MMP’s removal of Azov is significant in that it could be used to guide U.S. foreign policy. Though MMP was created and has operated with funding from the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, the papers written by its researchers are cited in academic research, reports and testimony to Congress, government–funded institutions and initiatives, and federal agencies. The website functions as an authoritative source for information on militant and extremist groups, and their interactions and connections over time. At the very least, Azov’s removal means MMP’s list no longer contradicts the State Department’s decision allowing U.S. military assistance to the group, and therefore cannot be used to criticize it.

Founded in March 2014 as a volunteer unit to fight pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Donbass region, Azov was subsequently incorporated into the Ukrainian National Guard, and gained international attention for its role in re-taking the southeastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol from separatist forces in June 2014. During this engagement, Azov also received scrutiny for its neo-Nazi iconography, in particular an inverted Wolfsangel superimposed over a Black Sun (the former an ancient runic symbol appropriated by the Nazis, per the ADL, the latter “based on a design commissioned by SS leader Heinrich Himmler, and overwhelmingly used by neo-Nazi and esoteric National Socialist movements,” according to the MMP’s now-removed Azov Battalion profile).

Azov came to renewed prominence following Russia’s February 2022 invasion due to its high-profile defense of Mariupol that spring. The destructive battle, during which large swaths of Mariupol’s residential infrastructure were damaged or destroyed, ended in a drawn-out siege of the Azovstal steel plant, beneath which surviving Azov and Ukrainian servicemembers retreated until their May 2022 surrender. The battle for Azovstal garnered substantial international media attention due in part to Azov’s use of Starlink terminals to publish videos about the conditions of the Ukrainian defenders.

This is false. As reported by The Nation, many of Azov’s current leaders, including Commander Denys Prokopenko and Deputy Commander Sviatoslav Palamar, have years-old ties to far-right groups, and the brigade continues to don Nazi symbols on the battlefield and social media. Indeed, Azov has never stopped using the Wolfsangel symbol, which is still part of its official logo and featured on its X/Twitter page. Azov’s founder, Andriy Biletsky, a blatant white supremacist who reportedly said Ukraine’s national mission was to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans],” remains closely connected to the unit despite his supposed departure in fall 2014. In his 2022 book From the Fires of War: Ukraine’s Azov Movement and the Global Far Right, author and journalist Michael Colborne argues Azov has not divorced itself from the far right, writing that “[d]espite unconvincing efforts to separate the two, it’s clear that the Azov Regiment is part of the broader Azov movement and should not be treated as something distinct from it.”

MMP’s removal of Azov’s profile came a little over a month before the State Department’s decision to lift the longstanding ban on the provision of American weapons to the brigade. The State Department, which originally banned arming Azov due to concerns over its far-right extremism, rescinded this policy because the brigade recently “passed Leahy vetting as carried out by the U.S. Department of State,” as reported by the Washington Post on June 10. While a Congressional ban on military assistance to the “Azov Battalion” remains in place under appropriations laws, the State Department said it didn’t believe the congressional ban applied to the group as it exists today, per the Post.

“Leahy vetting” is in reference to the Leahy Law, which prohibits the United States from funding “foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights,” per a State Department fact sheet. In reality, not only is the State Department’s original concern around Azov’s ideological extremism still germane, but the force’s human rights record has remained checkered since its founding as a non-state volunteer militia in 2014. Indeed, Azov has been credibly accused of torture, forced disappearances, and extrajudicial killing, all of which are “gross violations of human rights” that would disqualify a military unit from receiving U.S. military aid, according to the State Department’s interpretation of the Leahy Law. Many of Azov’s alleged human rights abuses, which also include the use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes and looting of civilian homes, occurred after the unit was formally integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard in late 2014.

Stanford launched MMP in 2009 and operated the project until 2012 using funding from the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. In 2019, MMP received funding from the Department of Homeland Security, per the project’s website. The academics behind MMP also have deep ties to American defense.

