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 Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

OT: I live in the US and I voted today!

12426282930

Comments

  • @michael_m said:
    I think a man who predicted that the iPhone would fail and take down Apple isn’t someone to go to for opinions on presidential planning.

    But he’s a good person to go to for opinions on Bill Gates who he’s socialized with many times back in the day and Gates is much more powerful and important than the prez

  • How long does this thread about voting have to go until we start talking about aliens?

  • @Fingolfinzzz said:
    How long does this thread about voting have to go until we start talking about aliens?

    FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

  • Christ, @Fingolfinzzz, who clued you in???

  • Are there no secrets left in the world?!?!?!

  • Fun fact! If you take just enough meth and trance out towards Sirius, the electron cloud that only becomes visible on day three of a no sleeper will beam a message directly into your frontal lobe straight from the all mighty leader that lives directly on both stars at the same time to wish you a happy birthday!

  • It will sure feel like Independence Day, for the world, when they kick the loser out of the Whitehouse.

  • @rms13 said:

    @michael_m said:
    I think a man who predicted that the iPhone would fail and take down Apple isn’t someone to go to for opinions on presidential planning.

    But he’s a good person to go to for opinions on Bill Gates who he’s socialized with many times back in the day and Gates is much more powerful and important than the prez

    See, that’s the problem here.
    Form YOUR OWN opinions.

  • @rms13 said:

    @CracklePot said:

    @rms13 said:

    @CracklePot said:

    @rms13 said:

    @CracklePot said:

    @rms13 said:

    @CracklePot said:

    @michael_m said:
    Let’s at least try to start on the right foot. Things might go wrong, but i wouldn’t underestimate Biden’s years in Congress and the relationships he’s built over the years.

    As for a Harris presidency, I do wonder what the real reason for Trump supporters thinking it is so dangerous - she’s certainly not on the “radical left” as Trump so often states.

    Just look at her.
    You know why they are scared of her.

    You are right about Biden having lots of old GOP buddies.
    Some have already congratulated him.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if he puts some in his Cabinet.
    That would suck tremendously.

    He said he would have Republicans on his staff if he won during his campaign. Cabinet members have no power just as the President doesn’t really have power. It’s all a dog and pony show so it doesn’t really matter.

    If that is true, you should tell the Trump supporters that before they start their civil war.

    I’m pretty sure the people on both sides of the civil war don’t care about anyone that is in office elected, appointed or otherwise. The people that want civil war want to tear down the entire system and start from scratch.

    Pretty sure?
    Based on what?
    Trump supporters are all about if he wins or not.
    The other side of the war is about systemic racism, so they might not necessarily care about Biden, but they sure as hell do not want Trump.

    99% of the global population will happily go along with whatever their “leaders” tell them. The other 1% will probably lead to increased terrorist attacks but there aren’t enough people that are passionate enough about anything to lead to a real civil war. In reality the most likely outcome is a globalist one world government and that’s where we are headed. Build back better!

    You need to update your stats.
    The result of this election shows it to be nearly 50/50 with each half viewing different people as leaders.

    And if you think so many will happily go along with whatever their leader tells them, then what do you think will happen when that leader calls for civil war?
    He is not calling for that outright, yet, but by refusing to concede and persisting with the claims of election fraud, it is strongly implied.

    He may claim he is trying to use the courts, not violence, but he should strongly voice that to his seething mob if he truly does not want violence.

    But, who are we trying to kid. Trump would love to see blood on American streets shed in his name, as long as he is safely locked away in the White House bunker.

    Do you seriously think that if Trump called for Civil War anyone would show up? Maybe you’d get a couple hundred loose cannons but most people don’t care about anything enough to go get slaughtered by the strongest military in the world.

    Well, they are very cult-like in their undying loyalty to Trump.
    I see a lot of his supporters hanging out in armed mobs.
    At the same time I see demonstrations everywhere, and often escalating to riots.
    I also see Trump supporters pointing the blame for the riots at the demonstrators and insist that they are all really terrorists.

    And finally, this IS 2020.
    So I don’t know if I would say I seriously think a civil war is going to happen, but at this point I definitely wouldn’t be surprised if one starts.
    I wouldn’t even be surprised if Trump tried to launch nukes on his way out the door.

  • @CracklePot said:

    @rms13 said:

    @CracklePot said:

    @rms13 said:

    @CracklePot said:

    @rms13 said:

    @CracklePot said:

    @rms13 said:

    @CracklePot said:

    @michael_m said:
    Let’s at least try to start on the right foot. Things might go wrong, but i wouldn’t underestimate Biden’s years in Congress and the relationships he’s built over the years.

