kodapoda

You could approach visiting Berghain the same way you do with KitKatClub. I don't recommend it, but you could. Treat it as a costume party - match the expectations, dress up appropriately, come with a friendly group.

This is an exaggeration. All communities have something that make them a community, and not just an everchanging group of random people. Is being into techno a random or superficial reason for being a part of the techno community? Is looking and being friendly a superficial reason for being a part of an intentionally accepting community? This is the same argument people use in many other contexts where inclusion is conflated with having no rules and preferences. Should gay sex parties admit large groups of drunk aggressive lads just because gay parties are supposed to be inclusive? This approach ends up compromising the community itself, it really doesn't benefit the cause.

I see your point, but a community venue and constantly wounding up and starting anew also don't mix. It's an unfortunate outcome of the scale and the system we live in. If Berghain was a XII century monastery in an inaccessible place it could have maintained a community venue for centuries. A large club in the techno capital of the world has to resort to a different approach if it wants to maintain at least some level of continuity, status, and quality for its community.

Are you able to read what you type or is it one or the other for you?

> By what argument? Oh right: none floated here.

> There's nothing wrong with turning right on red.

The fact that you are unable top pay attention to your own comments makes total sense. Explains everything you said earlier.

Please be careful when taking right turns on red, with your non-existent attention span you are bound to injure someone.

I don't fully follow the anecdata in this article. They mention that Berghain had to raise its cover charge to "deal with rising costs" (understandable, considering the inflation), not that they have fewer patrons.

I am reminded that we are on a tech forum :) Do they need to capitalize, scale, open franchise clubs all over the world? Techno clubs are not about that at their best.

Door policy is discrimination only in the sense that the very few people at the door have to make a swift judgment on whether your group will fit in. Can this be upsetting? Sure!

> In Germany. Let me guess, they look at your ID to check your name and nationality first.

By this logic liquor stores in the US also discriminate based on person's nationality since they check the ID.

KitKatClub has a strict dress code policy for their sex-oriented events.

I don't mean "exclusive" as in a "VIP club" a-la some Miami venues. Exclusive meaning really hard to get into.

This is conflating two separate concerns: a private company can do whatever it wants with its own user handles. Sell them, seize them, delete them. Impersonation, on the other hand, can be challenged in the court of law.

Twitter will certainly prioritize the sale of short handles, single word handles, common name handles, and not something like @apple (just because of the volume of squatted and unused handles that can be easily monetized). If they seize and sell @apple, and the new account will impersonate the company Apple - that's a totally different legal situation. If the sold account will just post pics of apples, I don't think the crime of impersonation would be relevant.

You can go out to hundreds of bars in Berlin without any door policy whatsoever. Legendary bars, cool bars, gay bars, etc. It's not like the whole of Berlin is segregated.

But this approach just wouldn't benefit some popular dance clubs. Without a solid door policy clubs would be stuffed with people who come there for wrong reasons. To pick up girls, to get drunk, to visit an attraction for the sake of a visit (not because they enjoy techno music), to get into a fight, etc etc. Have you ever been to a poorly managed club? They don't have a community, don't focus on a holistic clubbing experience, have many people with really bad vibes. Would you want to stay there for a night and the next day (night time + day time raves)?

> underground cliques

Let's be honest, techno is not underground in Berlin, these clubs are a massive tourist attraction. Berghain is not a 50 person dive bar in SOMA.

Exactly, I feel like people who complain about this have never experienced anything close to what you describe. Strict door policy benefits the club goers. If you want to go pick up girls with some sweaty dudes looking for a fight - that's fine, there are many clubs like that in any European country, including Germany.

You need to know how to look and set the right expectations if you want to experience the most highly regarded techno club in the world. If you show up there with a group of drunk mates wearing sweatshirts or office attire - don't expect to be admitted. It's not that hard really, exclusive places have special rules.

That maybe true - I don't know much about the legal system. However, my guess is that the implications of being able to lock down vs seize and sell user handles in private companies are more far reaching than some of the recent cases the Supreme Court did agree to consider, e.g. whether "Trump too small" can be trademarked.

I just assume that this would only be resolved at the Supreme Court level. Any local court decision would be challenged by Twitter.

Re: @Microsoft. I am not convinced that’s the case. If I build a public website with user handles it doesn’t automatically give all trademark owners the right to the matching handle.