Government censorship will cause TikTok's services in the US to shut down, which will result in most users moving to another social media platform.

I think most people already use multiple platforms, so the only difference will be the time they put into their new main social media.

Pinned comment:

Comment by @Red-fr3ix:

If buying isn't owning, pirating isn't stealing. I sent an email to Adobe customer support letting them know that I'm changing the TOS and allowing myself to own all of their software at no cost. By accepting my email, they've agreed to the TOS, and in order to file a dispute, they need to send a certified letter weighing exactly 1.337oz and sealed with wax the exact color of my asshole. Failure to do so constitutes acceptance of my new TOS.

Summary

1. The speaker discusses a recent blog post released by a company that they believe is manipulative and unethical.
2. They share their experiences dealing with politicians, lobbyists, and PR for the right to repair movement, providing insight into ethical crisis management.
3. The company in question, Adobe, updated its terms of service without providing an opt-out or disagree button, forcing users to agree before accessing their content.
4. The speaker criticizes this approach, likening it to a "rapist mentality."
5. They mention how automakers accuse independent repair technicians of being rapists while selling user data themselves.
6. The speaker urges viewers to be cautious of blindly trusting YouTubers and always demand primary sources and proof before believing information.
7. They highlight specific problematic language in Adobe's terms of service that allows the company to access and analyze user content without explicit consent.
8. The video transcript discusses Adobe's attempt to reassure customers and solidify trust without addressing specific concerns that upset customers.
9. Adobe uses crisis communication tactics, combining weak and strong statements to shape public perception.
10. It also highlights how Adobe is not providing concrete details or actions to address customer concerns, leading to skepticism about their intentions.
11. The transcript also criticizes Adobe for not providing a clear opt-out option for certain product improvements, likening their approach to a "rapist mentality" for coercing users to agree to terms without a clear alternative.
12. The speaker discusses how companies like Adobe use manipulative communication tactics to deceive customers.
13. They emphasize the importance of recognizing these tactics, such as using crisis communications to manipulate consent.
14. The speaker emphasizes that customers should not be underestimated and should be aware of being misled.
15. They use personal experiences to illustrate the point, urging viewers to be vigilant and not fall for deceptive practices.

Pinned comment:

Comment by @citizen-abc-123:

"Welcome to today's episode on how you're getting F'd... I'm your host, Louis Rossmann."

Gold!

Summary

1. The speaker, Louis Rossmann, discusses design flaws in Apple products and other devices based on his 15 years of experience working on them.
2. He highlights a specific design flaw in an Apple device where two pins that should be far apart are placed next to each other, causing issues.
3. Moving on to GoPro, he expresses bias against the company due to his negative experiences with their products, specifically a GoPro camera that constantly crashed and had features that didn't work as advertised.
4. He criticizes GoPro for advertising their cameras as waterproof up to 33ft but not covering water damage in their warranty, leading to misleading customers.
5. He references a detailed overview by Rich with Tech, explaining a design flaw in the GoPro camera related to gasket compression, which can lead to water leakage and damage.
6. The speaker criticizes GoPro for falsely advertising their camera as waterproof.
7. They demonstrate how the design flaw in the camera's battery compartment prevents a proper seal from forming, making it susceptible to water damage.
8. The speaker also points out the use of inferior screws that can lead to rust and further compromise the camera's waterproofing.
9. They compare GoPro's lack of accountability for design flaws to Apple's history of similar behavior with their products.
10. The speaker advises against purchasing GoPro cameras due to their disregard for customer concerns and failure to address known issues.
11. They highlight the importance of holding companies accountable for flawed products to prevent such behavior from spreading in the industry.
12. The speaker criticizes consumer protection agencies for giving minimal punishments to companies, allowing them to continue making money despite releasing faulty products.
13. They specifically mention the poor quality of GoPro cameras compared to cheaper alternatives.
14. The speaker recommends trying other brands of action cameras that respect consumers more.
15. They share a personal anecdote about their mother engaging in unethical behavior with a lifetime warranty at Toys R Us.
16. The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding and avoiding immoral and unethical actions in life.
17. They discuss unethical behavior, emphasizing that two wrongs don't make a right.
18. They recount chastising their mother for participating in immoral actions at a store.
19. The speaker warns against retaliating against companies for unethical practices, as it can harm innocent parties like manufacturers.
20. They share personal experiences of ceasing to sell products that were frequently returned to uphold ethical standards.
21. The speaker urges viewers to avoid unethical actions and unsubscribe if they engage in such behavior.

