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
@u0421793 That is exactly what the Spanish supermarket magnet Juan Roche owner of the national supermarket chain Mercadona did. He started a startup company that helps small companies ahem, start up. Not by lending them money but by being a join owner of the companies. His big success is the spanish coders who, coincidently, made Supermarket Tycoon. Lots of successes big and small and the failures they put down to experience but they have done really well. They are called Angeles(Angels)..I know because my brother in law works there. Its good business it seems!
Ah, you know us so well....
I’d buy cat toys for my cat.
Seriously, though, that’s an excellent original post and a very pertinent one.
I find discussions of US politics incredibly ahistorical. The US used to have bi-partisan consensus politics because there was a massive realignment in both parties from the 1930s until about 2010. This realignment was kicked off by the New Deal and accelerated by civil rights legislation during the 1960s. Then Reagan in the 80s, followed by Newt Gingrich in the 90s, Karl Rove in the 2000s and various Koch initiatives managed to turn the Republicans into an ideologically coherent, unified and disciplined force in US politics. In other words they created what anywhere else in the world would be seen as a normal political party, but in the US (which is weird) is something of an aberration.
People forget for some reason that the Republican party used to be the (marginally) more progressive party, and that black people would never vote Democrat. The Republicans were a party dominant in the north, whereas the Democrats were dominant in the South. These days that's reversed, with the Republicans ideological center being the southern and SW states (including weirdly California where they are powerless at a state level), while the Democrats dominate more northern/wealthier states (e.g. california, Washington). Because that transition took 80 years, during that time you had plenty of northern Republicans who were to the left of Southern Democrats, and where saying someone was a Republican, or Democrat, didn't mean a whole lot without knowing where they were from.
Today the Republican party is a coherent ideological and national party, which is unusual for the US. Unlike the Democratic party it has a vision of politics, and a plan for the US, that extends from local mayors, through judge appointees and extends all the way up to the presidency. It has a theory of power, and how to use it. The Democratic party has none of these things. The party at a national level is dominated by consultants and lobbyists, while state partys are broke(n). The party apparatus is more focused on suppressing left wing (or what in a normal country would be center-left) insurgencies, than fighting the Republicans. Unlike the Republicans it has no coherent vision of anything except winning seats with center-right politicians who won't rock the boat. Most of the party strategizing focuses on raising money. In the house access to 'better' committees (typically the ones that get access to better funded donors) is based on how much money you can raise for the party. Pay to play basically. Pelosi also imposes discipline to the degree that she does (don't rock the boat) through her ability to direct money towards favored members of the party. Most members of the house spend their time phoning donors trying to raise money for themselves/for the party, leaving very little time for anything else.
The Democratic party is currently trying to coast on the fact that the Republican party is not very popular (though it's base are highly motivated), and ignoring the fact that increasingly people see them as the lesser evil. Typically you vote for the Republicans, or against the Republicans (by voting for the Democrat). That makes it hard to motivate people to go to the polls, or to campaign for you. The party apparatus is so obsessed on maintaining control it's alienating more and more of it's base. They've spent much of the four years fighting a war of counter-insurgency against the left in the party, and in the process destroying a fair bit of their own power (Perez is destroying the DNC through incompetence). The young, who are pretty left wing by historical standards, despise the party. Hispanics, particularly the younger (and politically very active) members of that community also despise the party. And what we've also seen is that the younger generations of black voters also despise the party, though they currently express that through apathy (older black voters are more likely to vote for the Democrats, but that's also declining). So the unstable coalition of the Professional Managerial Class and minorities is beginning to fall apart. On it's current trajectory it will be a party of college educated professionals and not much else - which would be fine in a Northern Europe political system, but won't work in the US. Either the Democratic party changes significantly (change which the party apparatus is fighting tooth and nail), or it's doomed to irrelivancy (terrifying given that the Republican party is a hard right party, containing far right elements).
