windows alternative for Logic Pro X – replace.me
In the last part of the 20th century, the utterly drab and lackluster Three-Letter Networks were drab and lackluster in part because they were trying to avoid offending as large a portion of the population as possible. But, with way more than 3 networks competing now, you can’t be drab and get anyone’s attention.
Which means either you have content that’s offensive to lots of people, and hope that it is offset by other content that appeals to those people, or you shrink down to a niche provider that appeals only to a much smaller portion of the population.
The third factor is that many companies cannot get financing or keep up their share prices unless they can pretend they will be as big as Facebook, so just existing in your little niche may not work well either. Unstoppable force meets immovable objects For one, the “halves” keep changing, sometimes it’s more polarized and sometimes more moderate. And during a lot of the ‘s, it was perfectly viable to exclude the conservative “half”.
They just didn’t push back much, at least when it came to spending. But now things are changing. In Florida, Disney World may be losing their special political status due to Disney’s political posturing. That would have been unthinkable 5 years ago. Now, as you say, large companies have to worry about alienating anyone. Whether this will cause further fracturing, or we go back to “drab and boring”, I don’t know.
Some companies feel safe appealing to young people, who they perceive as progressive. That may work, but young people are also unpredictable, so it’s not necessarily a good long-term strategy.
I think the quality of content is not related to whether is for or against some part of the population. As a matter of fact I find it quite dull and artificial when is so obsessively centered on some aspects like race or sexuality. It reminds me of Don Quixote: it’s a masterpiece of literature but I find different parts of varying quality. Some parts are eternal and you can relate to the glories and miseries of people from years ago. Other parts, like when Don Quixote starts to ramble about honor, what is honorable or not, and so on and on, are quite boring.
Not because honor is not important, we have laws nowadays about defamation after all, but you cannot make it the center of your life. Making your content either offensive to some part of the population or making it all about some political agenda results in low quality content, IMHO. What is isn’t going to do is make Netflix a partner to something really out there, like Blaze TV.
This entire change to their guidelines feels dishoenst. They paint it as their duty to encourage pluralism, but they in fact just want to platform just enough content on the sidelines to make off with the largest profit profit margins. It’s another surrender to the power of the almighty dollar. I’d much prefer if Netflix was smaller and other competitors were around to fill that hole in the market so I could, as they say, vote with my wallet.
That phrase is never a dismissive sham, I swear! Fair enough. Seems pretty reasonable to expect your employees to be willing to work on what you ask them to work on, given that you’re paying them and they voluntarily signed up to work for you. And as people who were able to get a job at Netflix, they surely had other options. Are those things that specific people were actually promised in an explicit, demonstrable way when they were hired? It sounds like the kind of thing that people like to convince themselves they were promised because that’s what they hoped and wanted to be true Also, there’s nothing in the article about this?
I cancelled my Netflix account after the whole Cuties debacle. While visiting my friends I have noticed that Netflix content quality has been dropping sharply the last few years. Let’s hope this exodus of customers and content creators will create a new, more interesting industry for the future. Sidebar, but the “Cuties debacle” is nothing more than a moral panic.
Cuties is a great movie about an immigrant kid struggling to cope with a broken home by escaping her parents and becoming a “normal French girl.
The story a searing criticism of the sexualization of children, not a celebration it. The dancing scene that everyone complains about is deliberately constructed to disgust the viewer, not to titillate them: you’re meant to see it as the protagonist’s lowest point, when they realize that they are pretending to be someone they’re not in a bid to escape her parents’ marital trauma. People got upset about it without seeing the movie.
It’s a great movie. Jiro 31 days ago root parent next [—]. It’s really hard to tell the difference between “intended to disgust the viewer” and “intended to tittilate the viewer with a fetish I don’t share”. I mean, any scene of sexualizing children is going to disgust me.
How am I supposed to know which ones are meant that way? Also, consider the existence of exploitation films, which loudly proclaim how bad X is in order to have an excuse to show X to people who like seeing X.
There is art that blurs this line. Lolita, for instance, blurs this line. Cuties is not anything like that. The emotions you’re intended to register are very, very clear. The camera keeps panning away from the kids to reveal the shocked, saddened parents, and after the routine finishes the girl breaks out into tears. It’s a traumatic moment. Maybe the “Cuties debacle” refers to the promotional imagery put out by Netflix with regards to the film. See here  a side-by-side comparison of the original poster for the film and the Netflix poster for the film.
People who only saw the Netflix poster could have a very different view of the movie and some might even refuse to watch the film. I appreciate your points but I am not interested in watching a movie about the hyper sexualization of children or funding the service that provides it. Pedophilia is pedophilia no matter if it is satire, fiction or documented. The movie is about the way that little girls grow up in the society that we all actually live in. If you’re not interested in seeing honest representations of the the world you inhabit, no one’s forcing you to look, but don’t think your decision to close your eyes has anything to do with protecting little girls.
Its not a great movie, you don’t need to see the whole movie in order to see enough to realize its fucking sick. Blowhards like you love to complain about books they haven’t read and movies they haven’t seen. I saw the whole movie and it is a regular coming of age movie as I remembered Don’t understand what is the fuss about it from the conservatives. I actually think that Cuties was widely mischaracterised as a movie by people who didn’t watch it and just reacted to what they thought the content of the movie was.
It’s actually a good thoughtful coming of age movie that talks about important topics and actually criticises the culture of hypersexualisation of young girls.