    As for a Harris presidency, I do wonder what the real reason for Trump supporters thinking it is so dangerous - she’s certainly not on the “radical left” as Trump so often states.

    Just look at her.
    You know why they are scared of her.

    You are right about Biden having lots of old GOP buddies.
    Some have already congratulated him.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if he puts some in his Cabinet.
    That would suck tremendously.

    He said he would have Republicans on his staff if he won during his campaign. Cabinet members have no power just as the President doesn’t really have power. It’s all a dog and pony show so it doesn’t really matter.

    If that is true, you should tell the Trump supporters that before they start their civil war.

    I’m pretty sure the people on both sides of the civil war don’t care about anyone that is in office elected, appointed or otherwise. The people that want civil war want to tear down the entire system and start from scratch.

    Pretty sure?
    Based on what?
    Trump supporters are all about if he wins or not.
    The other side of the war is about systemic racism, so they might not necessarily care about Biden, but they sure as hell do not want Trump.

    99% of the global population will happily go along with whatever their “leaders” tell them. The other 1% will probably lead to increased terrorist attacks but there aren’t enough people that are passionate enough about anything to lead to a real civil war. In reality the most likely outcome is a globalist one world government and that’s where we are headed. Build back better!

    You need to update your stats.
    The result of this election shows it to be nearly 50/50 with each half viewing different people as leaders.

    And if you think so many will happily go along with whatever their leader tells them, then what do you think will happen when that leader calls for civil war?
    He is not calling for that outright, yet, but by refusing to concede and persisting with the claims of election fraud, it is strongly implied.

    He may claim he is trying to use the courts, not violence, but he should strongly voice that to his seething mob if he truly does not want violence.

    But, who are we trying to kid. Trump would love to see blood on American streets shed in his name, as long as he is safely locked away in the White House bunker.

    Do you seriously think that if Trump called for Civil War anyone would show up? Maybe you’d get a couple hundred loose cannons but most people don’t care about anything enough to go get slaughtered by the strongest military in the world.

    Well, they are very cult-like in their undying loyalty to Trump.
    I see a lot of his supporters hanging out in armed mobs.
    At the same time I see demonstrations everywhere, and often escalating to riots.
    I also see Trump supporters pointing the blame for the riots at the demonstrators and insist that they are all really terrorists.

    And finally, this IS 2020.
    So I don’t know if I would say I seriously think a civil war is going to happen, but at this point I definitely wouldn’t be surprised if one starts.
    I wouldn’t even be surprised if Trump tried to launch nukes on his way out the door.

    The danger is from a lone nutcase, brooding, plotting, listening to too much Fox News and getting high on the QAnon crapulous ‘facts’.

  • @yowza said:

    I also remember, because apparently it’s my curse to remember stuff like this, various democrats making semi serious attempts to get electoral voters to switch to Hillary. The Trump freak out is way worse, but the Democratic response in 2016 wasn’t very dignified either.

    Hmm well the bipartisan (means both political parties) Senate report did confirm that Russiagate happened so...

    The Senate report stated that it happened, but didn't provide any evidence in the non-redacted stuff (and I believe only the intelligence committee saw the redacted stuff - so Senators were voting on the same thing that we saw). So whether you think it was a thing depends upon whether you believe the word of bunch of anonymous spies.

    Aaron Mate wrote some pretty good critiques of the Russiagate report pointing out the various issues with it in the Nation.

    Funny I can't any recent articles on Buzzfeed or Medusa having to do with Russiagate...

    If you're going to assert something provide sources. My mind is open to change but I haven't seen any proof to change it.

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/new-mueller-investigated-julian-assange-wikileaks-and-roger

    Buzzfeed did a FOI request for some of the redacted stuff in the senate report and then published what they received.

    https://meduza.io/en/feature/2020/11/03/raw-intelligence

    The Meduza story is pretty entertaining. It demolishes the Steele dossier. Meduza is a Russian news site that was setup in Riga (Latvia) so that it could publish without fear of Kremlin interference.

  • No matter what happens, Vlad is apparently pretty pissed he is losing his favorite puppet. Unlike the vast majority of foreign leaders, Putin refuses to congratulate Biden:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/what-does-bidens-victory-mean-for-us-russia-relations.html

  • News gets better looks like a vaccine with 90% efficacy works!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54873105

  • @SNystrom said:
    No matter what happens, Vlad is apparently pretty pissed he is losing his favorite puppet. Unlike the vast majority of foreign leaders, Putin refuses to congratulate Biden:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/what-does-bidens-victory-mean-for-us-russia-relations.html

    Russia, China and Saudi Arabia have refused to congratulate him until the results are official. The media can’t call an election. States cast electoral votes on December 14 and legally the states can ignore election results cast a different vote since public elections are really a public show to make us all feel like we have a say in how we’re ruled which is an illusion.

