies and blockchains go away.
It really is a shame that all blockchains (AFAIK) are tied to cryptocurrency as reward for participating in their consensus mechanism when it is not necessary the only way to do things.
In fact, I believe blockchain will never be decentralized as long as there is a means of accumulation of power over the blockchain, in many cases the accumulation of PoW computing power, or in PoS the accumulation of the cryptocurrency itself.
I also believe (without any basis other than the spirit of the correspondence from Satoshi) that Satoshi released Bitcoin in 2008 as a proof of concept, not as a project meant to be adopted by every institution. Bitcoin was created to address the Byzantine Generals problem, and AFAIK it was the first to truly do so. It was not created to be the blueprint to every other blockchain ever.
The whole concept of decentralized trust-less environments requires some way to prevent malicious attackers from taking over the network. Proof of work, while extremely wasteful, does that job.
The main problem is that trust-lessness and decentralization isn't actually necessary, especially for most things that exist in the real world and are at the mercy of the legal systems they operate within (this applies to cryptocurrencies as well - the government doesn't need to break crypto, it can just make interacting/transacting with it illegal).
For a lot of real-world projects, the legal system is an adequate protection. Centralization doesn't require a profit motive - the central party could be set up as a non-profit and then have all the advantages of a centralized system while avoiding a lot of the drawbacks we see in for-profit operations.
> Proof of work, while extremely wasteful, does the job.
True, yet you could even have Proof of Work without cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is used to incentivize PoW which attracts more people to the blockchain and strengthens the network and so on.
However, one could have Proof of Work without cryptocurrency, for example, one could reward the PoW with participation in the blockchain, or in this case, have drivers PoW to be able to take rides.
> Centralization doesn't require a profit motive
Yes, I also agree that centralization doesn't require a profit motive, and a centralized solution is deal for 99% of the cases.
Public Transit > Cars for both individuals and society, if the infrastructure is there. Maybe we could devote more energy and resources on developing and improving that infrastructure before 2035 so that cars, electric or otherwise, are less necessary?
Public transit only works in cities. And only in cities where crime is mostly under control.
Many people don't want to live in cities, especially during times of crisis (when they become increasingly dangerous places), and we're living in a seemingly permanent state of crisis.
There's a big difference between 'accessible by public transport' and 'practical to get to a workplace by public transport'
Most small villages in the UK have some sort of limited bus service, which can be useful for pensioners and other none-working people who need to get to the nearest town/city occasionally, but the services are far too infrequent to be useful if you've got to get somewhere for a specific time on a regular basis.
97% of the population lives in cites. A suburb is still a city, it just isn't very dense. However most suburbs are dense enough to support good public transit as the few cities that have tried it have proved. In Sweden there are farms that get a bus every hour (which isn't good transit, but since the rest of their network is so good people ride it anyway for their rare trips to farms, and farm kids ride it since they don't have a car - the parents of course will drive)
Yes, there are farms in a Sweden that get busses every hour. There are also much more densely places in cities where busses stop going after 6 pm, or you have to book the bus after 6 pm a day in advance.
In general it's not that good. I've lived in Gothenburg for 30 years, the second largest city of Sweden. It takes me 10-15 min to get to work by car (inner city/business district). It would take me 40-60 min by bus. I know a lot of places that are worse.
I found this Freadonomics episode [1] enlightening. A lot of restaurants have tried to have "no tipping" policies, but they usually revert after they lose business due to the higher prices.
Tipping also allows for price discrimination (a good thing in an economic sense). People who are well off tend to pay more, but people who can't pay as much can still be customers.
I find it really annoying too, but there are some reasons to keep it around. 30% is just crazy though.
I mean, I hear what you're saying - but all of those things also seem to be a single discipline.
Otherwise, where do operating systems fall? Are they systems engineering? They don't seem to be entirely about the hardware to me, and they were a core part of my CS program. What about SeL4 - which is a formally verified operating system project?
How about programming languages like C or Rust? Is that computer science, or systems engineering? How about Excel - the world's most popular programming language - that happens to be functional? Are financial planners doing computer science when they program a spreadsheet?
The lines are blurry everywhere. My CS program offered 3 different degrees, like you said - Computer engineering, Computer Science and Software Engineering. The only difference was the CS degree had a lot of electives, and the other two filled those electives in with (different) required subjects.
Maybe CS is just "lets play with some cool things on computers!". And there's a big playpen of things to explore. Thats more or less how it feels to me.
The lines between these majors definitely blur and some of the required courses do overlap; yet, they are still separate majors, the same way that the many specific sub-disciplines of biology are separate majors despite also having blurry overlap.
The DeBlasio administration was the first to add a "night mayor", and they made it easier to open legit venues in the same neighborhoods that used to host the illegal warehouse parties, like that triangle just west of Flushing avenue centered around the Morgan L train stop, where Elsewhere and The Brooklyn Mirage among a few other big, high priced venues are now.
In exchange for making it easier to open more venues and have more legal dance parties, they cracked down on the illegal parties pretty hard. This had the effect of pushing the prices up, changing the scene and crowd, and introducing more regulations. Before, you had to be a little more plugged in to know when and where the parties were because they were "underground" (but only a little). You could also reliably dance until 6 or 7am and buy all the alcohol you wanted whenever.
Now, these parties are way more mainstream so people who are less enthusiastic about dancing show up because it's something accessible to do, and everything must legally shut down at 4.
I remember being excited that things were going legit because I thought it would make the parties that I frequented better, but now with the benefit of hindsight over the past 8 or so years, I think it's had a negative impact on the scene, along with all the other issues related to the ubiquity of cell phones and the changing gen z tastes.
I still long fondly for Bushwick circa 2012, but it might just be more "Back in my day..." nostalgia.