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.

Off-Topic discussion about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.

1262729313249

Comments

  • @Gavinski said:

    @ervin said:

    @Gavinski said:

    where the disenfranchised are desperate to break into the gilded palaces of the lucky ones.

    To bring this back a bit closer to the original topic: THAT (when the first "Eat the rich" posters appear outside their mansions) will be the moment when those swashbuckling bitcoin millionaires will suddenly develop an enormous interest in having a protective state after all :)

    Yes! Much as I share Dendy's enthusiasm for Bitcoin, my politics are probably a lot closer to Richard's. Then again, I didn't grow up in a socialist state like Dendy did. I can understand someone who grew up in 70s Russia, Poland, Slovakia etc not being very enamored of socialism

    Perhaps you didn't but I did. In fact, that is precisely the reason that I'm a bit puzzled at some of his positions. I mean he has personal experience of wildly different systems, which is more than most westerners can claim. Sometimes I feel he could be a bit more nuanced using that experience... :)

    It is eminently possible to dismiss Western armchair communists who obviously never spent a moment under a socialist/communist regime - and at the same time still see how libertarians and their ilk are just doing similarly bad political astrology. (By the way that's another group who suddenly fell very silent when covid struck and the hated state had to bail them out and/or save their asses, but I digress.)

    Long story short, a Soviet-influenced Eastern European childhood certainly influences but doesn't entirely define your later political stance. IMHO.

  • @richardyot said:
    To be fair people have been saying for over 200 years that machines are going to replace people in the workforce, but that's not how it pans out. What happens is that as new technologies emerge we find new jobs to go with them.

    One hundred years ago there were no computer programmers or air traffic controllers - as technology displaces people from some jobs it simultaneously creates new ones.

    Personally I don't think there will ever be a world where there is no work for humans to do. We will always find new ways of working.

    I actually agree with you Richard - which is why I pointed out it was a thought experiment, with no regard to how likely the scenario was.

    I think it's still a valid question - how do you deal politically with a large number of people who feel they are losing out and their only remaining weapon is their vote. The rather wild experiments conducted in this area in the UK and USA over the last 5 years are not exactly promising.

  • edited May 2021

    @ervin said:

    @Gavinski said:

    @ervin said:

    @Gavinski said:

    where the disenfranchised are desperate to break into the gilded palaces of the lucky ones.

    To bring this back a bit closer to the original topic: THAT (when the first "Eat the rich" posters appear outside their mansions) will be the moment when those swashbuckling bitcoin millionaires will suddenly develop an enormous interest in having a protective state after all :)

    Yes! Much as I share Dendy's enthusiasm for Bitcoin, my politics are probably a lot closer to Richard's. Then again, I didn't grow up in a socialist state like Dendy did. I can understand someone who grew up in 70s Russia, Poland, Slovakia etc not being very enamored of socialism

    Perhaps you didn't but I did. In fact, that is precisely the reason that I'm a bit puzzled at some of his positions. I mean he has personal experience of wildly different systems, which is more than most westerners can claim. Sometimes I feel he could be a bit more nuanced using that experience... :)

    It is eminently possible to dismiss Western armchair communists who obviously never spent a moment under a socialist/communist regime - and at the same time still see how libertarians and their ilk are just doing similarly bad political astrology. (By the way that's another group who suddenly fell very silent when covid struck and the hated state had to bail them out and/or save their asses, but I digress.)

    Long story short, a Soviet-influenced Eastern European childhood certainly influences but doesn't entirely define your later political stance. IMHO.

    Oh, boy. Well, here we go. I’ll only address so-called “controversial” topics like this when someone else broaches the subject first, as you have regarding Libertarians.

    Libertarians have no issue with voluntary cooperation and private agreements in general. However, as is the case with nearly all systems of belief or personal philosophy, there are disagreements and differences of opinion. There are “Left Libertarians”, those who lean more anarchist and there are also more right leaning Libertarians.

    One might imagine a philosophy born out of ideas supporting individual liberty would be more aligned with an absolutist position of zero government (which I personally don’t view as realistic or possible), but that’s not the case. For my money, minarchist constitutional government is preferable.