  • Faithless electors rarely get their wish though, and are usually replaced, so it’s highly unlikely that faithless electors are going to change the outcome of this election.

  • @SNystrom said:
    No matter what happens, Vlad is apparently pretty pissed he is losing his favorite puppet. Unlike the vast majority of foreign leaders, Putin refuses to congratulate Biden:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/what-does-bidens-victory-mean-for-us-russia-relations.html

    Russia in common with quite a few countries (e.g. Poland, Mexico) is waiting until all the legal stuff has gone through.

    The idea that Trump is Putin's puppet is kind of laughable if you look at the stuff that the US has done with regards to Russia in the past four years. The nuclear deal, continued occupation of Syria, supplying arms to Ukraine, financial sanctions on various Russian politicians/oligarchs, the attempts to block the gas pipeline. I could go on.

    I don't like Putin and I certainly don't like Trump, but the liberal obsession with Putin has been in its way as deranged as stuff like Pizzagate/QAnon. And it seems to have succeeded in triggering a new nuclear arms race (something Trump pushed for) which is absolutely terrifying.

  • If you can work out how to get access to this story from the WSJ, it's very good on why the Dems lost in a latino border community:
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-democrats-lost-so-many-south-texas-latinosthe-economy-11604871650

    Some Interesting Points:

    • Lot of latinos did well under Trump (incomes had gone up because of a decent economy, lot of people got good border security jobs, fears about oil).
    • Trump/Republican messaging about taxes got through to them, while zero Democratic messaging seems to have penetrated (probably because there wasn't much).
    • Social Conservatism

    Also a key theme of the article, that's never really articulated, is that these voters didn't pay a lot of attention to the media and so voters paid attention to people they knew in the community (friends/family). Things might have been different in Democrats had done door to door canvassing. Or if Democrats had a message on the economy I guess.

    One of the things that I think the media/well educated liberals don't really understand is that most voters pay zero attention to MSNBC, newspapers of any of the rest of it. So while it's obvious to them that Trump is a piece of ****, that's not necessarily how those who don't follow politics see him.

  • @rms13 said:

    @SNystrom said:
    No matter what happens, Vlad is apparently pretty pissed he is losing his favorite puppet. Unlike the vast majority of foreign leaders, Putin refuses to congratulate Biden:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/what-does-bidens-victory-mean-for-us-russia-relations.html

    Russia, China and Saudi Arabia have refused to congratulate him until the results are official. The media can’t call an election. States cast electoral votes on December 14 and legally the states can ignore election results cast a different vote since public elections are really a public show to make us all feel like we have a say in how we’re ruled which is an illusion.

    Your words seem to be repeating words you have heard from Trump's spokespeople. While it is unquestionably true that the media projections don't constitute the official adjudication of the ejection, it has during our lifetimes been the case that the person that has seemed certain to win after votes have been counted to the point that evidence is strong as to who won is treated as president-elect INCLUDING by the government. Generally within 24 hours of final projections pointing to a winner, the GSA has made transition office space and funds available to the President-elect.

    Concessions are generally handled in that timeframe barring exceptional circumstances. There is no evidence that this year is an exceptional circumstance.

    The EC vote was close-ish but even Former Predident George W. Bush (republican) has congratulated Biden and acknowledged that he won)

    P.S. Barring the electoral college (which was a hack to get the rich slave-owning states to sign into the constitution) we would have known Wednesday morning that Trump had lost by millions of votes.

  • @rms13 said:

    @SNystrom said:
    No matter what happens, Vlad is apparently pretty pissed he is losing his favorite puppet. Unlike the vast majority of foreign leaders, Putin refuses to congratulate Biden:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/what-does-bidens-victory-mean-for-us-russia-relations.html

    Russia, China and Saudi Arabia have refused to congratulate him until the results are official.

    Ignoring the Saudis, I think this is simply countries making the diplomatic decision not to get involved in something contentious. Clearly whether they congratulate him or not has not bearing on who the winner is.

    The media can’t call an election.

    Officially no. But for at least a hundred years the convention has been when the election has clearly been one by one side, the media announce the winner. It happened in 2016 and I didn't see any of the people complaining today complain then (though TBF some Democrats did).

    States cast electoral votes on December 14 and legally the states can ignore election results cast a different vote since public elections are really a public show to make us all feel like we have a say in how we’re ruled which is an illusion.

    While this is technically true, it is a thing that is extremely unlikely to happen.