Pinned comment:

Comment by @SJ-oxy:

Adobe is betting everyone will be too lazy to learn a new tool. And they're mostly right.

Reply by Louis, @rossmanngroup:

Sad but true. A quick look upon Twitter shows they even among professionals, people are constantly complaining about this piece of garbage crashing all the time. They know way more about video editing and building computers than I do and they complain about this crashing all the time.

The cool thing about DaVinci Resolve is not just the fact that it is the only video editor on Linux that has audio plugins that are not garbage, even though it does not allow me to import my own LV2 or LADSPA plugins. The cool thing is that it is never crashed on me in four years of use. It has never, not once, crashed on me in four years of use. Linux or Windows. Sony Vegas crashes every time you look at it. Adobe Premiere seems to crash all the time for the people that use it to edit video. Da Vinci Resolve is just beautiful.

I would actually sponsor them or have them as a sponsor in all of my videos if I Had a "brand safe" channel that actually got offered sponsorships to things. but I will sing their praises for free here.

Making a video editor that doesn't crash is one thing. Making it intuitive with good built-in plugins is another. But having something that actually fucking works on Linux and supporting it is amazing. Lots of people bitch that they only support rocky Linux. I do not give a fuck. What distribution of Linux does Sony vegas support? What version of Linux does Adobe premiere support? Exactly.

Da Vinci Resolve works on Windows, Mac OS, Slackware Linux, DB and Linux, Ubuntu Linux, Arch Linux. It's just beautiful. The Arch wiki even as a guide on how you can make a work with Intel graphics which works normally on Windows and Mac, but does not work on Linux because of some nonsensical reason. That's why I had to switch from my framework laptop back to my ThinkPad. I added choice between using my framework with Windows because it only had Intel graphics from my ThinkPad from 2017 with Linux because that ThinkPad has Nvidia graphics. But now I can use the venture resolve on Linux with my Intel graphics and it works great, not a single crash ever.

Summary

1. The video discusses the shift in Adobe software from being able to run on individual computers to now requiring a connection to the cloud.
2. This change means that users' data can be held hostage and terms can be altered at any time.
3. Adobe's updated terms of use allow them to access and analyze user content through automated methods to improve their services.
4. The video host expresses concerns about the invasion of privacy and lack of control over personal data when using cloud-based software.
5. The host advocates for finding alternatives to closed-source cloud software and emphasizes the importance of maintaining control over personal data and content.
6. The speaker expresses frustration about software companies accessing personal data without consent and using it to create competing products.
7. They emphasize the importance of owning and protecting personal data, advocating for alternatives to companies that prioritize profit over privacy.
8. The message is to stand up for privacy rights and choose products that respect user data.

Summary

1. The video discusses a YouTuber's frustration with YouTube's handling of comments on their channel.
2. They highlight how even innocent comments they make on their own videos disappear while crypto scam comments receive high visibility and upvotes.
3. The YouTuber expresses disappointment in YouTube's priorities, focusing on allowing scams to thrive while restricting harmless content.
4. They emphasize the need for better moderation to protect users from falling victim to scams.