    And for the record, the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine was developed by private companies, not by government. The forces of supply and demand would’ve addressed the demand for a vaccine with or without the involvement of government (possibly even sooner if regulatory hurdles were lower).

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/libertarianism-politics/Historical-origins

  • @richardyot said:
    To be fair people have been saying for over 200 years that machines are going to replace people in the workforce, but that's not how it pans out. What happens is that as new technologies emerge we find new jobs to go with them.

    One hundred years ago there were no computer programmers or air traffic controllers - as technology displaces people from some jobs it simultaneously creates new ones.

    Personally I don't think there will ever be a world where there is no work for humans to do. We will always find new ways of working.

    On this, we agree 100%.

  • edited May 2021

    @richardyot said:

    @NeuM said:
    No system which incorporates socialism is acceptable to a free people.

    What if they vote for it?

    Well, Hitler's NDSAP won regular elections. Just because people vote for something does't mean it is really good for them.

    Most of people are very easily to be manipulated, especially by socialistic-populistic agenda - socialists uaually promise simple solutions for complicated problems.They also often play with worst people emotions like enviousness ("we will tax righ people hard, cause rich people == bad people")

    Once again - i'm talking based on my real world experience in post communistic countries (Slovakia - my country, also Czechia, Poland, Hungary and others. Smame pattern everywhere, but i see same pattern also in other west europe countries with socialists in government)

  • @dendy said:

    @richardyot said:

    @NeuM said:
    No system which incorporates socialism is acceptable to a free people.

    What if they vote for it?

    Well, Hitler's NDSAP won regular elections. Just because people vote for something does't mean it is really good for them.

    Most of people are very easily to be manipulated, especially by socialistic-populistic agenda - socialists uaually promise simple solutions for complicated problems.They also often play with worst people emotions like enviousness ("we will tax righ people hard, cause rich people == bad people")

    Once again - i'm talking based on my real world experience in post communistic countries (Slovakia - my country, also Czechia, Poland, Hungary and others. Smame pattern everywhere, but i see same pattern also in other west europe countries with socialists in government)

    Excellent points.

  • edited May 2021

    oh and to avoid misunderstanding, i'm definitely not rich :-))) i pay 2/3 of my monthly income just for mortgage, and we both with my wife need work 8/5 otherwise we would be in troubkes. Somin theory i should like "advantages" of socialism. But i don't. it's shit with fuels bad in people and makes all things just worse.

  • edited May 2021

    @dendy said:
    oh and to avoid misunderstanding, i'm definitely not rich :-))) i pay 2/3 of my monthly income just for mortage, and we both with my wife need work 8/5 otherwise we would be in troubkes. Somin theory i should like "advantages" of socialism. But i don't. it's shit with fuels bad in people and makes all things just worse.

    I’ve heard it said that the reason people won’t accept Socialism in the US is because even poor people want to become rich one day. And if they do, they won’t want Socialists in power to steal from them.

    And here’s an interesting story out of American history about a failed Socialist utopia:
    https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2020/02/the-failed-socialist-state-in-midwestern-america/

  • @dendy said:

    @richardyot said:

    @NeuM said:
    No system which incorporates socialism is acceptable to a free people.

    What if they vote for it?

    Well, Hitler's NDSAP won regular elections. Just because people vote for something does't mean it is really good for them.

    I agree with that. People sometimes vote for the worst things and people for all kinds of reasons. But you don't actually refute or even dispute Richard's point with this argument, do you see that?

    Who decides what is "good for the people" by the way?

  • i see it on really poor people, especially old ones, in my country. For years they don't feel actually any better. Only thing which are socialists doing, instead of supporting middle class plus creating opportunities for low class to become middle class - they are effectively systematically destroying middle class, effectivelly creating even more poor low income people, and then they taxating successful people and big companies to pay this whole circus.

  • @dendy said:
    Only thing which are socialists doing, instead of supporting middle class plus creating opportunities for low class to become middle class - they are effectively systematically destroying middle class, effectivelly creating even more poor low income people...

