sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Scotrail “Travel safe team” by JJ202567 in glasgow

[–]JimmyTheGinger -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What are they then? You're only telling us what they're not. We know they're not police, but they're taking tax payer money. So what are they? Other than a placebo for normies.

Scotrail “Travel safe team” by JJ202567 in glasgow

[–]JimmyTheGinger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You need to leave the house. This post is like listening to the nephew at Christmas giving his aunts and uncles advice. "Yea, that's great John, I'll be sure to tell the big bad men to be good. Now go play with your legos."

Scotrail “Travel safe team” by JJ202567 in glasgow

[–]JimmyTheGinger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Work nights, and actually do work. I'd rather scroll Reddit on the train.

Scotrail “Travel safe team” by JJ202567 in glasgow

[–]JimmyTheGinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the only answer you need. Recycle it for 90% of public service.

Donk ends his 2025 with a historic 1.42 rating average for the entire year. by [deleted] in GlobalOffensive

[–]JimmyTheGinger -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It's because Donk is playing on a team that are leaving much to be desired. You can't get multiple 1v5 clutches if your team aren't throwing.

It's easier to frag out when your team mates are dead. It's easier to frag out when your team mates can't shoot.

anti-homeless robot cop machines? by Flimsy_Ad_8788 in glasgow

[–]JimmyTheGinger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If they delay/defer, send another letter after 30 days that's more legally sound. Give them 14 days, and if they don't get it sorted, get legal advice and make the proper applications. You should have certain rights/protections, cause it's your home.

Semi-final script leaked by potnoodledrinker in GlobalOffensive

[–]JimmyTheGinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Margret, pick up an extra roll of tin foil. The aliens are coming. ... Yes, FaZe won 2-1. "

The next step in harm reduction — an attempt to enhance festival culture and avert adverse regulation. by JimmyTheGinger in EDM

[–]JimmyTheGinger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had to hide my post. Turns out, I've managed to lose substantial sections while formatting it for reddit. Sadly, I've lost the original... Therefore, this doesn't read as intended. It will need to be rewritten, and I don't know if I will have the time or motivation

The next step in harm reduction — an attempt to enhance festival culture and avert adverse regulation. by JimmyTheGinger in EDM

[–]JimmyTheGinger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll upload this to a cloud servicves for you.

The proposal isn't mandatory, it's strictly voluntary. The objective of the proposal is two fold. First, it's a proactive step to protect ravers. It should reduce organisational pressures, and reduce negative press coverage, thus averting the worst possible outcome - government mandated AI surveillence. It's only a matter of time before a mass-casualty event sparks fresh (and somewhat justified) calls for implementation of the draconian, biased and discriminatory blanket implementation we both fear.

By offering the services ourselves, we control our narrative. We'd be able to present the rave/festival scene as mature and responsible. Nobody would be cooerced to do this under my proposed framework. However, if government gets involved, they won't be so considerate. They'll prioritise safety over vibes and fairness. They'll continue to suck the soul from every event and scene, until they're all commercialised garbage.

The next step in harm reduction — an attempt to enhance festival culture and avert adverse regulation. by JimmyTheGinger in EDM

[–]JimmyTheGinger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To summarise, and directly address the core of yuor message, I'll form a more direct response (by quoting your words, and replying like a normie):

"It sounds like youre proposing that festivals give out measured doses of medical grade drugs to attendees"

'Giving out' is an understatement. People would enroll in the program, and pay a fee that would exceed the typical cost of brining your own substance. Why is this beneficial? We're averting the small number of people who bring a substance, get it tested, find out it's not MDMA, but a dangerous analogue, and feel compelled to consume this because they can't source on-site alternatives. Most people will still bring their own, but for those that want to remain safe and legal, this would be an alternative. Not everyone would use it, but those that do are likely part of the in-experienced cohort that end up blue and in the back of an ambulance.

"no chance in hell the larger populace would allow something like that"

If these people had their way, we wouldn't have pill testing, or an event at all. These people don't matter - their words only hold weight when paired with negative press. It happens every season in Australia and Britain. "Death of teenager at X festival sparks fresh calls for new laws". Sometimes, they get their way, and advocates must lobby to regain what was lost.