Everything that is going on in the Democratic party at the moment is the party elites trying to hold onto their control of the Democratic party. Everything else is secondary. That includes the 2020 presidential election. That's why the party has told all political consultants that if they work for a candidate primarying an incumbent, they will be cut out of all work that the DNC controls - but then has done nothing to stop people primarying AoC and Ilhan Omar. It's why Democratic politicians will help and support Republicans running against left wing Democrats.
Anyways, TLDR conclusion to the above. There's a reason that the Senate took the lead on the current vote, that Pelosi's original bill was so weak and that she pushed a voice vote (so people wouldn't be accountable).
Lobbyists weren't just visiting Republicans last week. Democrats want that sweet lobbyist cash just as much as Republicans do. And Democrats in the senate have really large stock portfolios. They're not stupid, they know what this bailout will do for their bottom line.
It's convenient for Democrats to pretend on a lot of these issues that they were forced to do these things that happened to benefit them (but not their voters). But that doesn't mean the rest of should believe their excuses.
I am sorry if I offended people here. It was my understanding that the thread was for people being able to rant. People seem to want to correct each other and that seems to go against the grain of the original post. Apparently my interpretation of the OP is not shared by others so I’ll retire from the thread.
@cian ... your Republican visionaries in action...
Much of the recent discussion reminds me of why we are in such a mess in the U.S.: focusing blame on a FAR lesser evil for the actions of far greater evil.
Well, fifty pages in we could all shake hands (oops) and retire to the garden for a barley water and a fag.
Lots of interesting stuff here, and a LOT of sweeping generalizations with an obvious axe to grind. ("The unstable coalition of the Professional Managerial Class and minorities is beginning to fall apart" — ? OK, sure.) Also you completely wrote the tea party out of existence, the very movement that gave rise to Trumpism.
One party serves the clearly codified interests of the power, and its singular aim is Power Above All Else. Virtually none of its policies benefit the great unwashed that wear the Maga hats.
But you're absolutely right about Republican Party discipline. And there's a historical precedent from, I believe, Germany, maybe? Early 1930s? It'll come to me....
This^
The outcome of which might vary depending which country you live in. A fag in the UK being a cigarette 😀.... double oops?
Today’s rant: far right targets Fauci, an expert who has served the national interest since Reagan. Get rid of Fauci leaves us with lickspittle Birx.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/24/anthony-fauci-fringe-maga-target-147401
Don't do it. Read. Comment. Vent. The "rules" are suggestions. I'd hate to see us self-censor.
We would miss a POV that makes us see that there are many views on the world and they do drive actions and create influences we would be exposed to without someone to give them voice.
You have every right to be active here. You are civil, data based and articulate. Good qualities to keep at the table. I find the libertarian view to be interesting even though it scares me at times. It rationalizes a lot of things I find unexplainable otherwise and I assume the wrong motives.
I live in Austin and we don't have Barley Water here either
I was talking about the leaders, not random voters/supporters. You don't have to like the politics of the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, or Mitch McConnell, etc - to see that these are not people you should underestimate.
Absolutely true.
But I'm a little mystified by liking the politics of the Kochs (one down, one to go).
How is that an axe to grind? As a description of the two main support bases for the Democratic party (along with financial support from Wall Street and Silicon Valley) it's pretty accurate. The reason I say it's unstable is because the Democratic party has assumed that by being the only party that addresses issues of race/gender (albeit quite poorly), it can get away with ignoring issues of economic precarity. That worked prior to the 2008 crisis, but it hasn't really worked since. Latino support has collapsed due to a combination of Obama ramping up expulsions of immigrants, and the failure to address poverty (which affects them far more). The support of the Black population (particularly the younger black population) was masked by Obama, but 2016 demonstrated that they are increasingly alienated from the Democratic party also. The way this will play out is a collapse in turnout, and at least among Latinos increasing support for insurgent candidates.
