Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
Whether or not to go ahead with primary elections in the US is up to each State's government not any political party or candidate. I won't attempt to summarize the craziness in Ohio and Florida because I have insufficient desire to further engage on here if I get any of the details wrong. It's interesting though if you care to Suffice to say that it's a State by State determination and in these confusing times the results have been ... confusing.
One would hope that candidates would be smart enough not to weigh in on whether it's safe for people to go out and vote. But to conclude that they're responsible for elections being held or not is inaccurate.
That isn't an accurate representation what the article said. Having a primary does not require in-person voting. States can move to vote-by-mail.
Washing your hands before going to the polls. Staying six feet away from other people. Washing your hands when you return. Exactly the same as when you go to the grocery store.
Secondly, he was clear: follow the recommendations of your locality. Which means that if local authorities say don't go to the polls or the polls are not safe: don't go to the polls.
Look, I personally think that he should have been clearer about that but it is a far cry from how you characterized it.
One more time. The DNC is threatening to take away delegates from any state that delays their primary. They are threatening states that have already announced they will delay their primary.
This is not a state by state thing. This is the DNC making very clear, in an extremely public fashion their preference. If the DNC was trying to get states to do the safe thing, and they were refusing, your point would be valid. But they are in fact not doing this - they are trying to force states to stick to the schedule.
In the middle of a pandemic, encouraging people to go to polling booths is reckless. Anyone who is claiming to be taking this thing seriously, and yet thinks that somehow voting is okay, is maybe not taking this as seriously as they think they are.
But if a state does not have infrastructure in place for this, it takes time to set up. Hence the delay. You cannot make it happen in a week.
If it was possible to avoid the grocery store then you should. It's a necessary risk. Going to a polling station in person is not a necessary risk. Eating is hard to delay. Voting can easily be delayed until a safe mechanism can be implemented. Not sure why this is a hard point to grasp.
They're encouraging people to go and vote in person if they have to. How is that not reckless? Particularly in poorer districts where people have to stand in line for many hours.
Here’s an article that describes bureaucracy along with its pros and cons. While I agree it’s become an essential part of a complex society, it needs to be managed effectively which frequently hasn’t happened.
A significant problem with current economic approaches is that many businesses try to increase their profits by passing on health costs to the public. One of the ways they do this is by trying to avoid cleaning up their messes (a.k.a pollution) by lobbying legislators and threatening to move their business to a location with fewer pollution regulations. Similarly, they’ll try to increase profits by eliminating or reducing their labor costs by moving to a region where labor is cheaper. Many businesses that have stayed have reduced or eliminated health and pension benefits often to remain competitive in a global economy. Over the course of several decades, the US has moved from an industrial to a service economy such that now we see many of the countries which manufacture medications, medical equipment, and PPE have stopped exporting these products so they can use them for the benefit of their own citizens during the Covid-19 pandemic.
I would also add that bureaucracies will frequently add to the burden of complying with regulations due to their rigid and inflexible characteristics so that many concerns businesses have regarding how they’re regulated are valid and can’t simply be dismissed as profiteering.
The legal system has a tremendous amount of bureaucratic overhead which adds additional costs to all of our products and services including healthcare. The differential access to the legal system drives up costs. Large medical organizations can outspend individuals such that they can’t get attorneys to take on their malpractice cases because the cost of bringing the case to court is less than you’d receive in damages even if you prevail. Doctors are afraid of losing their malpractice insurance they need to practice so they perform medically unnecessary tests and procedures to protect themselves from liability.
Another factor which drives unethical practices is being removed from its effects whether you’re the business owner, shareholder, or consumer. Since media outlets are largely funded by advertising, they’re frequently motivated to minimize or not cover stories which raise these sorts of issues. Should they come to light, too often there’s an effort to minimize or shift blame. There’s also a short shelf for stories and they’re presented in very black and white sorts of ways so stories which are more complex and nuanced don’t fit into this formula aren’t covered or are distorted to conform to it. This makes it more difficult for the public to be informed and support rational policies to address them.
Trying to control markets is another strategy businesses try to use to increase their profits. They’ll seek government subsidies (e.g. professional sports teams will move if local communities don’t spend millions of dollars to build stadiums, farmers are paid not to plant crops). They’ll lobby for favorable legislation for themselves and suppress competitors. Aggressive patent strategies to prevent other companies from being able to compete. Extend the life of copyright laws. Drug companies will make minor changes to the formulation of their drugs so they won’t be generic and can continue to charge higher proprietary prices. Conceal known side effects from government regulators so they can continue to sell their products. These same drug companies frequently benefit from publicly funded research.
Companies have developed sophisticated lobbying and tax strategies to avoid paying taxes which isn’t available to most Americans. Many people who run companies are able to avoid the consequences of their actions through corporate bankruptcy which allows them to keep their personal assets.