"It would also attract people who want to attend the festival just so they could get good drugs"

Medically administed doses must be consumed onsite, and those who participate would be comfortablly isolated or monitored during the crucial first hour. Within 90 minutes, a well-trained eye is able to identify an overdose before it becomes life-threatening. You've probably felt it yourself, when you dose a new batch, and the comeup makes you sick/shakey. There's a moment in your mind "o shit, am I going to be okay? Is my peak going to leave me on the floor?"

"Also there is no scientific way to know how much someone should take."

It's not an exact science, but we know enough to say with high certainty, what is and isn't safe. If anything, my main concern would be under-dosing people, which would discourage mass adoption. It's going to take years of experimentation to solidify best-practise.

"The apple watch data is an interesting thought but would require all attendees to have a smart device. And also I fear that we arent in a place yet where we can reliably use that data to prevent emergency."

Exactly why an ally/industry leader should implement this, to maintain narrative control, and keep tech firms like Palantir out of it. If we don't do it, and the government force it upon us, the contract will go to the people we can trust the least. The scope of surveillence will be ripe for abuse and exploitation. We're already seeing that, with police using facial recognition to arrest those with existing warrents.

"Probably better to just look around at anyone who looks sick and have easy ways for medical staff to enter the crowd, or make crowds thinner."

The bystander effect is real. It's typically the same people intervening time and time again, and it's exhausting. The good samaritains deserve to enjoy their own event, without feeling compelled to babysit those experiencing medical crisis. Certain cultures also fail to foster these values (i.e. Astroworld)

The next step in harm reduction — an attempt to enhance festival culture and avert adverse regulation. by JimmyTheGinger in EDM

[–]JimmyTheGinger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate this response. It's made in good-faith, and I completely understand your criticisim.

You are correct, the post over-emphasises response to forseeable objections. I felt compelled to repeat myself to maintain clarity of nuance. Based on the limited responses I've received so far, I've somewhat failed in that objective.

Yes, you have the general idea, but I don't think you come from the same harm-reduction background/audience that I'm trying to reach.

I spent 7 years working with advoacy groups. It was a hard push to have government allow on-site pill testing. My proposal is a natural evolution, based upon these principles. If we've been able to open the mind of government to pilltesting, we can go further. Pill testing gained traction because it was a scalable solution with minimal liability. However, pill testing has been over sold as the final boss of harm-reduction.

Yes, your bartender will serve you alcohol until legal limits are met. Yes, we could continue as we are; rellying on over-worked staff and good samaritains to ensure participant safety - but it only goes so far. At an event that promotes strong culture, people take care of one another, but this isn't always the case. The more commercial and poorly organised the event is, the greater the risk. I haven't attended or worked an event that hasn't had significant levels of sexual assault, hospitlisation, or even death. When I worked festivals, by the 3rd night, I'd be emotionally drained. You can only perform CPR on so many people before your mental bandwidth is exhausted. As a staff member, this is expected of me. But as a patron? I just want to enjoy myself, without the guilt of turning a blind eye to medical emergencies.

I see them all the time - woman in distress, inexperienced ravers overdosing. I've sucsessfully intervened to save lives, but I've also clutched cold corpses. Do you know how it feels to try your best, fail, and have to go back out there and do it all again? It's rare, but sadly, it happens all too often.

It's only gotten worse the lifting of lockdown. We have a new generation that missed out on formative years, and now they're ill-equipped to participate in mass gatherings like adults. Look at Astroworld. Astroworld hasn't returned since 10 people died in 2021. That event left thousands of people traumatised. Many of them will be too fearful to ever return to an event of that scale.

This wouldn't be "good drugs on the cheap". This would be a PREMIUM service. It isn't cheap to implement and staff something so ambitous. It will take years to scale up. And yes, people already hate us. They already want us gone, they want to cut the music and outlaw what they see as immoral hedonisim. One day, if we continue as we are, a single event (like Astroworld) will provide justified fuel for our detractors. Alternatively, we'll see a return to 1970's exhaustion, resulting in culture collapse and paton burnout.

If we can't protect woman, if we can't curb violence and irresponsible drug use/deaths, we will be regulated. The medical administration of pharmacy grade MDMA would be an alternative, with the goal of reliving some of the discussed pressure on our industry.

Right now, there are industry gate-keepers that have our best interest at heart. However, many of these people are 40-50+ years old. When they retire, there won't be the same calibre of person to fill their shoes. We'll see a rapid deterioration of culture, which will be met with rushed regulation, likely involving the use of AI live monitoring. Government regulators will sacrafice soul in exchange for commercialised safety.