    What if I told you that Germany's Social Democrats have been in government for 19 of the last 23 years?

  • @ervin said:

    @dendy said:

    @richardyot said:

    @NeuM said:
    No system which incorporates socialism is acceptable to a free people.

    What if they vote for it?

    Well, Hitler's NDSAP won regular elections. Just because people vote for something does't mean it is really good for them.

    I agree with that. People sometimes vote for the worst things and people for all kinds of reasons. But you don't actually refute or even dispute Richard's point with this argument, do you see that?

    Who decides what is "good for the people" by the way?

    Individuals (and their families) should determine for themselves what is good for them.

  • @NeuM
    Individuals (and their families) should determine for themselves what is good for them.

    :+1: :+1: :+1:

  • @NeuM: You are still dodging the question: what is a current or past country whose political/economic system you approve?

    The definition YOU have proposed for socialism pretty much covers every currently functioning democracy of which I am aware.

    So, what are the political/economic systems of which you approve?

  • @ervin said:

    @dendy said:
    Only thing which are socialists doing, instead of supporting middle class plus creating opportunities for low class to become middle class - they are effectively systematically destroying middle class, effectivelly creating even more poor low income people...

    What if I told you that Germany's Social Democrats have been in government for 19 of the last 23 years?

    Germany is still trying to make up to the rest of Europe for that whole Hitler thing.

  • edited May 2021

    @ervin
    What if I told you that Germany's Social Democrats have been in government for 19 of the last 23 years?

    ok, of course if country has extremely powerfull good working economy/market (== private sector), it is lot harder for socialists to destroy such system. They can obviously feed themselves like parasites on private sector for decades 🤣

    Germany is probably extreme case, where opposite side of spectrum is another extreme case - Argentina.

  • @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @dendy said:

    @richardyot said:

    @NeuM said:
    No system which incorporates socialism is acceptable to a free people.

    What if they vote for it?

    Well, Hitler's NDSAP won regular elections. Just because people vote for something does't mean it is really good for them.

    I agree with that. People sometimes vote for the worst things and people for all kinds of reasons. But you don't actually refute or even dispute Richard's point with this argument, do you see that?

    Who decides what is "good for the people" by the way?

    Individuals (and their families) should determine for themselves what is good for them.

    A society cannot function if individuals get to decide which of society's they obey and which they don't. In all of human history, no society has functioned that way and thrived.

  • @espiegel123 said:
    @NeuM: You are still dodging the question: what is a current or past country whose political/economic system you approve?

    The definition YOU have proposed for socialism pretty much covers every currently functioning democracy of which I am aware.

    So, what are the political/economic systems of which you approve?

    Luxembourg is interesting and has many policies which appear quite favorable to liberty minded people, but the US has the greatest potential for change for the better following extremely negative periods of failing economics and abridged individual rights.

  • @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @dendy said:

    @richardyot said:

    @NeuM said:
    No system which incorporates socialism is acceptable to a free people.

    What if they vote for it?

    Well, Hitler's NDSAP won regular elections. Just because people vote for something does't mean it is really good for them.

    I agree with that. People sometimes vote for the worst things and people for all kinds of reasons. But you don't actually refute or even dispute Richard's point with this argument, do you see that?

    Who decides what is "good for the people" by the way?

    Individuals (and their families) should determine for themselves what is good for them.

    A society cannot function if individuals get to decide which of society's they obey and which they don't. In all of human history, no society has functioned that way and thrived.

    The US is a nation of laws based on a Constitution and Bill of Rights, so that much remains a given. No suggestion was made to the contrary. I was referring to individual and family decisions which no government or mob of people should influence.

  • @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @ervin said:

    @dendy said:

    @richardyot said:

    @NeuM said:
    No system which incorporates socialism is acceptable to a free people.

    What if they vote for it?

    Well, Hitler's NDSAP won regular elections. Just because people vote for something does't mean it is really good for them.

    I agree with that. People sometimes vote for the worst things and people for all kinds of reasons. But you don't actually refute or even dispute Richard's point with this argument, do you see that?

    Who decides what is "good for the people" by the way?