Pinned comment:

Comment by @jaredleon5520:

Balls

Reply by Louis, @rossmanngroup:

FUTA

Summary

1. The speaker discusses why algebra does not belong in activism, using the analogy of algebra being confined to a small room in high school.
2. Activists unintentionally create algebraic equations in conversations, making listeners feel like they have to solve a problem by working backward.
3. People resist change when they feel judged or told what to do, even for a good cause.
4. Emotions and reactions play a significant role in activism related to climate change and COVID-19.
5. Trying to change people's minds by shaming them or making them feel like bad people is ineffective.
6. Presenting genuine truth and benefits without shaming is more likely to lead to positive outcomes.
7. Advocating for the right to repair electronics without shaming individuals for their choices.
8. Emphasizing the importance of personal investment in the issue and avoiding making individuals feel like the bad guy.
9. Sharing factual information and evidence to encourage people to care about the issue without resorting to shaming tactics.
10. Making activism relatable and not making the person you're talking to feel like the bad guy is crucial.
11. People are conditioned to want to believe they are good humans and will believe lies if given the right incentive structure.
12. Guiding someone to an idea by showing them the benefits or excitement of repair work is more effective than shaming them.
13. Focusing on positive reinforcement rather than negative criticism to gain support for a cause.
14. Not framing arguments in a way that makes people feel bad or obligated to agree is important.
15. When people feel attacked or forced, they become irrational and resistant to reasoning.
16. Presenting options as rights rather than obligations to foster a more positive and open response.
17. Encouraging reflection on how to effectively communicate beliefs without alienating others and stressing the value of offering choices for repair rather than imposing mandates.

Edit: added pinned comment info below

Pinned comment:

Comment by @NavPlays01:

We need to Voice this out but No. No one says stuff about this

Reply by Louis, @rossmanngroup:

I do

Summary

1. The speaker discusses the repair policies of Samsung and Google, highlighting how both companies restrict the use of unauthorized parts by independent repair shops.
2. They criticize Samsung's self-repair program for selling batteries glued to screens at a high cost, making it impractical for users to replace components.
3. The speaker emphasizes the importance of the right to repair movement to access original OEM parts for repairs, rather than resorting to aftermarket components.
4. They argue that restrictive repair policies are designed to push consumers towards purchasing new devices rather than repairing existing ones.
5. The challenges of repairing a Google Pixel 6 phone, such as the high cost of purchasing a replacement screen and the difficulty of achieving a liquid-proof seal during DIY repairs, are discussed.
6. Google's repair program is criticized for being expensive and impractical, especially compared to the lower prices of buying a used phone on eBay.
7. The speaker touches on the issue of manufacturers making it difficult to obtain original parts, leading consumers to opt for aftermarket parts for economic reasons.
8. They warn about manufacturers like Samsung and Google requiring customers to surrender replaced parts and potentially not returning the repaired device.
9. The importance of right to repair laws and transparency in repair policies is emphasized.
10. The speaker discusses how repair shops should return customers' devices in the same condition they were received, even if the shop decides not to fix them.
11. Companies like Apple, Samsung, and Google are criticized for creating repair programs that restrict independent repair shops and require them to report customer data.
12. The importance of consumer rights and privacy, emphasizing the need for transparency in these repair programs, is highlighted.
13. They argue that these programs are more about PR and control than actually helping consumers, urging people to be aware of the propaganda surrounding these initiatives.
14. The speaker discusses the issue of manufacturers preventing consumers from repairing their own devices, stating that this practice infringes on the rights of ownership.
15. They express concern that consumer protection agencies are not addressing this issue and emphasize the importance of standing up for the right to repair devices.
16. The speaker advocates for a world where individuals have the ability to fix their own devices without interference from manufacturers.