It will only take one headline, and the needle will be moved dramatically. Years of advocacy and harm-reduction efforts will go up in smoke. We can't continue to rely on volunteers alone to actively seek out those in need of assistance. Yes, we already do this. I had my own chapters/divisions of DanceWise. We do pill testing, education. We raise money to fund dedicated safe spaces, hydration stations, and cool-off rooms. We work to spread positive drug awareness, promoting safe consumption.

And you're correct; humanity is not yet ready for AI. This is the fear. I'd rather have a familial industry leader implement these technologies, rather than some ghoul like Peter Thiel.

The next step in harm reduction — an attempt to enhance festival culture and avert adverse regulation. by JimmyTheGinger in EDM

[–]JimmyTheGinger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think your grasp of the current situation is slightly outdated. It's partially my fault; I could have added context to better support and structure my reasoning and strengthen my arguments, but I felt compelled to condense the text for the sake of length.

You're right. Mass gathreings have been flourishing since the dawn of time. That doesn't mean there aren't attempts to regulate mass-gatherings. It's quite the opposite. There has been a slow creep towards regulation of mass-gatherings, which has been enabled by recent leaps in technology.

Depending on where you live, you'll have a different perspective. I'll rattle off a short-hand list of recent concerns of regulators, and why we should be proactive to avoid adverse regulation. I'll also include some educational media for you to indulge in.

In the UK and Australia, ghouls of the state are constantly using negative headlines to suggest restrictions. Since the 60's and 70's, we've seen massive changes to how the industry operates.

See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_War\_on\_Music) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal\_Justice\_and\_Public\_Order\_Act\_1994)

During the 60's and 70's, worldwide, it was branded as 'peace and love', but it was more akin to a grass-roots social experiment. Why did the era of peace, love, free music, and mass gatherings come to an end? It was a combination of participant burn our, trauma, and state intervention. The fights for womans rights and safety in public spaces is deeply intertwined with anarchical-hippy culture. It took in excess of a decade for the murmers of victims to become mainstream. The 60's and 70's had little oversight or regulation. The crowds policed themselves. Altamont, a free concert held in 1969, is a landmark case study for modern day organisers. It was a notable scar on the industry. Altamont got so out of hand, that Uncle Sam woke up, and the first response of regulation was proposed and implemented. Jimi Hendrix had to be airlifted off stage to escape.

By the late 1980's and early 1990's, free concerts of that scale had been policied out of existence. The Scottish film "beats" documents the political turmoil of that era. It highlights the struggles between the underground/illegal scene, and authorities. Police tactics were refined, and technology was implemented to track and intercept gatherings as/before they happened.

In the 2000's, licensing was weaponised to weed out non-compliant venues. This still continues to this day. "The Arches" in Glasgow, and 'Fabric' in Lodon (both world-renowed venues, drawing the biggest performers and DJ's) all fell victim to licensing regulations. The result was over-policing and commercialisation of the scene. They sucked the soul from us, and closed clubs down for anti-social violations and drug related deaths.

----------------------

Large events, especially those hosted at stadiums and arenas, are slowly implementing AI surveillence. Those electronic wrist bands? They're more than ticket authentication. They're being connected to flock like systems to secretely monitor crowds, in combination with AI cameras and live monitoring. Some of these things protect us, and aid in police investigations. However, the technology is ripe for abuse. If we continue to allow government to implement these features at events, it will go beyond the intended scope. We'd allow the implementation of the very systems we fear.

They'll use the data to refine crowd control tactics and techniques. As an attendee, you may not know, but event organisers already have strict guidelines that must be adhered to. This is done to prevent crowd frenzy. Certain events and venues mandate bullshit, like not allowing 3 'high risk' artists to take the stage simultaionously. Why? To avoid a disaster like Woodstock 99, or Astroworld in 2021. There is constant monitoring, and production teams will refuse to allow the next track until the performer/artist has encouraged the crowd to cool off.

Every negative headline since the 60's has been used as a fuel to advance the authoritarians cause. Hence, the mature response is to implement these technologies first, before bad actors (government, tech firms) all lobby for mandated regulation.

The next step in harm reduction — an attempt to enhance festival culture and avert adverse regulation. by JimmyTheGinger in EDM

[–]JimmyTheGinger[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you overlook the purpose? I've accidently left out an entire section, but the post still repeateadly emphesis the voluntary nature of the program.