These sorts of practices have contributed to the high cost of healthcare in the U.S. which in turn compounds the difficulty of slowing viral spread as many individuals do not have healthcare coverage, their out of pocket costs inhibit them from seeking treatment, many individuals do not have significant sick leave or enough savings to be able to stay home from work, and the profit margins for many service based businesses such as restaurants are so small they’ll go under if they have to close for several weeks.
The stock market revolves around people trying to squeeze as much money out of their investment as possible. In an interconnected world, these investments will tank as everything is leveraged to the limit with all of the just in time resupply strategies, you’ve discussed, during a pandemic when cheap global supply chains are cutoff.
Since we are so dependent upon bureaucratic organizations which do have the con of not being able to respond quickly to a changing environment due to their lack of flexibility, they’re a significant factor which contributes to our vulnerability in a pandemic.
Here’s an article that describes bureaucracy along with its pros and cons. While I agree it’s become an essential part of a complex society, it needs to be managed effectively which frequently hasn’t happened.
I mean every society since Babylon has had bureaucracy. And obviously it needs to be managed effectively. Just as hospitals and post offices do. None of these things have anything to do with bureaucracy. Well run bureaucracies can be very responsive to a changing environment, poorly run ones are not. Most of the things you're complaining about are a mixture of corruption, capitalism and the lack of much democratic power in the US. Bureaucracy is as necessary to modern life as electricity. It's been a fact of life since at least Babylon.
The states can hold their votes by mail -- which I said earlier.
Every remaining state could set things up to vote by mail to ensure that the elections happen on time.
Voting by mail does not require people to go to the polls.
Many states have only mail-in voting and in many states where it is not required it is main way that people vote.
The states can safely have the elections: BY MAIL.
Sorry for the repetition, but it seems like that point was lost earlier.
They can do these things. But for states that do not already have the infrastructure in place, it takes time to set this up. Also, you cannot declare that you are moving to this a few days before the election, as you need to give people time to get postal ballots, and to post them. In other states it requires legislators to get involved, as this requires a legal change.
It's not about whether it can be done - it's whether it can be done in time for the scheduled primary. If your primary is in a week - then the answer to that question is no.
But the DNC isn't insisting that they have the primaries on the scheduled date. The DNC is saying: "you've got to get the primaries done by june"
June isn't next week or even next month.
Yeah. The states need to get a move on in figuring out how to do that. They can't put them off indefinitely.
is that what I said lol
(Paul Revere's voice)
the detractors are coming the detractors are coming...
Oh sorry - thought you were saying something else.
I am starting to believe that there has been a gigantic over-reaction to this fuelled by the press and media promoting dramatic headlines along with a fear of litigation should you be the one to say ‘it should be ok’
My understanding now is that for the vast majority this is a relatively mild/moderate virus that is however passed on fairly quickly. It has the potential to cause major discomfort to people who have some other pre existing conditions (that we are all aware of) which in particular may involve respiratory problems and may sadly lead to their death. The amount of fatalities even at this moment is low in comparison to other infections like the flu.
There has now been a needless shut down of society which will result in colossal economic and social devastation. If we had immediately concentrated on and quarantined/protected those who may be described as ‘vulnerable’ and practiced recommended hygiene protocols then the virus would have run its course with a relatively minimal impact- and it would have certainly resulted in less fatalities than the flu. If you are not in one of these vulnerable groups then there is a very small chance of significant negative impact. It would also have avoided the societal and economic breakdown which will be with us for several generations. Instead we have tried for no good reason to almost quarantine the entire population.
What the Dr Wodarg says In the video above makes perfect sense to me and seems like a very plausible explanation.
I also agree with Dr Drew here.
https://youtu.be/39A7Tr-H29
here is the gist of what I am saying... however bad Biden is, is how bad he is... and how bad Trump is is how bad he is, one of them is worse.
I'm not advocating wrong doing by any public servant,
We disagree, your assertion that bureaucracies can be very responsive to a changing environment directly contradicts the article I posted. Can you post an article that supports your point?
I’ve had countless experiences with bureaucracies that do extremely mindless things which make doing simple tasks extraordinarily difficult especially in the healthcare system. While I can’t generalize my own experience to everyone else, I’d bet many other Americans have suffered from bureaucratic systems too.
All the epidemiologists say that the vast majority of the people that get the virus will have a mild case. HOWEVER and this is a HUGE however because no one has immunity to the virus that hasn't been infected, that small percentage of people that will have complications that require hospitalization is a HUGE number of people. Also, while a small percentage will die, that is a small percentage of a HUGE number.
Even if it were "only" as lethal as the flu -- a vastly larger number of people would die -- because vastly more people will get it (we have no vaccine and no resistance from similar viruses). But most epidemiologist think it is even more lethal than the flu.
