Last year, here in Ukraine, we had something like that. A couple of times, I saw those alerts on my phone. At some point, they stopped doing it. Maybe it didn't work out as the government planned.
I’m paying for my service and also covering monthly cost for a terminal that I donated to friends who are in military now fighting. I also know lots of volunteers who do the same. So its strange to read here comments that ukrainians got their service for free.
Here in Ukraine people who enlist to army also get basic stuff from government, but everything advanced people get by themselves: from good hiking socks and base layer to thermal imagers and off-road cars and drones (either by paying from their salaries and families and friends or by getting help from private donors and volunteers).
Learning Rust, I use these 2:
1. Command-Line Rust: A Project-Based Primer for Writing Rust CLIs
2. Zero To Production In Rust (it's actually one project)
Ukrainian here staying in Ukraine the whole time. Not a developer, working in a senior management role, but still heavily relied on the internet and electricity. Totally understand the reasons why your employee doesn't want to move out of the country.
I assume that she lives not in Enerhodar (which is occupied). Then only 2 possible locations, and they are pretty safe. According to western and Ukrainian analysts, massive scale attack from Belarus is impossible right now. And the possibility of Russians moving to the right bank of Dnipro is very-very distant right now. The only 2 problems are: missile strikes and infrastructure failures. So the comments here that generators or satellite internet will make her a target is nonsense. Missiles are too expensive to target each household with a generator.
So next I share what I did and what works for me:
1. Moved with my family to a distant small village in central Ukraine (Vinnytsia region), where we don’t rely on central heating and water supply. The only network we are connected to is eletricity. Life here is very cheap. We bought a house for $3000 and paid around $10k to make it convenient for us (shower / toilet, water, heating). Today there were 5 strikes heard - the attack was on Ladyzhyn electricity station 30 minutes drive from us. Living in even small city makes people dependent on central heating systems and water supply. Living in private house makes you more independent. If your employee doesn’t want to move somewhere to Europe or western Ukraine maybe she can rent a house in a village near her city like 20—40 minutes drive. It will give her flexibility not to rely on central systems, visit friends and family in the city, and no sirens heard here, never! And event in such a village we have access to quite good healthcare / dentists / and buying local food.
2. We use our own heating
3. Ordered starlink. For Ukrainians it’s very long to wait it, so my relatives from Belgium helped ordered to their address and sent it here. Maybe you can help your employee with logistics delivering satellite kit to her. Again starlink in remote village works better than in the city because sky is clear. In the city if she lives in apartments it will be hard to install it.
4. I bought a portable power station. It’s enough for me to work for a couple of days and to power refrigerator. But during the war there was never more than 4 hours without electricity here. I bought it before massive strikes on infrastructure. Nowadays they are in deficit. So again you can help her with logistics buying somewhere in Europe and delivering to Ukraine. My friend from Sweden helped me to buy power station for my parents and sent it in Ukraine.
5. What I need right now is a generator. They are in deficit here. But my relatives in Belgium are helping with it delivering it here. Moreover Ukrainian government cancelled all taxes / customs on generators and power stations, so it became even more accessible in terms of price. The only problem is logistics.
Sorry for bad English.
Edit:
Even today after massive strike we didn’t had electricity for like 4 hours. My parents live in Kyiv and it’s much worse there - no electricity and water and even cell connection for the whole day. So my point is basically to stay away from large cities, because they are more vilnerable
Basically there several options in EU zone:
1. There are drivers (mostly Ukrainians) on small shuttles that regularly carry passengers and packages from Belgium through Germany and Romania to Western Ukraine. When they come to Ukraine drivers send packages through local post services (Nova Poshta or Meest Express) to people around Ukraine. There are lots of such shuttles. The problem is to find someone reliable. My relatives in Belgium claim to know reliable driver. Not sure which cities he goes through in Germany when going to Ukraine.
2. There is Meest Express, which has warehouses in Germany and Poland. You can order something from say Amazon to their warehouse and they will deliver it to any place in Ukraine. It’s a more expensive options.
3. Lot’s of people going between EU and Ukraine, but it’s not an option for you, because you have to know people. You can ask your employee - most probably some of her relatives and friends went to EU as refugees. Some people return, some are volunteers that go back and forth carrying humanitarian and military air.
I live in Ukraine. From 2015 till 2022 I didn’t read or watched news and no social media or blogs or analytics. Then war started. Now I follow news everyday, because I have to take care of my family’s security. I follow analytics of battlefields progress so if I see warning signs I would have to take decisions to move my family further to the western part.
I follow news on volunteers who help military so I can take action and donate help.
I follow politics, because corruption is still an issue and during war it’s like enemy inside.
I follow local authorities media so that I get info on local issues, warnings or even when humanitarian aid is available, so I can notify my neighbors-refugees from southern part to go get mattresses and pillows or diapers (thanks unicef).
I follow economic news so I can take action on my still little assets.
Seems too much. I have to dose and follow rules I set for myself. Some days I go off. Some are more filled with information.
