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.
Apartheid is Fascism ( or: your crypto won’t save you when the jackboots come-a-marching).
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Individualism and constitutionally protected individual rights (in the form of the Bill of Rights) are what make life and freedom in the US better and they make life better for every person. If those things ever no longer exist in the US, it will be because the lazy, stupid and uninformed let it happen.
How do you feel about "cancel culture" and it's impact on personal freedom?
Seriously? Are you informed about what has recently come out about how people in both parties were connected to the Steele dossier? Are you aware of what both Edward Snowden and Julien Assange leaked to the world? Come on, now.
Ah, yes. Regarding that specific example, I'm against it. More specifically, I'm against harassment, threats and violence stemming from mob actions. On the other hand, I support freedom of association.
Nice attempt to deflect my questions but:
Playing footsies with a hack writer doesn't make someone "corrupt". Politicians and their offices leak to the media all the time to make the other side look bad.
And Mr. Snowden and Mr. Assange are not congressional Republicans or Democrats.
So, again, who were these "entrenched corrupt congressional Republicans and Democrats" you mentioned and what did Trump do to expose them?
Google "trench warfare". Time for a truce.
I’m willing to look past the personal insults of others who do not know me in order to facilitate a discussion. When the discussions stop, that’s when problems start. Ignoring our differences of opinion and resorting to namecalling and worse are the best recipe for real conflict. Words and ideas are there for us to exchange.
Just trying to determine what you “know” NeuM. I will no longer respond to any comments you make or address to me.
Ha! It's not even trench warfare... it's more like banging your head against a brick wall
You ask him a question to advance the discussion in one direction and he doesn't bother to answer your question but comes back with something unrelated.
The problem is he has a search engine on his computer so he's got an infinate amount of stuff to throw at you.
It's like trying to nail jello to a wall
To be honest, it's not that much fun anymore. And I don't think it is helping him or us understand the world any better.
That’s fine. I will always be willing to talk about anything should you change your mind.
Agreed. Here’s the problem…. Relentless, regurgitive, ciphers wear down the average mind. It is the mind numbing exhaustion they inflict with their blank repetitiveness that insidiously causes actual fair minded, reasonable people to opt out.
You are being overly charitable with your last sentence.
Was it irony, sarcasm? We’ll never know!
I think more and more that so called ‘cancel culture’ is something that is being used as a talking point to rile up socially conservative people against the way that more and more people are opening their minds to kinder and more inclusive ways of looking at the world.
It’s also frequently used as the meat in the proverbial ‘dead cat’ phenomena so beloved of the current U.K. government.
Whenever something more important needs discussion, some talk of a statue or some idiot who said something offensive and might lose their job is splashed across press, social media and airwaves and the issues that actually matter are buried among yet more diverting bull…
Wise decision. He is just a Libertarian who is likely masquerading as a MAGA cultist.
A gish galloper who didn’t age out of Ayn Rand’s tin-eared scribblings at the age of 17.
It's chess... each side makes a move and the opponent counters. Ultimately they both seek to take the others King and declare a victory. They certainly won't stop the contest to chat about their strategy and tip the outcome against their own self interest.
I use "They" in the interest of calming the waters.
I do have a side in the battle and that influences my view of the board.
NOTE: It's a lot more interesting to pull a political opponent into some casual discussion about the game itself. It can illuminate what appears to be unfathomable illogic. Plumb the depths I say. You don't have to swallow anything you can catch... just study it in the pursuit of knowledge.
What is the best and perfect answer to a country's border policy and the moral requirements to provide assistance to refugees?
What does it mean to insure rights to our own bodies and its functions?
How far do my rights extend when they impinge on the rights of others?
If a virus only kills 1 in 3,000 should everyone give up their freedom of movement and
social interactions? After all... there are many ways to die and each should accept responsibility for themselves and stop managing others choices. (Not actually my take but
someone will support the idea I'm sure).
Who wants Dr Faucci's job? after all qualifications seem to be irrelevant for any government job... your politics are far more important. Still, he has political power and a bully pulpit. Who wants that role?
Should a University enforce morality when it infringes on political views? like the support of Israel as a fully qualified nation or they specific use of pronouns or the teaching of history and it's impact on groups of people.
Sharing views on controversial issues could lead to small movements of the needle... "Aha!"
moments.
I women in college one told me that if I wasn't in support of her rights then I was part of the problem. I had to let that sink in... really wrestle with the concept of complicity in a great injustice that pre-dated my existence. Still working on that one since the solution continues to be illusive. I am a part of the problem and a factor in the solution. In other words... there is no way to refuse to participate. Existence implies having a stake in the outcome.
😉
My problem is more about "the goal posts" constantly being moved.
You ask about one thing and you get a reply about something else.
