Audiobus: Use your music apps together.
What is Audiobus? — Audiobus is an award-winning music app for iPhone and iPad which lets you use your other music apps together. Chain effects on your favourite synth, run the output of apps or Audio Units into an app like GarageBand or Loopy, or select a different audio interface output for each app. Route MIDI between apps — drive a synth from a MIDI sequencer, or add an arpeggiator to your MIDI keyboard — or sync with your external MIDI gear. And control your entire setup from a MIDI controller.Download on the App Store
Audiobus is the app that makes the rest of your setup better.
This video is apparently from another place and from a few days prior to Kherson, but the message stands.
I would be cautious interpreting some of this stuff. A couple of people (with statistics backgrounds) have pointed out that these were single day samplings and that Twitter has enough jitter that comparing two individual days often has variation like this. They posted examples. It may hold up , but it isn't a slam dunk that it will.
I worry that we may tend to be attracted to bits of data emerging that reinforce our priors before the data and conclusions have been thoroughly vetted.
It’s all propaganda, one way or the other, no? Part of the info war.
A word from my neighbour George:
The tweet in question tries to demonstrate the scale of impact that Russian intelligence's social media campaigns have on Twitter trends. Picking two individual days can't establish the scale of effect. Imagine making a claim about climate change based on looking at the temperature of only two dates.
Yeah I deleted it before I saw your response, it seems to have been debunked.
I'll predict the next doom headline: "Chip shortage due to continue through 2026, major economic impacts..."
Might be true too, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon#Production
I think we need to be super careful about any news we hear about what is going on.
The pandemic has really driven home to me that early news often sticks in the minds of people as "the truth" even when later data displaces earlier conclusions ... even when the data was not disseminated with any intention to deceive. (Example: a lot of people, even some MDs, still don't know that the SARS-COV-2 virus can remain in the air as small particles and be viable for up to hours....which makes ventilation and filtration of indoor air critical. This is because transmission via small droplets that fall out of the air quickly was what was believed at the beginning of the pandemic when people were paying close attention. When it was clear a year later that aerosols were a driver of transmission, people weren't paying much attention and so still don't know that is the case).
In a situation like the Ukraine war, there is an information war going on, too ... actors on both sides will be putting info out there. Whoever one thinks the good guys are (if one thomos there are such things), they won't always be honest. And whoever one thinks the bad guys are, they won't always be lying.
It may take some sleuthing and time to know what information is both trie and relevant.
@espiegel123 the view I take is that twitter is a great unfiltered source but everything posted there should be taken with a pinch of salt.
News desks at big publications will verify stories, and this doesn’t happen on twitter. This means that traditional newsrooms move more slowly but are more careful about what they publish (of course they are far from infallible and also partisan, but should still be considered more reliable than social media).
All media should be viewed with some scepticism, but this is doubly so for unfiltered social media posts.
“Grain of salt”… counterintuitive,I think…
What's the origin of the phrase 'Take with a grain of salt'?
The idea comes from the fact that food is more easily swallowed if taken with a small amount of salt. Pliny the Elder translated an ancient text, which some have suggested was an antidote to poison, with the words 'be taken fasting, plus a grain of salt'.
And even with big publications, it takes some due diligence to figure out the plausibility of what they publish and how to contextualize it. This is particularly true when the sources they rely on have a stake in the outcome. One has to do a lot of triangulation. It really sucks. Even reliable publications can be less than perfectly reliable. Often, it isn't because of an intention to deceive by journalists but failure to vet the information they receive. It gets particularly bad in the fog of war. But even when not, journalists that are not domain level experts often don't have the expertise to know who an expert is.
This has been demonstrated a lot in the pandemic. A science reporter might be told by an MD that herd immunity will happen if X% of people are vaccinated or are immune due to prior infection. They go to another MD who verifies that interpretation. The reporter doesn't realize that the MDs aren't experts in the dynamics of transmission of this type of virus (and the MDs didn't realize that either). They publish the article not knowing that the virologists and epidemiologists whose expertise is in this field know that information to be wrong. But those people aren't part of the usual information pipleline and have no easy way to get the accurate information into the public record.
The science reporter genuinely thought they had done due diligence. The MDs thought they were passing on accurate information and had no idea that the dynamics of polio, measles and smallpox are pretty radically different from COVID. (Even a lot of epidemiologists withut a background in virology might not have known it.) And the fact checkers might run this by people who don't know they lack the expertise to judge it.
It gets worse when the topic has gray areas.
The moral isn't that we can't believe anything, just that some skepticism is required...without falling into that cynicism that everything is a lie that pushes people to just believe what they want.
Truth is a matter of perspective, kind of like an horizon, it may seem fixed to the viewer but only until the person moves.
It appears to me that "Covid is real", "the Earth is not flat", "the holocaust happened" are not truths that are a matter of perspective. There is even a term for those who think they are.
Truth is not always about perspective. Not all truth is relative.
I think the notion that "all truth is equally a matter of perspective" is something people themselves to let themselves off the hook of doing due diligence. Perspective is sometimes relevant -- but in recent years too many people, in my opinion, have jumped to essentially "truth is what I decide it is".
Ultimately “truth is what I decide it is”, hopefully this is derived from as much information anyone can trust and use to assemble the truth (multiple perspectives). Even to the point of updating and re-evaluating the old or new sources information.
No, not ultimately.
That is truth only from one's personal perspective. Unless you're the only "real" consciousness there is, and everything else is just a construct of your consciousness. (Which of course I can't prove isn't true.)
If you said "truth to me is what I decide it is", I could get onboard with that at least for some people's outlook. Personally I simply cannot accept that I know at any time what is "truth". All I can do is come to some level of comfort with what I think it is.
There is ultimate truth independent of what anyone decides it is. (Which of course I can't prove either.)
If you can’t prove it, you can only assume it.
Ugh. This is bringing up nasty memories of my father. He wasn't an all bad guy, but he had one horrible pathological trait. If he was convinced of something then it was true, absolutely and unarguably. It wasn't just the usual not wanting to lose an argument kind of thing. It was absolute.
It followed that if it was true then everyone else must also know that and therefore any disagreement was obviously intentional rebelliousness or whatever. Not fun.
Sorry ... wrong thread for this kind of navel gazing!
Why preposterous, we base practically all our knowledge on assumptions, usually evidenced, but not always, sometimes just working hypotheses. Often we have to re-evaluate this knowledge.
@knewspeak - so, ultimate truth is infinitely flexible then? It can change according to your re-evaluation of it? Conflicting truths can be true simultaneously whenever people don't agree? That must be unsettling.
Conflicting ‘truths’ should be evaluated with regard to evidence that can be acquired, yes. Especially more so given the amount of promotion of certain information, false and leading, proliferated on the internet and the media, in these times.
But you are looking at these from our perspective of time, view them as if from an earlier time in history would your truths alter?
You are confusing belief and truth. You may believe something is true but that doesn't make it so.
The truth is not the same thing as what you think you know.
... well put. +1
And the definition of belief is what you believe to be true, even if it’s not. With an element of trust. So we go around and around.