There are still some underground parties, but most of the ones I've been to in modern times have been a bit "off". In some cases the promoters are attempting to recreate a 90s/early'00s vibe, but they aren't old enough to have actually experienced one, so they're just basing it off the ridiculous exaggerated thing they saw in some movie. They'll overspend on decorations but underspend on DJs. And they'll do things like wait to send out the address of the "super secret underground venue" until the day of the event, but then it turns out to be some totally normal event space that anyone can rent.

Probably there are still some actual unlicensed/renegade parties somewhere here but I haven't found them. The only ones I have come across have been a bit of a different scene, more like experimental electronic that doesn't lend itself to dancing, no real overlap with the genres that were played at raves.

edit to add: no idea why you're getting downvoted above. fwiw your comment about PLUR totally aligns with what I've heard from others in Europe.

By the late 90s it was more of an implicit ethos -- you'd read about it and see it on flyers, but running around and saying it too often would indeed be considered inauthentic and rather cringe. Although, a bigger one around that time was use of the word "rave"; it was always "party" instead, to the extent that using the r-word in person was a huge faux pas which basically indicated you were either a poser or undercover law enforcement. And a "party" was always distinct from a weekly or monthly event at a club, and definitely not the same thing as a festival.

That's all quite a bit different in today's scene though, which has been thoroughly commercialized and mainstreamed for the past 15 years, ever since SFX started pouring major dollars into "EDM" events.

Do you really think this singular author is writing multiple excessively-long blog posts about AI per day? There are ~650 of these posts over the past 18 months. And over on LinkedIn, the author describes himself as a "Specialist in Digital Marketing, Videography / Video Editing, Search Engine Optimization, Social Media, and B2B Sales."

YMMV but this post and entire site absolutely screams "slop" to me.

That said, FOSS licenses are non-exclusive. Regarding the original upthread topic of GitHub's copilot training, iirc GitHub's terms and conditions involve granting them a license in order to host your code. Depending what else is in those terms, they may have had the ability to use all hosted code for LLM training through that license, instead of the FOSS licensing on any given Open Source repo. But that would only apply to GitHub/Microsoft, not third party scrapers.

That's good to hear, sincere apologies for assuming otherwise. There are a lot of folks on HN who take a much more extreme view there, and I seem to have incorrectly conflated them in the "open source" vs "Open Source" debate.

> having to explain the difference to folks between what it meant to be "open source" vs "Open Source", and the fact that a lot of folks generally don't understand the difference and some of the nuance

This speaks to the core naming problem though: the original OSI folks should have picked a better term! They thought "Free Software" wasn't a good term in part due to the gratis vs freedom confusion (totally agreed here), and yet they picked another equally-confusing term to use instead, that had a pre-existing generic meaning which wasn't related to specific license terms in any way.

I also get the sense that the author has an inherently negative view of non-OSI-approved "source available" licenses -- and in particular the Business Source License, which he uses as a counterexample twice.

Yet, OSI cofounder Bruce Perens helped improve that license and specifically said "I feel it’s worthy of my endorsement. The new BSL will be a good way for developers to get paid while eventually making their works Open Source." [1]

Why do so many vocal people in the Open Source world have a much more extreme worldview than even an OSI cofounder?

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250629110730/https://perens.co...

Not sure if the article was edited later, but there are five sentences after that one, expanding on the author's reasoning for their position.

> Next time, lead with that.

The post is titled "I Will Never Use AI to Code"... whether you agree or disagree with the author's position, he's certainly not burying the lede here.

I also can't help but notice the author isn't telling other people not to use AI, he's merely stating his own preferences and articulating his reasoning in depth. Why attack him for expressing his personal preferences in how he goes about his own work, which presumably does not affect you in any way?

I'm sorry but I really don't see how you're drawing conclusions about this meaning a move off of Ruby and MySQL entirely. That's a huuuge logical leap away from what is written in this post, and you originally stated it in a way that indicated this was a fact.

You said "I can't really remember any significant downtime before the Microsoft acquisition and the data supports my memories", but my memories differ (as do other commenters), and the accuracy of the supporting data seems questionable.

"bottlenecks that appeared faster than expected from moving webhooks to a different backend (out of MySQL)"

"Similarly, we accelerated parts of migrating performance or scale sensitive code out of Ruby monolith into Go" (in a paragraph specifically about "critical services like git and GitHub Actions")

Both of those sound highly targeted to me!

The page also notes it obtains its data from the official status page, but big tech companies have been known to under-report outages. My general sense is they've gotten better about this in recent years; if so, that means historical data will give an erroneously rosy picture of uptime.

The recent blog post you're linking to mentioned moving data only for webhooks off MySQL, not all relational data used by the entire site; and moving "performance or scale sensitive code out of Ruby", again not the entire codebase.

Do you have an official source suggesting these migrations are more comprehensive than that?

That's fair, but personally I can't see any reasonable fault with using "open source" in a way that strictly follows the definition in the OSD, and not this intangible unwritten social norm / movement stuff. If they wanted that to be a core part of it, it should have been in their definition to begin with.

And even religiously following their definition for licensing is a bit ridiculous, because they didn't actually invent the term in the first place. Originally, "open" source code was generically understood to mean "the source code is available" without any implications about licensing, let alone community or social norms. For a lot of irrefutable evidence around this, see https://dieter.plaetinck.be/posts/open-source-undefined-part...

So the OSI folks took this previously-generic term and popularized their definition for it, creating a movement around it. They even attempted to trademark it, and were explicitly rejected due to the term being too descriptive/generic.

Nonetheless, I personally avoid calling software "open source" if it uses a non-OSI-approved "source available" license, but that's purely because the many OSI zealots are very vocal, and they defend the term purely through social pressure.

I'd take this a step further and say the intention of the originators of the movement is somewhat irrelevant, because that movement essentially retconned a bunch of pre-existing licenses and concepts.

Consider the MIT license, which is OSI-approved but substantially predates the "open source movement" (as do many other popular OSI-approved licenses). This license was created not to foster collaboration, but rather simply to avoid legal overhead for software that wasn't expected to have much financial value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License#History

Nowadays, because this license meets the OSD and is OSI-approved, people like GP come across any MIT licensed project and inherently assume the developers are part of the "open source movement" and should follow its social contract. Frankly, that's just BS and we should call it out accordingly: license choice alone does not logically imply anything about following a social movement.

> The people that see open source code and assume that it is being developed collaboratively are not being unreasonable – that’s the purpose of the open source movement. If that’s an inaccurate assumption for your software, then that’s fine – but it’s you that is breaking social norms, not them.

It sounds like you think anyone who selects an OSI-approved license, and makes the code publicly available, is somehow explicitly opting-in to the Open Source movement, and users should "reasonably" expect collaborative development as the default. Is that accurate? Because it seems completely nonsensical to me, especially considering the licenses predate the movement.

When you come across a random project using an OSI-approved license, there's no way to know the developers' motivations for selecting that license, if they haven't explicitly stated it. Your default seems to be an assumption that they're opting in to the "open source movement" and all of the social norms that you wrap up in that, but your assumption can be completely wrong, and that doesn't mean the developers are "breaking social norms" of a movement that they never subscribed to in the first place!

For sure; the 2011 film Midnight in Paris is a great comedic exploration of this feeling as its central theme. (well, if you can set aside any well-justified reservations about writer/director Woody Allen.)

Personally I find the entire tone of the article to be creepy and disturbing.