The Democratic party can do one of two things - either it starts addressing economic concerns (thus angering the donor class, and closing the politician to lobbyist revolving door), or it can find a new source of votes. Currently they're doing the latter and banking that they can turn wealthier white women, who have been alienated by Trump, into a new source of voters. That might work, but you're going to see black and Latino voter turnout collapse, just as you've seen white working class turnout collapse.
The typical Republican voter is fairly well off. There are certainly areas where one could argue about self-interest (healthcare is the main one - though that also applies to Corporate executives), but in general they probably do fairly well out of Republican policies. I actually know quite a lot of MAGA people locally (professionally, or parents of my kids friends). These are not generally people who are struggling. The only reason that a lot of them are counted as working class, is because in the US working class is defined by whether you went to college. In terms of income, many of these people are comfortably making six figures from whatever small business they run.
There are also the white evangelicals who support Trump - but then he's giving them what they voted for. So...?
Oh for god's sakes. Republican party discipline is no different than to the kind of discipline that you see in plenty of European parties. If anything it's less disciplined - it's just unusual in modern US politics. The US is the outlier here. The Republican party is not the Nazi party. That doesn't make it good, it just means that Nazi analogies are wrong. And in certain ways the Republican party is a lot freer than the Democratic party. They're a lot more tolerant, for example, of insurgent primaries than the Democratic party.
But if you really want to use a historical analogy from that period, the Democratic party are the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD). You'd better hope that the Republicans don't ever elect a competent strong man, because if the Democrats can't even be effective against a clownish figure like Trump, then a competent strongman like Vikor Orban, Putin, Modi, etc - would wipe the floor with them.
How did you read what I said as support of their politics? They're winning. Laughing at them and calling them idiots doesn't change that, even if makes you feel better.
@cian said: “But if you really want to use a historical analogy from that period, the Democratic party are the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD). You'd better hope that the Republicans don't ever elect a competent strong man, because if the Democrats can't even be effective against a clownish figure like Trump, then a competent strongman like Vikor Orban, Putin, Modi, etc - would wipe the floor with them.’
Totally agree with this. When a smarter politician comes along and adopts Trump’s strategies then it’s all over, IMO. Democrats have not evolved to put down even a Trump. The left wing media is flummoxed as to how to cover him. It’s just something new to US. Hopefully more effective counter strategies will develop.
I think you imagine that everyone else in this thread is projecting except for you. I'm not laughing at anyone. I was mystified at the idea that anyone would like the politics of the Kochs or Karl Rove or Mitch McConnell. I never assumed you would.
But beyond that, what is your suggestion, exactly? Should the Democratic Party suppress the votes of those it opposes? Should it engage in the gerrymandering that disenfranchises whole communities? Should it aim to consolidate power at all costs?
And it is hyperbolic to compare the modern Republican Party to the National Socialist German Workers' Party — that's rhetoric for you! But this Republican Party is nothing to admire. History — if I may appeal to your interests — will not judge it kindly.
They probably don't. Those are the fixers and dealers who operate in the margins. The politics of Rahm Emanuel aren't popular either, but he was still a very powerful figure in the Democratic party.
More than 40% of eligible voters in the US don't vote in any election. In non-presidential elections it's far higher. They trend heavily towards poorer and minority voters. So the obvious solution would be to increase the number of participating voters. I would suggest that campaigning on issues that they care about, rather than ones they don't care about would be a start. Maybe stop pushing policies that they hate (NAFTA, school choice, welfare reform, social security reform). Maybe start electing candidates who represent those communities. Obvious things to start fight for, rather than against would be Medicare for All. A very popular policy when explained properly. Most of the Democratic party attacks on it are not legitimate ones, but merely because they are so dependent upon healthcare money and don't want to alienate their funders.
History isn't going to judge the 21st century US well. Yes the far right Republican party will come out of it badly. But noone else is going to be remembered fondly. The US is falling apart. Trump might be accelerating that process, but it would happen without him.