On top of that, we have a limited number of hospital beds in the U.S. If the epidemic goes on unabated, there won't be enough hospital beds or equipment to handle the serious cases.
There are good resources that walk one through this in detail that you can read if you are interested. I can re-post them if you are curious.
Dr Wodarg in that video gives a false timeline of how things happened and implies that COVID-19 has been around a long time. Virologists are pretty certain that it came into existence this past November. There is a lot of other dubious stuff in the video, too. But given the foundational errors, it hardly seems worthwhile to do a point by point critique. His critique relies on their being a conspiracy of evil scientists that no other scientists in the world are willing to contradict. It also ignores the fact that China did not trumpet news of the virus to the world. The Chinese government tried to muzzle the scientists that first recognized that something unusual was going on.
I don’t think having people engage in social isolation and disinfecting their environment is an over reaction given how infectious the virus is and its effect on the elderly and people with compromised health. If we had a better plan in place for how to deal with this pandemic, it might be a different approach. There was no attempt to put any sort of comprehensive testing in place before the virus arrived. Consequently we don’t know where it is now that it’s here so we’re having to assume it’s everywhere to slow its spread. The plan to prevent its arrival through controlling our borders helped but didn’t stop it from taking root here. Currently the increase in cases is an exponential one here in the U.S. which means it’s far from under control.
Taiwan took Covid-19 seriously from the get go and implemented the plan they’d developed in response to their experiences with SARS. They’ve been minimally impacted. Our situation is much worse because we weren’t as prepared as they were which is why we’re now stuck with our current approach because we let the virus get ahead of us.
The above is a separate issue from the story’s coverage by the media outlets. In my opinion they try to squeeze the emotional juice out of every story and try to add as much drama to how they portray it as possible in order to attract people to it. The bigger the story, the more intense their treatment of it. Do I think this is helpful? No. It is counter productive and makes things worse.
The Dr Drew video is from March the 6th. It hasn't aged well.
What I am saying is that my understanding is that the vast majority of the general population minus those who are vulnerable (because of the respiratory factor etc) would suffer mild/ moderate symptoms of this virus. Is this wrong?
If I understand correctly you are saying that a small percentage of the population (though this would still be a significant number) who are otherwise not in a high risk group will require hospital treatment and may also add to the fatality list. Sorry I have missed this in your previous posting on this. I am just struggling to get my head round it all (like many of us). If you wouldn’t mind reposting that would be great.
All the cases I am aware of up until now who have had significant difficulty have all had other factors/ underlying conditions which has contributed to their difficulty in managing. I would be very keen to see the data on this.
The problem is that infection and death rates increase in an exponential manner, due to the high level of contagion and the long incubation period of the virus. Most Western countries didn't understand the risk until the health system in Northern Italy became completely overwhelmed just over a week ago. This is what will happen everywhere unless steps are taken to mitigate the problem:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca
@InfoCheck said:
The US government is a bureaucracy that has existed for 200+ years. The British government is a bureaucracy that has existed for 3-400+ years. The Chinese have had bureaucracies that lasted for much longer. During those times many things changed, they adapted.
Yes, the US healthcare system has a terrible bureaucracy. Other countries, France is an example (and the NHS when it was funded properly) have had very efficient health bureaucracies. Singapore is a country that has extremely efficient bureaucracy, Russia is an example of the opposite.
I have had experiences with bad technology, therefore by your logic all technology is inherently bad.
The modern US is basically collapsing at an institutional level in both the public and private sectors. Where a lot of American go wrong is in assuming that this is somehow a problem with institutions, rather than their country. You can no more run a country without bureaucracy than you can without technology.
Its not wrong but without plugging in the numbers, you probably aren't realizing that we are talking about a risk of millions of deaths (see the articles I link to below) if the virus were to go unrestrained through the population. For example, let's say the lethality were to be only 1% (that is on the low end of current estimates). That means the overwhelming majority of people don't day. If only 40% of the country gets the virus over the next 18 months that would mean that over a milion people would have died. But most estimates are that (without a vaccine and aggressive social distancing measures) more like 70% of the population will get it. That would be a couple of million dead.
So, yeah, the vast majority of people wouldn't day. But that is a lot of dead people.
HOWEVER, we can avoid that (see articles below)
That is not true. In fact, one of the doctors that first identified the virus, a healthy middle-aged man died. It is true that the lethality increases dramatically as one gets older than 50 -- but from 20 to 50 the lethality is still higher than the flu (keeping in mind that orders of magnitude more people will contract this than get the flue)
Please read these two articles carefully and ask questions about anything that seems sketchy. They are worth reading twice. Once for the overview and a second time to really grok the details and follow the math.
