For those interested, National Geographic has the "Out of Eden Walk" [1], a journey along the path of historical human migration, led by Paul Salopek. He started in Ethiopia in January 2013 – nearly 13 years ago – and just recently made it to Alaska. The planned end of the trip is at the southern tip of South America.
I'm just gonna say that some aspect of the data collection here seems flawed: among the SF clubs listed are DNA Lounge and Public Works – which are great clubs, don't get me wrong – but they are very much on the smaller side. And, Phonobar? That is a bar/restaurant, not a nightclub at all. Meanwhile, The Warfield and 1015 Folsom are left out – how does that make any sense?
RA is primarily used by independent promoters in the States, which tend to be much smaller and have smaller or less frequent events.
Large promoters who regularly throw events or have the budget for larger events would use their own promotion mechanisms and general population ad networks instead of listing on RA.
> Large promoters who regularly throw events or have the budget for larger events would use their own promotion mechanisms
No (at least in the US) - it’s because of exclusive contracts with the ticketing platforms.
Whereas you can list on RA and other platforms too, the biggest clubs and venues get lucrative deals with eg AXS to only list tickets on their platform.
That's ticketing. There's plenty of listings on RA that don't use RA's ticketing service.
Large promoters that use or have exclusivity deals with AXS or Ticketmaster/LiveNation or Dice still advertise/promote on platforms like Facebook/Instagram, EDM Train, Radiate, etc alongside the ticketing platform's promotion platforms.
RA is the biggest site for electronic subculture since forever, and it's an excellent resource to find out the cool stuff that happens in your city. I don't know why you consider it small, maybe it's a US thing? In Europe, RA is the best resource to find about parties and electronic music in general.
It depends on the music and scene that interests you. Most SF nightclubs are event spaces that host independent promoters of recurring events, so the music and attendance can vary. You'll generally get best results if your friends will be there and you want to see the performing artist(s).
It was almost a decade ago I was living in sf but I remember 1015 Folsom’s audio quality was terrible and they had a lot of basic mainstream acts. Maybe it’s improved since then though. Overall SF’s local artists have a cool style and some of the warehouse events can be cool, but the club scene was not my cup of tea.
Eric Weinstein refers to this as an Embedded Growth Obligation (EGO), whereby organizations and economies at large assume perpetual growth, and that things really start to unravel when that growth inevitably slows. It is pretty mindblowing how we have basically accepted growth as the default state, it is not at all a given that things always grow and get better.
> It is pretty mindblowing how we have basically accepted growth as the default state
It is completely to be expected, exactly because it is not new.
It's been scarcely a generation since the peak in net change of the global human population, and will likely be at least another two generations before that population reaches its maximum value. It rose faster than exponentially for a few centuries before that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File:P...). And across that time, for all our modern complaints, quality of life has improved immensely.
Of all the different experiences of various cultures worldwide and across recent history, "growth" has been quite probably the most stable.
Culture matters. People's actions are informed by how they are socialized, not just by what they can observe in the moment.
The reason people don't accept this is that it fundamentally changes society, it is because of what it means, not because it is or isn't possible.
Net-growth society: new wealth is being created, if you can be part of the creation you get wealth
No-growth society: only way to acquire wealth is to take it from someone else
Oh plus because essentially every society that experienced it legislated it's way into a no-growth situation. The problem was not that growth was not possible, it's that people used state power, for a lot of different excuses, to prevent growth (and of course really to secure the position of the richest and most powerful in society)
The excuses range from religion, morality separate from religion, wars, avoiding losing wars (and putting the entire economy in a usually futile attempt to win or avoid losing a war) and of course the whole thing feeding onto itself: laws protecting the rich at the direct expense of the poor (that can happen even if there is economic growth, though of course, the more growth the less likely)
Btw: "futile attempt to win or avoid losing a war" these attempt were futile not because they lead to a win or a loss, but because the imposed cost of a no-growth society far exceeded any gains or even avoided losses ...
> No-growth society: only way to acquire wealth is to take it from someone else
Wealth is created by work. In any society, be it growth or no-growth, you can create and acquire wealth by working. (Not necessarily for a wage. Working for yourself also creates wealth. Every time you make yourself dinner, or patch a torn pant leg, or change your car's oil, you are creating wealth.)
The problem is that non-working parasites (investors, rent-seekers, warlords) can't acquire wealth in a no-growth society without taking it from someone else.[1] (Because in a no-growth society, investing on the net is ~zero-returns, ~zero-value.)
------
[1] They take it from someone else in a growth society, too, but a person who works and loses half their productive surplus to a rent seeker is still getting the benefits of growth. In a no-growth society, the rent-seeker's gain is 100% someone else's net loss.