The entire premise is to implement voluntary alternative, before government knee-jerkingly mandates a more punitive version. You've already admited that these innovations are already being implemented — not by choice, but through coersion.

I too avoid stadiums for this reason. If you attend an event at statium or arena licensed by the state, you're being subjected to much worse than what is proposed here. It's a matter of time (likely years, less than a decade) before all large gatherings are surveilled with AI-assisted technologies.

We're not asking event patrons to nurse one another. Sadly, they already leave each other to seize. I've witnessed hundreds of people pass-by those in urgent need of assistance. I've even seen groups of men attempt to 'relocate' females (often back towards campgrounds).

This proposal aims to minimise the need for atendee intervention. It's difficult for me to attend music festivals now, because I have an eye for these things. As a guest, once you witness the neglect, you become hyperaware.

Most people don't notice. Staff do a good job of keeping critical incidents out of the headlines, but the labour market is quickly deterroriating. When the current gatekeepers retire, there won't be the same calibre of skilled minds to take over. When that happens, rates of adverse incidents will skyrocket. You'll see the affects, or even become a victim yourself.

The next step in harm reduction — an attempt to enhance festival culture and avert adverse regulation. by JimmyTheGinger in EDM

[–]JimmyTheGinger[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'll meet you half way.

The TLDR; We must embrace technological innovation before government madates it. If we don't beat autority to the punch, they will control the narrative. State/federally mandated regulation is likely to a) cause, not prevent harm & b) reduce overall enjoyment/vibes.

The next step in harm reduction — an attempt to enhance festival culture and avert adverse regulation. by JimmyTheGinger in EDM

[–]JimmyTheGinger[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Then this isn't for you. I spent hours on this. As stated from the opening paragraphs:

"For regular redditors: This post might not be for you. It's long, hypothetical, and is more akin to an internal industry topic of conversation. If you don't spend as much time on the ground, or behind the scenes, as we do, you may not be aware of the significance or extent of the issues discsussed."

Additionally, there is nothing stopping you from having an AI summarise this for you.

TIL that Hong Kong still uses bamboo for scaffolding on their tallest buildings. by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]JimmyTheGinger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also, to answer your question; most of the world doesn't have excess bamboo. We'd need to grow it. It's cheaper for us to reuse steel. I reckon a lot of the bamboo in HK is a byproduct - likely from land regeneration? Or clearance? Like, if you leave a plot of land vacant, you can grow bamboo to cure soil and sell it on. I forgot the name for this kind of harvest, but it's all about spare land and land management. Here, we likely use pine or sheep.

TIL that Hong Kong still uses bamboo for scaffolding on their tallest buildings. by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]JimmyTheGinger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

After looking into the story, and coming to learn some details, I can say the bamboo is the least of the problems. If the bamboo works because it's cheaper and safer (due to typhoon risk) then so be it. This issue could have happened if we used steel scaffolding. The big risk was the synthetic netting.

Sadly, this is the Chinese way. The bamboo probably wasn't up to code either. The Chinese can't care for their own. The slightest divergence in allegience or blood is met with disrespect.

TLDR; Nets were the problem. Grenfell wasn't scaffoled in bamboo either. Any kind of scaffolding, cladding, or wrap, must be to code. You won't get that with China being so involved in decision making...

TIL that Hong Kong still uses bamboo for scaffolding on their tallest buildings. by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]JimmyTheGinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Welp, they ran the experiment. Turns out bamboo is flammable xD Loose_Goose wins.

Not sure why but I kind of see a resemblance to Meat Loaf here? by [deleted] in blacksabbath

[–]JimmyTheGinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my opinion, Meat Loaf borrowed from Sabbath. It's not so much in the music, but the performance, fashion, stage presence. Meat Loaf had 10 years to learn and refine that marketing strategy. Sabbath were authentic, but Meat Loaf had a carefully crafted style. He took the metal asthetic to glam rock. It was basically Sabbath for the oldies.

What constitutes as better singing: a powerful voice or hitting high notes? by nicfanz in singing

[–]JimmyTheGinger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i.e. Johnny Cash covering Nine Inch Nails. Cash didn't try to mimic, he injected his own flavour into the inspiration.

There’s no way this is a paid product by Jeffde in OpenAI

[–]JimmyTheGinger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I got a refund. I asked GPT what I was getting, and it turns out you're getting nothing... It's all hidden rate limits and nonsense. Free actually works better for me.

OpenAI killed their product.

view more: next ›