For example, the poor state of US infrastructure and the high cost (compared to any other country) of improving it, says something about the state of the US. It's quite shocking to come from Europe and to see the US. Or there's the low quality of US housing stock compared to Northern Europe, Japan, etc. The pathetic state of US healthcare, where more and more of the rural US doesn't even have a hospital, or the rather lamentable state of US public healthcare in cities compared to any other wealthy country. The vast amounts of debt that are being loaded onto the young in order for them to partake in society (college debt, mortgages, etc).
The effects of global warming are going to tear through the US like a tsunami if things don't change soon. It won't be pretty.
Are you a professional political analyst? This is one of the most interesting analyses I’ve read in a long time, anywhere.
Their goal is to run off those with alternative opinions. When that doesn’t work, they try to shut down the thread. If you leave the echo chamber just gets louder.
Talk about sweeping generalizations with an axe to grind. You, sir, have mastered the art of Projection.
Would love to hear everyone's radically different interpretations of the 'facts'.
Nixon or JFK? After MLK was imprisoned for a driving offense, who saved him from lynching?
I appreciate the Trumpo-Germanic unnecessary capitalization of nouns.
@cian : the whole "party> @robertreynolds said:
Nope not at all. Disagreeing with someone and trying to articulate disagreement isn't trying to run someone off.
It amuses me that people that claim to strongly favor free speech seem to treat good faith disagreement as shutting down free speech.
Have a nice day!
I think that kind of plan is also motivated by a similar "make the world a better place" sense of ethical duty towards one's fellow humanity. The key, is that this type of motivation for creating businesses with personal wealth, helps others by providing them with employment.
How then might we explain the motivations of those individuals who start businesses and end up amassing hundreds of Millions. or even Billions of dollars of "Personal wealth"? I personally don't think some of these people share that same sense of ethical duty towards one's fellow humanity. And if that might be true, then how do we explain why some individuals seem to possess this innate sense of ethical duty, while other's may not?
I think one of the most pertinent examples I can think of, Are the Companies who received bailout money during the 2009 Financial Crisis, and used portions of that bailout money to pay Bonuses to the executives who ran those "bailed out" companies.
How might one imagine what kind of thinking produces actions like that? I'm not looking for words like greed, or selfishness.
I'm more interested in why people develop differing internal senses about what is "right and wrong", "fair and unfair", "ethical and unethical".... And the evolutionary and sociological reasons why such diversity in ethical beliefs has come into existence?
....
From a general ecological perspective (the relation of living organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings). We know that different animals develop differing traits that relegate them into groups, each being best suited to surviving in specific kinds of environments.
Can we apply that same type of ecological perspective to people too?
Are their people who are highly adapted to surviving in a modern world? Where amassing great wealth is nothing more than an evolved survival trait? If that is the case, might such people even have control over this presumed predisposed impulse to desire extraordinary wealth?
And if we imagine that there are evolutionary causes which did cause the development of such traits....
What if we then considered.... A primary anthropological belief: That a key trait that caused humanity to achieve evolutionary success was our ability to change environments to make them more suitable for human survival....
ie.. People use their higher intellectual mental capacity to devise ways to manipulate an environment using tools and structures, adapting an environment to suit them. Whereas animals tend to evolve physically to adapt to an environment.
I think if we take a perspective that includes the above... One might speculate that our modern governmental systems fall into a category of "human environmental manipulation". But in this case the type of environment being manipulated is called an economy, and the tools used to manipulate the "economic environment" are called "politics".
I think this way of thinking rises up an inescapable question...
From a perspective of social-evolutionary logic, shouldn't the people who have the most power to manipulate a political environment, also be inclined to preserve that political environment in a form that favors the survival the traits possessed by the people who have the most power ?
But from the science of ecological, we understand that animals who over-exploit their particular environmental niche, tend to fair poorly over the long term. Which is why natural ecosystems tend to exist in a state of balanced equilibrium... Until some creature like a human comes along to fuck up that balance.
So... Might the events that we are all here venting about be caused by people fucking up their own "human survival ecosystem"?