So, you answer about the new thing and get another answer, but this time it's about another new thing.
It's such a scatterbrain discussion it is exhausting; not from the quality or depth of thought but from the effort of trying to herd so many disparate points into something that might actually improve our understanding of the issues.
Nah... chess has strict rules of play. None of that here
You are correct. The tactic even has a name:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Interesting. Never heard of it.
Thanks for that.
I've recently been learning about the theory of moral foundations by Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt.
I wholeheartedly recommend viewing some of lectures given by Jonathan Haidt that can be found on youtube. I've found his ideas to be incredibly eye opening for understanding the differing moral foundations upon which the political right and the left each prioritize their respective views and beliefs upon.
My takeaway from his ideas so far, is that conservatives and liberals tend to weigh the degree of importance of matters on a basis of five main foundational categories of ethics:
Care/harm
Fairness/cheating
Liberty/oppression
Loyalty/betrayal
Authority/subversion
Purity/sanctity/degradation
As professor Haidt explains. Liberals tend to base their beliefs using the first three ethical categories from the list above.
Conservatives tend to base their beliefs using all six of the above ethical categories.
Another key to his theory is how people use reason to arrive at truth. According to professor Haidt, it's long been held by Psychologists that people use reason as a tool to suppress and guide the primal drives of the human passions. But professor Haidt disagrees, citing philosopher David Hume, that instead, reason is the tool used by the human passions to justify impassioned belief.
He provides an example of this process of reasoning as the person beginning with some impassioned belief, and then sending their reasoning mind out to find some evidence to validate the impassioned belief. The tendency is for the person to view the information they find with a level of confirmation bias, and stop searching once something is found that supports what passion wants to believe is true.
As left leaning, I've personally found these ideas very helpful for understanding why I find the behavior and ideology from the right/far right, so difficult to understand. I think it's because conservatives are ascribing value onto beliefs from a perspective of moral foundations that are very important for them.
For example. IIRC..
Professor Haidt used the example in one of his lectures of an observation he made while looking at photos of groups of both conservative and liberal protestors in the USA. He noticed when comparing American Flags carried by conservatives or liberals, conservatives almost never desecrate a flag by writing on it, but liberals often cary flags with messages written on them. Professor Haidt believes this is because conservatives hold the symbol of the flag as an object deserving of Purity and sanctity. For liberals the flag is just a piece of cloth, and the USA are the people and not the symbol.
He goes further to describe the origins of Purity/sanctity/degradation as deriving from early man developing a sense of protecting themselves from disease, parasites, and environmental toxins by developing a sense of revulsion that invokes avoidance. He says as people evolved, it expanded this natural sense of revulsion to include other races of people, other tribes, peoples with different religions, homosexuality, etc.
For the people trying to understand the perspectives of others.. The key I think.. Is when faced with any partisan type argument that seems difficult to understand, take some time to go over the foundational categories of ethics that Liberals vs conservatives place high values upon.
Then ask yourself... "How might I view what this person is saying from one of these ethical point of views?"
Professor Haidt has a lot of information about this, and in the above I barely scratched the surface of his theories. A fuller understanding requires viewing his books and/or videos, as there is a lot out there to unpack.
I think there is a danger at analyzing the current state of American politics from normative left/right analyses. I think a case can be made that we are in a period where traditional analyses break down because symmetry has broken down.
Those that assume good faith from all parties may be walking into a trap not dissimilar from the one that Neville Chamberlin walked into.
This lecture open some doors into new spaces for me:
As I understand the theories of Professor Haidt I posted about above.
His approach is from a perspective of evolutionary psychology. Meaning that certain propensities for holding a world view may have evolved structurally within the human mind, and they have been influencing human beliefs for thousand of years.
It can be a tool for examining both normative left/right analyses as they exist in the present, and for investigating human neurology from a anthropological perspective to better understand how certain elements of neurology might begin to express influence when environmental pressures and stressors arrises to critical thresholds.
(ie.. The effect of conservative news media itself being the cause of the stress.. The media becomes the provider of the solution for the stress.. Which the mind accepts to mitigate the stress.. The mind releases endorphins in response to the having a solution.. The mind becomes addicted to conservative news media to coupe with the stress caused by the continuous viewing of the conservative news media).
Much has been discovered in this field. For example, it's been observed that a part of the human Limbic system (lizard brain) called the amygdala, has been observed to have structural differences predictive of political affiliation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/
I hope you recover from your Covid soon and keep working on your music.
Maybe some of you other folks might want to make a new thread? Some of these responses are so long who is going to read all of this.
Lol, one thread of this shit is enuf!
If you just want personal opinions backed by nothing but feelings… that’s not really a discussion worth having. Feelings are not facts.