    Individuals (and their families) should determine for themselves what is good for them.

    A society cannot function if individuals get to decide which of society's they obey and which they don't. In all of human history, no society has functioned that way and thrived.

    The US is a nation of laws based on a Constitution and Bill of Rights, so that much remains a given. No suggestion was made to the contrary. I was referring to individual and family decisions which no government or mob of people should influence.

    I was responding to your words: "Individuals (and their families) should determine for themselves what is good for them."

  • Your qualifier ". I was referring to individual and family decisions which no government or mob of people should influence."

    The government in a democracy is how society expresses its will and determines the laws. You continue to imply that the individual gets to pick and choose.

  • @ervin said:
    how do you deal politically with a large number of people who feel they are losing out and their only remaining weapon is their vote

    Easy. You go after their right to vote. Problem solved!

    It all ends there.

    Case closed.

    I mean... You could listen to their concerns and address them, and win over confidence and respect (and votes) that way, but it's a lot of work. Who wants to set up grassroots community groups and keep on hitting target after target? And have you met people? They're awful! It's like the campaign trail but boring-er, and whatever you do, you can't please everybody.

    I'd just go with the voter-suppression thing, then let privatised prisons mop up the troublemakers.

    ...

    I am proud of team crypto-thread for not getting nasty on the politics front, but maybe we can steer the ship back on course? After lots of pointless dithering, I think Bitcoin might be making a move downwards.

    It's broken past 35, anyway, which seemed to be a sticky number.

    The index is still a bit doomy, but we've seen worse. I'm actually feeling pretty hopeful for June at this point. Bitcoin seems to feed on doomy sentiment like some kind of pagan god-thing. Not God god, but one of the smaller ones, like Dionysus or Cthulhu or something like that.

    Latest Crypto Fear & Greed Index

  • wimwim
    edited May 2021

    I'm not interested in the debate over where in the spectrum of Libertarian <---> Socialism is best. But one thing I think is worth considering is scale. A country such as Sweden with 11 million people and has a far different management challenge than one such as the US with 332 million people spread over 20x the land area. Different countries have vastly different ideologies as to how to address that. I have my own firmly held political ideologies but don't see how they would be relevant to people in such a wide range of environments.

    It is interesting to me to see how crypto currencies play into this varied landscape. There was a lot of food for thought in the video about people in the US using Bitcoin to more safely send funds back to relatives in El Salvador. Much positive and some not so much in the light of the recent valuation fall. But there is a great example of the need to keep context in mind when thinking about all this stuff.

  • IMO, one of the tricky things in discussing BTC without discussion of political/economic values is that the driving force behind much of the enthusiasm that has driven BTC's value is rejection of existing systems of governance and finance.

    While there are a lot of non-political participants in the BTC world trying to read tea leaves and ride the wave. But much of the enthusiasm seems to be people wanting to remove their money from what they see rightly or wrongly as illegitimate financial systems--and people with money they'd like to remove from the purview of various governing authorities.

  • @espiegel123 said:
    Your qualifier ". I was referring to individual and family decisions which no government or mob of people should influence."

    The government in a democracy is how society expresses its will and determines the laws. You continue to imply that the individual gets to pick and choose.

    It appears you do not understand how constitutionally protected individual rights work in the US. I’m not addressing the failings of other countries. In the US, individuals have protected rights. Not mobs, not groups, not crowds.

  • @colonel_mustard said:

    @ervin said:
    how do you deal politically with a large number of people who feel they are losing out and their only remaining weapon is their vote

    Easy. You go after their right to vote. Problem solved!

    It all ends there.

    Case closed.

    I mean... You could listen to their concerns and address them, and win over confidence and respect (and votes) that way, but it's a lot of work. Who wants to set up grassroots community groups and keep on hitting target after target? And have you met people? They're awful! It's like the campaign trail but boring-er, and whatever you do, you can't please everybody.

    I'd just go with the voter-suppression thing, then let privatised prisons mop up the troublemakers.

    ...

    I am proud of team crypto-thread for not getting nasty on the politics front, but maybe we can steer the ship back on course? After lots of pointless dithering, I think Bitcoin might be making a move downwards.