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca
https://medium.com/@ariadnelabs/social-distancing-this-is-not-a-snow-day-ac21d7fa78b4
These visualizations of the various projections are helpful to:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/
Btw, all projections assume that nothing will change dramatically for better or worse. If new treatments come online or hospitals get more capacity, it changes things. As you'll see, how lethal the disease is depends a lot on whether the hospitals are operating over capacity or not.
Those who think the majority won’t get it aren’t doing the extended math as I have read. Out of those who do Get infected 1 in 5 go critical as far as I have read. That will touch each and every one of us.
@Max23, you’re a patient guy. And that goes for a couple of others here as well.
@robosardine - the death rate of this thing is 10x greater than the flu, assuming a country's healthcare system is not overwhelmed. As we've seen in Italy, it does not take much for it to overwhelm a country's healthcare system and cause a much higher death rate (up to around 4%).
While the elderly are more likely to die, plenty of healthy people have got a severe case, and some have died. Even if you're under 40, the death rate is about 0.2% (again far higher than the flu), and the risk of extremely serious illness (with permanent damage to your body) is not insignificant. If you're 40-50 death rate is 0.4%, 50-60 then it's about 0.8%. It would kill a lot of people.
If the governments did nothing, then it overwhelms the hospital system. About half of people (or more) who get a serious case die, and also other people die of other things because the health system is basically non-functioning.
Let's say 60% get it in the UK, and 4% die. You'd be looking at around 1.7 million deaths.
In World War II the UK lost 400,000 people in a population of around 40 million. If you want some perspective on this.
It is all captured in the articles I posted above.
There are a lot of moving parts and interconnections that are hard to simply convey. For instance, whether the hospital system is under or over-capacity has a big impact on lethality.
Another thing not captured at all is that when the hospitals and health care system get overloaded there are additional excess deaths because the health care system is tied up.
In World War I the UK lost around 900,000 people. Which translated to modern population would be 1.4 million people dead.
I find it's sometimes useful to have these comparisons when talking about large numbers.
Technology can have both good and bad consequences and how it’s implemented and what your values are will in many cases determine your evaluation of this.
Bureaucracy is a technology, a tool, and it has characteristics inherent to it— it’s inflexible. You need to be able to have outside control, accountability, and monitoring of a bureaucracy in a changing environment as it can’t be counted upon to self correct. I think many factors in the U.S. have led to poor decisions about how to address negative bureaucratic impacts.
The news is now suggesting we see "Social Distancing 2.0, 3.0, 4.0..." over the next year as the infection rates look like a sine wave (imposed on a damped parabola).
Going forward we need to get better at this type of social order. HeathCare should never have been privatized. It's just not cost effective. You can still sell premium services to those that can afford it.
It's a lot like housing. The lower tiers need to be managed by government.
RANT I'll await the libertarian backlash that invaded conservatism with the ideological view that's immune to science. Very similar to the housing bubble that was founded on "free market" deregulation
of the banking system as a root cause where the massive banks went bankrupt making so much money on the way to business madness.
@robosardine
It's tricky, right?
On TV, people in China are getting sick. They're on the other side of the world. Next meme, please.
Oops, some of them hopped on planes and now it's in more places, and getting closer.
Looking at the numbers, 80%+ of people who get the virus will get sick and then be fine. Not terrible odds, right?
20% get severe cases and will likely require hospitalization with a good chance of ending up in the ICU. Sounds less good.
The mortality rate is highly skewed towards older people. Score one for the younger generations, but who runs the world?
16% of the US population is age 65+. That's about 56 million people (including my parents and aunts and uncles).
Most of the decision makers in the world are in that age group. The 3 US Presidential candidates are all in their 70's.
There is no vaccine, no natural immunity, no defense other than isolation to prevent the spread.
Good luck stopping an invisible, microscopic intruder that can fly.
Governments and companies start to recognize this, shut things down, and people lose their income. Another bad thing.
Now we all have problems, ranging from inconvenience to life-shattering uncertainty. Was it worth it? Hmm.
If too many get sick at once, the hospitals will have people dying in the halls for lack of beds and equipment. Very bad.
People who would normally have to go to the hospital for any other reason will also suffer. Also bad.
The mortality rate would skyrocket if the 20% of the infected that need hospitalization cannot be served.
Remember, these are the early days of the spread...but sadly not early enough for many options.
Look at how fast it is ramping up in the population. (Oh shit.)
This is our reality.
There is no other option now unless you think we should just let our elders be decimated by this illness.
Remember, it's not about how many people get it...it's about how many people get it AT ONCE so that the hospitals can handle the massive volume. Chances are good that they won't regardless and it's going to be very ugly in a month or two.
OK Thank you for the replies. Getting my head round it all as we speak. Dammit I thought I was on to something there 🙄