Summary

1. The video discusses Spotify's "car thing," a device created for easier Spotify listening in cars.
2. Despite its popularity, the device was discontinued, and the speaker criticizes modern products relying on cloud connectivity.
3. The video touches on Spotify's environmental responsibility and the importance of repurposing electronic waste.
4. The speaker criticizes a company for encouraging customers to dispose of their devices instead of offering refunds or recycling programs.
5. They suggest reducing carbon footprint by using ad blockers and owning physical media instead of cloud-dependent devices.
6. Filing chargebacks for services like Spotify Premium is recommended if the company fails to provide a satisfactory resolution.
7. Holding companies accountable for their actions and making environmentally friendly choices is emphasized.
8. The speaker expresses frustration about a company's lack of accountability for environmentally harmful practices.
9. They criticize a 63-page document about the company's environmental efforts as hypocritical, calling for societal shaming of those involved.
10. The importance of holding companies accountable for their actions and not relying solely on superficial changes or legislation is highlighted.
11. The speaker discusses various pop culture references and experiences while hiking in a mountainous area.
12. Frustration is expressed at people not recognizing certain TV shows or bands.
13. Challenges of hiking in inappropriate footwear and health issues like arthritis are contemplated.
14. Empathy is expressed for a struggling caterpillar in the windy environment.
15. The speaker feels powerless to help the caterpillar and laments the situation.
16. Distress is expressed over caterpillars being blown over and the desire to save them for next time.
17. Frustration is expressed at not being able to watch anymore and a comparison is made to working for a notorious figure.
18. The speaker is praised for sounding like an evolutionary biologist.
19. Admiration is expressed for cloud formation and the depth of field effect in the scenery.
20. The question is posed if someone could paint the scene or take a good picture of it.

Pinned comment:

i actually laughed so hard at 5:35. probably the most genuine laugh in months. they REDUCED THE SIZE of their app guys! bravo!!!!

• comment by @ZCFHUAfhnvjf

Here is the Pinned comment:

Per @DanceBruce: The Gear S3 came out in 2016. I'm sure the battery is awful. Its time to upgrade.

Reply by Louis: No. it's time to replace the battery. stop the throwaway mentality!

It is due to breaking the only rule this community has:

Here ya go:

Here ya go:

Did you use pliers or adjustable wrench to shut it off?

Are you going to switch out the blue handle?

Looks like you need to buy a full replacement part if you can't find just the handle with O-Ring and cap.

Your valve looks like the one below:

Videos related to this:

1. Fix A leaking PVC Valve Handle! Dont pay for a plumber! [04:51 | NOV 24 21 | MACH 1 TIPS] https://youtu.be/B3UYsMgeM1k&t=84

• Fix valve handle without diging or having to splice in a new valve.

2. Water well repair part 3, Bonus: how to repair a pvc ball valve [23:40 | NOV 12 22 | Scott Flory] https://youtu.be/Bnt4nPPfmmY

• Finishing up the rebuilding of the well, re insulation and repairing a pvc ball valve that started leaking.

Jimmy Dore's rant on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert: https://lemmy.world/post/17061585

Jimmy Dore's rant about Jon Stewart with Hillary Clinton: https://lemmy.world/post/17061800

“If you're looking across all of the hominids, which is the family tree after the split with chimpanzees, there [are] not really that many traits that we can point to that we can say are exclusively human,” Duke University’s James Pampush tells Robert Siegel for NPR. “[T]hose animals all walked on two legs. The one thing that really sticks out is the chin.”

One of the most popular ideas is that our ancestors evolved chins to strengthen our lower jaws to withstand the stresses of chewing. But according to Pampush, the chin is in the wrong place to reinforce the jaw. As for helping us speak, he doubts that the tongue generates enough force to make this necessary. A third idea is that the chin could help people choose mates, but sexually selective features like this typically only develop in one gender, Pampush tells Siegel.

The spandrel hypothesis is as good a theory as any, but it too has its problems. It’s hard to find evidence to test if something is an evolutionary byproduct, especially if it doesn’t serve an obvious function. But if researchers one day do manage to figure out where the chin came from, it could put together another piece of the puzzle of what makes us different from our primate and Neanderthal cousins, Yong writes.

Thanks for the heads up!

I agree that Biden did not do well, especially when we compare the 2020 debates.

I understand Mark's remarks on debates, but I disagree. Debates are a great way for the working class to learn about subjects they might not learn about anywhere else, and we are also giving them the chance to listen to conflicting opinions on the topic at hand.