    It's broken past 35, anyway, which seemed to be a sticky number.

    The index is still a bit doomy, but we've seen worse. I'm actually feeling pretty hopeful for June at this point. Bitcoin seems to feed on doomy sentiment like some kind of pagan god-thing. Not God god, but one of the smaller ones, like Dionysus or Cthulhu or something like that.

    Latest Crypto Fear & Greed Index

    I’d love it if BTC hit $28,000-ish again. I’d load up this time.

  • @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    Your qualifier ". I was referring to individual and family decisions which no government or mob of people should influence."

    The government in a democracy is how society expresses its will and determines the laws. You continue to imply that the individual gets to pick and choose.

    It appears you do not understand how constitutionally protected individual rights work in the US. I’m not addressing the failings of other countries. In the US, individuals have protected rights. Not mobs, not groups, not crowds.

    I said nothing about mobs determining rules. You implied that the individual gets to be the arbiter of whether the government is within bounds or not. Societies don't work that way. The individual isn't the final arbiter.

    I have no idea what you mean that groups don't have rights...or what that has to do with what you are saying. Can you explain?

    NeuM wrote: " It appears you do not understand how constitutionally protected individual rights work in the US."

    I disagree.

  • @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    Your qualifier ". I was referring to individual and family decisions which no government or mob of people should influence."

    The government in a democracy is how society expresses its will and determines the laws. You continue to imply that the individual gets to pick and choose.

    It appears you do not understand how constitutionally protected individual rights work in the US. I’m not addressing the failings of other countries. In the US, individuals have protected rights. Not mobs, not groups, not crowds.

    I said nothing about mobs determining rules. You implied that the individual gets to be the arbiter of whether the government is within bounds or not. Societies don't work that way. The individual isn't the final arbiter.

    I have no idea what you mean that groups don't have rights...or what that has to do with what you are saying. Can you explain?

    NeuM wrote: " It appears you do not understand how constitutionally protected individual rights work in the US."

    I disagree.

    You can disagree all you want, but it appears you do not understand. Individual rights are foundational in the US.

    https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/bill-of-rights

  • What if I told you that Germany's Social Democrats have been in government for 19 of the last 23 years?

    Germany is still trying to make up to the rest of Europe for that whole Hitler thing.

    What a fantastically ignorant thing to say. Just amazing. I mean, in terms of obliviousness, it's up there with the "gold" star of Marjorie Taylor Greene that equates Jews marked for extermination with vaccination. Wowee.

  • @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    Your qualifier ". I was referring to individual and family decisions which no government or mob of people should influence."

    The government in a democracy is how society expresses its will and determines the laws. You continue to imply that the individual gets to pick and choose.

    It appears you do not understand how constitutionally protected individual rights work in the US. I’m not addressing the failings of other countries. In the US, individuals have protected rights. Not mobs, not groups, not crowds.

    I said nothing about mobs determining rules. You implied that the individual gets to be the arbiter of whether the government is within bounds or not. Societies don't work that way. The individual isn't the final arbiter.

    I have no idea what you mean that groups don't have rights...or what that has to do with what you are saying. Can you explain?

    NeuM wrote: " It appears you do not understand how constitutionally protected individual rights work in the US."

    I disagree.

    You can disagree all you want, but it appears you do not understand. Individual rights are foundational in the US.

    https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/bill-of-rights

    I haven't said that individual rights aren't foundational. I am saying the individual is not the final arbiter. Society/government/judicial system is the arbiter. A society can't function otherwise. It is the nature of things for there to be tension between society and some individuals. If the tension grows widespread , the result is foundational change. I

    The website you linked to presents a right-wing libertarian (Koch brother funded) interpretation of the constitution. You are entitled to any beliefs you want. That interpretation of the constitution is an interpretation that grows from a particular political belief system. You are certainly entitled to those beliefs. In my opinion, it is not correct to treat your interpretation as the single correct interpretation of the constitution. Or to accuse people of ignorance for not sharing your interpretation.

This discussion has been closed.