  • @cian said:
    If you can work out how to get access to this story from the WSJ, it's very good on why the Dems lost in a latino border community:
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-democrats-lost-so-many-south-texas-latinosthe-economy-11604871650

    Some Interesting Points:

    • Lot of latinos did well under Trump (incomes had gone up because of a decent economy, lot of people got good border security jobs, fears about oil).
    • Trump/Republican messaging about taxes got through to them, while zero Democratic messaging seems to have penetrated (probably because there wasn't much).
    • Social Conservatism

    Also a key theme of the article, that's never really articulated, is that these voters didn't pay a lot of attention to the media and so voters paid attention to people they knew in the community (friends/family). Things might have been different in Democrats had done door to door canvassing. Or if Democrats had a message on the economy I guess.

    One of the things that I think the media/well educated liberals don't really understand is that most voters pay zero attention to MSNBC, newspapers of any of the rest of it. So while it's obvious to them that Trump is a piece of ****, that's not necessarily how those who don't follow politics see him.

    If you're wondering why The Wall Street Journal is the only publication reporting on story about how South Texas Latinos are huge Trump supporters, all you have to do is consider the source. The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

    For those who are unaware, Rupert Murdoch also owns Fox News, and is one of Trump biggest supporters — politically, editorially, and financially.

    Consider the source.

    Follow the money.

  • “To be sure there has been real menace and genuine corruption, but it has all generally been executed by flunkies who are less likely to set the Reichstag on fire than they are to end up at the Four Seasons Landscaping Company.” ⁦

  • @SNystrom said:

    If you're wondering why The Wall Street Journal is the only publication reporting on story about how South Texas Latinos are huge Trump supporters, all you have to do is consider the source. The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

    The WSJ has some of the best journalists in the US (the opinion page is insane, but the news sections are good) and this story if you bothered to read it is excellent. Their journalists went to a place where there was a huge swing from the Democrats to the Republicans to find out why. As the story makes quite clear - the local Republicans were as surprised (and unprepared) as anyone else.

    The paper was better before Trump bought it, but it's still better than the NYT/WP (the best English language newspaper is the Financial Times).

    For those who are unaware, Rupert Murdoch also owns Fox News, and is one of Trump biggest supporters — politically, editorially, and financially.

    Murdoch despises Trump FWIW. Fox supported him when it was obvious he was going to win, but they extremely hostile prior to that. Fox is odd in that there's often a tension between making money and the politics of its owner - who is right wing, but often has different priorities.

    Also the best and most accurate TV pollsters work at Fox. I quite enjoy watching their pollster (a Democrat if it matters) patiently explain things to their nutty presenters. Not sure quite why they're at Fox, but it is what it is I guess.

    Not everything is quite so black and white.

  • Best I came across is "between a cock and a charred place".

  • @cian said:

    The paper was better before Trump bought it, but...

    Trump bought the WSJ? Hmmm. Also “ better than the NYT/WP (the best English language newspaper is the Financial Times)”?

    Proof of any of that? In your obviously not so humble opinion? (which you are obviously entitled to have)

    Not everything is quite so black and white

    Based on your own NSHO? It appears you’ve already got everything figured out. Must be incredible to be omniscient and all knowing and superior to the rest of us mere mortals

  • Well newspapers (and other news media) have always been a very subjective thing. Some are more obviously rife with poor quality journalism, but with those of better quality it’s often whatever your personal taste is.

  • The depth of reporting and breadth of coverage that you get in the business press just tends to be greater than you get in NYT/WP type newspapers. They tend to be less regional in scope (e.g. the WP/NYT have a lot more coverage of the east coast, and are fairly light on coverage of the south/Mid-west). On international news the business press just have more journalists. If you want to know what's going on in Kenya, say, then the FT will have far richer coverage. The only western newspaper to cover Russia well over the past 20 years has been the FT - partly I suspect because they were willing to leave Moscow/St Petersburg.

    Also the FT and WSJ (traditionally more than it does now) have always invested more heavily in investigative journalism, and on anything involving business/economics there's really no competition. They're not great on war coverage though if that's your thing.

  • edited November 2020

    @yowza said:

    Not everything is quite so black and white

    Based on your own NSHO? It appears you’ve already got everything figured out. Must be incredible to be omniscient and all knowing and superior to the rest of us mere mortals

    I don't think I have everything figured out. I was merely pointing out that just because Murdoch owns something doesn't mean everything it does is terrible. The WSJ was a great newspaper that has become less great under his ownership. Fox actually has one part of it's operation that's very good.

  • edited November 2020

    ddd

This discussion has been closed.