Hence why it was unethical. I’m sure there are some snuff films with interesting character development too. I really don’t understand why people are down voting you for this.
The end does not justify the means. There are much better ways to tell the story of how young girls are hypersexualized without sexualizing the young girls in the process. You don’t have to watch a documentary on the Zodiac Killer and get presented with unedited video of him actually killing his victims to understand that he was an evil individual.
These views are fairly frequent. One considerably older girl from the rival team, Sweety Swag, lifts her shirt and bra and fully exposes her right breast.
To understand that the sexualization of young girls is bad. I’ve heard it quipped that there’s no such thing as anti-war movie. No matter how searing the criticism, no matter how horrifying the violence: war simply looks good on the screen, and the spikes of adrenaline we get during a war film excite us. The same could be said of films with any form of taboo sexuality, even when done in the spirit of satire or social criticism. The criticism is absolutely worth considering, regarding the ethics of production.
But it’s worth contrasting like-with-like not to shut down the argument, but to try to define the boundaries : – Was the production of “The Professional” or “Taxi Driver” ethical?
Both films sexualized young girls; and in the former case, Natalie Portman found the experience particular the response and aftermath moderately traumatic, and explicitly avoided roles with any sexuality until her late twenties.
If that instance is over the line, exactly how hard are directors allowed to be on actors, and how much explicit prior consent should be necessary for “method directing”? We’ve converged on 14 as the minimum age for W-2 employment notwithstanding family businesses, kids with apps, kids with YouTube channels, and “off-books” tasks for pocket money. If hiring a kid for a movie is fine, why can’t that same kid sweep floors at a gas station?
We could say “because there’s no other way to make realistic movies”; but that’s not that different from “there’s no other way to tell a story about coming-of-age in a hyper-sexualized world”. Again, not saying that criticizing the production of Cuties isn’t valid, or appealing to the status quo, and definitely not making some backdoor argument against child labor laws or age-of-consent; just that these questions are larger in scope, and don’t have obvious answers.
I read all of your points and they are well made, then I switch app and watch tiktok and I see a totally different world where 14, 16, 17 years do not even need to be forced to expose and I wonder did they just get this way in the era of modern easy internet, or were they already like that?
Then I remember all those movies with skimpy cheerleader outfits going back decades and wonder if we just make ado about nothing or did Hollywood change us? No answer yet unfortunately. Some backstory: Luc Besson directed “The Professional” She later claimed that their relationship inspired “The Professional. Later in Besson was accused of rape by several women, though he denied the accusations and they were never proven in court. I’m not sure whether the fact that the director of a movie with a pedophilic subtext was himself involved in an only-slightly-less pedophilic relationship in real life makes the movie itself less ethical to make or to watch, though it certainly doesn’t make it any better.
Maybe I’m saying that I’m skeptical that a creator who does some immoral thing can make a creation about that same thing with the context and discretion necessary not to glorify it. I guess the parent is making a similar comparison. I am not that enraged by this, but I haven’t watched the movie. I am very weary of any “think of the kids” outrage, it’s usually bullshit You can’t convince me that this is the base rate and up until now 1 in 5 people were LGBTQ but were just afraid of coming out.
Why not? They use to not tell anyone because they were afraid of being murdered, that seems like the most obvious explanation, application of occams razor, etc..
Netflix to Employees: If you don’t like our content, you can quit | Hacker News.Apple Mouse Alternatives – Page 3 – replace.me
Steinberg Cubase. Ableton Live. PreSonus Studio One. The last one is quite similar to Logic, but you may want to check the others too since any of them has its strengths. 1. level 2. · 6y. Also Pro Tools. As for cheap or free, look into Audition and Reaper. I also reject your fear-framing. I’m not “afraid” of anything, I’m disgusted by this affront to truth, logic, and reason. Trans-activists are anti-science, in that they seek to normalize nonsense statements like “men can get pregnant”. Reaper is a fantastic program that will do everything Logic will. It doesn’t come with virtual instruments so if you use those a lot for your work it’s probably not a good fit. Avid ProTools. It’s what I used for years before switching to Logic for podcasts, music, etc. I wouldn’t recommend Pro Tools now a days.
Logic pro x alternatives reddit free.8 Logic Pro X Alternatives That Are Windows Friendly
First, he uses Logic. Hope this helps! The coupon code in my original will work for whichever class you’d like to sign up for. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Do incognito mode as they will learn your habits and try to charge you more.
I once got a better deal by changing browsers. You’ll learn the program inside and out. Couple that with what you learn about making music and you’ll be on your way! Could try Udemy courses like this one. The Maag EQ is known for its airband, with which you can amplify the highest frequencies in your mix.
However, this is pretty easy to accomplish with just about any parametric EQ, or in this case Fresh Air by Slate digital which offers 2 air bands.
Loudmax by Thomas Mundt and L1 by Waves are 2 very similar plugins — they both introduce automatic makeup gain when lowering the threshold, and a clipper to attenuate peaks before they exceed 0dB. The primary difference is that L1 has a variable release and program-dependent option. Loudmax seems to have a fixed release time and the option for true peak detection. Also, Steinberg just released a demo version of C8.
Free Downloads | Waves
I’d say go back to Reaper. Logic’s stock library isn’t that good, and there are plenty of cheap or free plugins available for Reaper. Presonus Studio One. I still prefer Logic Pro X but Studio One is very similar. Upvote. It is an alternative to Visual Studio by Microsoft with the additional benefit Cocoa Rest Client – Free, open-source, native Apple OS X app for testing.