Sure, not arbitrary placeholders, but they are not owned by users in any legal sense. At least not until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

Berlin clubs are a scene, it's highly recommended to do prep work before going out. Personally, I would love for these clubs to be more accessible, but understand that Berghain has a very specific reputation that it works hard to maintain. It's an exclusive techno club considered by many to be the best in the world.

So glad Musk personally banned the account that was tracking his flights. This country would have transformed into a communist dystopia if it was allowed to operate any longer.

Highly doubt there is any basis for a lawsuit. It's a private company, if they want to take away someone's handle, they are free to do that.

Pay-to-play public square—Musk's ultimate dream.

It's resilient due to the wide prior adoption. For example, I rarely see Threads or Mastodon embeds in new articles, it's still mostly Twitter. Changing that will take years.

This might be true for very few very selective clubs like Berghain, certainly not true for all Berlin clubs. In the case of Berghain, it obviously doesn't suffer from losing customers—your comment confirms this point.

By this argument there is nothing wrong with texting while driving. Or drinking. Why did we make it illegal for all people to drive under influence instead of just punishing those who become inattentive?

You are talking about attention as if we can detect inattentive drivers by measuring their chakra energy from a mile away. No. There are inherently more dangerous situations on the road, right turn on red being one of those. We have the data to prove it, no need to sacrifice pedestrians in order to make the road—eventually—safer. Why do we need traffic lights at all? Let’s just all pay attention and punish drivers who are inattentive.

The suggestion to punish drivers who hit pedestrians is great. Oh wait, we are already doing that.

That's... what this suggested legislation is about. Not banning driving, but making it illegal to turn right on red, presumably punishing drivers who do. Maybe I am misunderstanding your argument.

My frustration about engaging with this argument is in agreement with you—sorry if I wasn't clear. The parent commenter made it seem like FTX only defrauded some abstract rich people, which, according to them, would somehow make it more acceptable.

Even further: debatable unproven good doesn't cancel out the immediate unmistakable bad. Sponsoring a regulation with stolen money is also self-serving (political influence), plus we don't have any data available to say that the regulation resulted in any societal good. We do know, though, that the stolen money negatively affected millions of people.

I have a growing concern that by engaging with this argument we are making it more acceptable. It's not OK to steal from "rich people". It's not OK to blame everything on the 1%. Online platforms are filled with garbage about the 1%, and most posters are Americans, all of whom actually are in this 1% globally.

If you own a car and/or a home - are you rich? Is it acceptable to steal your $1K investment and spend it on pseudo-EA causes? An argument so ethically bankrupt, I can't believe people even type it on a public forum.

> His actions made perfect sense from his utilitarian Effective Altruist worldview. He was stealing from rich people, and giving the money to what he saw as "worthy causes."

Clearly this is a false assumption. He was not stealing from rich people (as if stealing from reach people is a justifiable EA practice), and was not spending the majority of the stolen money on worthy causes (worthy by EA standards). He was buying property for himself and his circle, signing deals with stadiums, covering Alameda Research losses, etc. Even for a deluded man like SBF, don't think it's possible to interpret that as an improvement of the world's conditions.

The only future for that I can think of is state or large institution owned stablecoins. But that is so far removed from absolutely everything crypto and web3 promised, I wouldn't even put that in the same category. No public ledger, not decentralized, not an alternative to banking, etc. I still don't understand the difference between having $10 in PayPal vs having 10$ in PYUSD.

I don't have much insight into MBA programs. But suspect that they give substance to a pre-existing world view, effectively provide tools for justifying (and even reinforcing) bad practices. This is a generalization, of course, but if someone is already a crook, an MBA would only amplify that.

This is a toddler argument. Driving is a time-consuming chore in most cases, so people zone out, get distracted, don't pay attention to things that are harder to notice and are much more vulnerable than the vehicle itself. We depend on driving for better or worse, doesn't mean we can't make roads safer for pedestrians.

When compared to the EU (no right turn on red), US stands out as an extremely unsafe country for pedestrians, with pedestrian deaths actually increasing year-over-year. Sure, it's not all attributed to the right turn on red law, multiple new regulations are needed.

I would argue that HTMLX is far less backend agnostic than something like React. In most cases, a React SPA just consumes an API. You could switch to an entirely different backend with no impact on the users. How easy would it be to migrate all your HTML templates to a different backend?

Are you complaining that they didn't mention someone's death in the first sentence? If you are curious, they do have a link to an article with more stats in the third paragraph (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unsafe-streets-the-dangers-faci...).