Good or bad, the working class is given the chance to learn what the establishment is thinking, even if we do not support the duopoly.

Policy is not talked about too much when it comes to politicians from the duopoly; you would need to check the candidate platform and other sources like political history and voting record.

I don't agree with Mark when it comes to his doomer talking points. I would say we are already really close to a fascist dictatorship with the duopoly, and Trump and Biden have both had the chance to be president, which is not too much of a surprise when they are reelected.

I am much more hopeful of the working class; being involved and helping your local community may help you change your views, but being empathic to people you do not agree with or think like is also much more helpful.

Going back to the debates: A point I would have made would be why no third parties were allowed in the debate stage. With the US being a "democratic" country and all, the duopoly does really well in hindering any contender when it comes to talking about them or allowing them in local, state, or national elections.

Debates between politicians are one thing, but it is important to continue to learn what the status quo is about so as to help us understand what they will continue to do.

Summary 1:

1. Mark, the speaker, gives a reaction to a recent debate, noting that Biden appeared old and did not perform well, while Trump had more energy but also did poorly.
2. Mark reflects on the nature of debates, emphasizing that they are more about performance than substance.
3. He shares a personal story about a debate he attended in his 20s, where the better performer was perceived as the winner despite lacking factual basis.
4. Mark criticizes the American voting system, claiming that people vote based on emotions rather than policy.
5. He expresses concern about the future of the United States, suggesting that the country may disintegrate within the next few decades, especially if Donald Trump is re-elected.
6. The speaker expresses concern that the US could devolve into a fascist dictatorship within 10 years due to an uninformed electorate voting based on feelings rather than facts.
7. They believe that live debates are not a valuable tool for discourse and that written debates are more effective.
8. The speaker is biased against Donald Trump and expresses a desire for Joe Biden to win in order to protect the country.
9. They end by stating that everything sucks and everyone is insane.

Summary 2:

1. The emphasis on performance in debates highlights the superficial aspects of electoral decision-making. This prioritization of style over substance can lead to misleading conclusions and impact the democratic process.
2. The tendency of American voters to base decisions on emotions rather than facts underscores the challenges of promoting informed civic engagement. This phenomenon can result in decisions that are not necessarily aligned with policy considerations.
3. The speaker’s apprehension about the potential consequences of a Trump victory reflects broader concerns about the direction of the country under different leadership. This fear illustrates the deep-seated anxieties surrounding political outcomes and their implications for the nation.
4. The skepticism towards the effectiveness of live debates as a tool for meaningful discourse raises questions about the utility of such formats in shaping public opinion. This critique highlights the limitations of performance-based exchanges in fostering substantive dialogue.
5. The acknowledgment of bias against Trump reveals the speaker’s personal stake in the political landscape, influencing their perspective on electoral outcomes. This recognition underscores the role of individual perspectives in shaping political attitudes and beliefs.
6. The speaker’s concerns about the potential repercussions of a Trump presidency on the US reflect broader anxieties about the country’s future trajectory. This apprehension underscores the high stakes involved in electoral decision-making and the lasting impact of political choices.
7. The call to prioritize policy substance over performance in debates underscores the need for a more substantive approach to political discourse. By focusing on the content of candidate proposals rather than their presentation style, voters can make more informed decisions based on policy considerations.

Ah, Ian Duncan.

Oh, I have seen that Sinclair segment as well; I had to rewatch it though; it has been awhile.

Don't forget to be critical of him as well; he mostly sticks to certain talking points, like all late-night shows do: Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and many more.

Some may push a little; one being, when Jon Stewart went on Stephen Colbert and talked about the Wuhan Lab Leak Theory, there was a good amount of blacklash from the establishment types.

Thanks for sharing!

Sinclair Broadcast Group: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) [18:59 | JUL 02 12 | LastWeekTonight] https://youtu.be/GvtNyOzGogc

Sinclair Broadcast Group is the largest owner of local TV stations in the country. That's alarming considering that they often inject political views into local news.