Why this focus? Rent-seekers aren't anywhere near the biggest group of non-working people. Not in money and certainly not in number. And if you include non-productive then you have to add the whole government too (because the government does work, but not for wealth production, not saying it's not necessary, but in your model, it's not wealth production)
In a no-growth (or even degrowth, which I have recently learned is a thing) society taking what you need from someone else is not the only option: someone can also choose to share it.
A society like that may be quite different in innumerable ways, of course, and the idea of “wealth” in the way we understand it may not make sense.
We will achieve essentially zero-cost infinite exponential scalability! The cloud has no limits! InfiniDum enterprises will operate in billions of markets across time space and dimensions of probability!
Something interesting... the first 10 seconds or so of the "Death Growl" example[1] is basically copied verbatim from "Ov Fire And The Void" by Behemoth.
More specifically, I think the part that seems copied is at 2:13 of the original[2], as it leads into a solo-ish bit which in the AI version sounds similar still, but goes on to do its own thing:
> Additionally, our memorization-effect experiments in Section 11 demonstrate that our design maintains creativity without plagiarizing, even under strong training set conditioning.
That decision was ridiculous. It's pretty obvious that the Robin Thicke song is a $1.50 Great Value version of "Got To Give It Up" because of the aesthetic similarities but they have nothing to do with each other melodically or harmonically... "Blurred Lines" sounds like I V with a walk at the end whereas "Got To Give It Up" is more like a I IV V. The vocal melodies aren't the same nor is the bass. They have different arrangements. The percussion isn't the same.
The only things they have in common are vibes (in the contemporary sense, not vibraphones). Two dudes singing about sex in falsetto at 120bpm over prototypical R&B/funk elements isn't special. If that's the bar for copyright infringement then 99% of the popular music canon is illegally-derivative. Marvin Gaye was a singular talent but that doesn't mean that his heirs should be able to collect money every time somebody plays an electric piano bassline and sings about making whoopie in alto II.
It was ridiculous but I think it’s important to note it was a jury trial:
1) They had a musician come in and deconstruct the songs, and she showed that many of Blurred Lines elements copied the “rhythm” and “feel” of the sheet music, not the master recording.
2) Robin Thicke said in an interview he told Pharrell they should make something with the groove of Got To Give It Up.
As a non-musical person in a jury, those points are convincing enough that there was intent to copy the song even if the final song is clearly different. Though, it should never have been down to a jury and judge to decide.
Even more hilarious, a couple of years ago the Gayes tried to sue Pharrell because of an interview where he mentioned again Got To Give It Up was inspiration for Blurred Lines. Luckily that failed, but they definitely have it in for Pharrell it seems.
That same jury would have a very hard time processing the fact that all music is based upon the music that came before. Before you know it the JS Bach estate (if there is such a thing) ends up owning all of the music made after the 16th century and we should all be very lucky that Hildegard von Bingen was a nun from a very early age.
I had many times on Suno when asking for something, for instance, a metal song with melodious guitar solos, it basically, almost note for note but NOT completely, Megadeth Marty Friedman, especially from around Rust In Peace times. It's good, but why does it pick that to copy specifically?
Does it matter? If the AI "comes up" with "Let it Be" melody on kazoo, it wont match "Let it Be" the Beatles single either, but it will still be plagiarized.
Maybe a skill issue, but I've tried using Gemini 2.5 Pro in Cursor several times, and each time it is an abundance of thinking and very little (often incorrect) actions. Claude Sonnet is cheaper and much more effective for me.
Having a hard time imagining the GHA integration will be much different.
The names of variables impart semantic meaning, which LLMs can pick up on and use as context for determining how variables should behave or be used. Seems obvious to me that `current_temperature` is a superior name to `x` – that is, unless we're doing competitive programming ;)
My first hypothesis was that shorter variable names would use fewer tokens and be better for context utilisation and inference speed. I would expand your competitive programming angle to the obfuscated C challenge ;)
The problem is, unless you're doing green field development, that description of what the existing desired functionality is has to be somewhere, and I suspect a parallel markdown requirements documents and the code with golfed variable names are going to require more context, not less.
IMO cases like this won't matter until the supreme court decides to hear or not hear an appeal for one. There's no way we will allow "fair use" training in certain regions of the US while prohibiting it in others (at least, no way that will last very long).
That, or Anthropic wins their case and we continue with the de facto argument of fair use.
> "...in response to the enclosed letter I received from the Founder and Digital Librarian of the Internet Archive, Mr. Brewster Kahle, I am designating the Internet Archive as a federal depository library in California."
Which seems a lot more agreeable than unilateral designation (which is also how I initially read this).
[1] https://outofedenwalk.nationalgeographic.org/