People in Belgium watched news and decided to host my wife with infant during attack on Kyiv. Some journalists investigated that one judge had russian passport and citizenship. It created tensions and people pushed to president to solve the issue. Drop in an ocean and no guarantees of results, but it’s better than nothing.
I don’t praise media, but in my specific circumstances I need it.
In general case it is impossible to report news objectively. I personally do not mind propaganda per se anymore. I mean it is ok with me, if the source has a political agenda. I praise media who state their agenda clearly. But what I do not tolerate is the outright lying. I do not like hidden agenda, though it can be revealed by watching a source for some time.
Moreover propaganda-phobia is bad by itself. It can be a tool of a propaganda.
I disagree profoundly. I can do good work which will still never be perfect. Doesn't mean I don't try to do a good job. Without objectivity, what does a news story have left? Amounts of clicks? Granted, that is the current economic reality of news writers.
To teach and inform someone means to broaden their perspective. Without a goal like objectivity, a news story has no value. Why even listen to propaganda, it would not be to your benefit?
I still do like opinion pieces where authors describe their experience because sometimes an objective recapitulation does indeed not tell the whole story. But many modern news articles could use a dosage of detachment. It would improve the craft drastically.
It is sounds good, but I know not a single media that manage to maintain unbiased objective style. They are all present a biased sample of data, reporting what they think is important and rejecting everything else. A biased sample is the best you can get. For this sample to be useful, a reader needs to know what biases the source have. If readers believe that the sample is objective and do not keep their own subjective opinion on how this sample is biased (or which other deficiencies the source has), they just make it easier to others to manipulate their opinions.
I do not believe that anyone can be objective, because the process of selecting data to publication is a subjective process.
> many modern news articles could use a dosage of detachment. It would improve the craft drastically.
Maybe it would. But I'm reading news not to improve craft, but to keep myself informed. So I read what there is, not what it would be nice to have.
Moreover I believe that if you deem your sources are flawed, it make you better at critical thinking. Or rather it could make you better, if you didn't just turn to "post-truth", but tried to measure flaws and to undo them.
So maybe to impove craft of reporting and make it perfect, is not a good thing. It would mean that you no longer can author your own opinion, you can not practice the art, and you are extremely vulnerable to a manipulation. Though maybe if craft was perfected then it wouldn't be an issue?
Nothing is absolute. There are observations that are more objective than others and those that are plain objective. We can discuss the definition of it, but it wouldn't be that fruitful, objectively.
Your statement would ultimately be an oxymoron too.
> Your statement would ultimately be an oxymoron too.
It demonstrates that the very notion of objectivity is flawed. Objectivity is a hyper-simplified model of external validity[1]. It cannot be measured as a boolean variable or by a real number. Neither black-and-white nor shades of gray could help with measuring objectivity. It is much more tricky. It is as tricky as the reality itself.
If someone wants to deal with the data from reality, they need to track all the way from reality to the data they got. Where did it come from and how it was processed. It is the only way, and it has no place for objectivity. I mean all your thoughts will have no references to objectivity, they would deal with ways how data might become biased or falsified on the way from a reality to you.
> There are observations that are more objective than others and those that are plain objective.
Can you give an example of a plain objective statement? I can think of no such statements. 2+2=4? It is a math statement, it is not about reality, it is just a part of definition of an addition.
Or maybe "apple hit Newton on the head"? Is it an objective statement? Did apple bounced and hit him on the shoulder also? Was someone sitting on the tree dropped apple on Newton's head? Was Newton leaning on a trunk of the tree? Did he tried to dodge? How many details were omitted? Who decided that these details are not important enough to report? Was he objective while deciding? How can anyone measure his objectivity?
The only way to explain why this is an objective reporting needs resorting to a beauty of a narrative of a sudden insight induced by a seemingly irrelevant and mundane event. And this narrative "decides" what is important and what is not. Was the choice of this narrative "objective"?
What if we choose a narrative of a God's blessing? Like Descartes did when he invented a coordinate system. If we did then the choice of details to report would be different. And it would be an "objective" reporting also.
Pure data (like numbers in a table) have no narrative, so maybe it is objective? But when we do not know the narrative behind the data, we cannot make inference from the data. So pure objective data is useless.
Everything is subjective. Though there are cases when it doesn't matter. Cases when we do not need to keep an eye on a narrative, on a process of data gathering and processing... But even despite the majority of cases are of this kind, a critical thinker needs to keep an eye on a narrative and on a process of data gathering, because it is his second nature: you never know when this skills will become needed, so the only safe way is to use them constantly. Make them automatic, so you need not to think about it.
This seems to be a core problem of a lot of people. The inability to discern that not everything has an agenda and is propaganda.
Most western media (Murdock/Berlusconi type oligarch media aside) is fairly factual. It doesn't have 'spin' or 'agenda' in the sense that the journalists conspire to mislead (they don't have time for this).
In my experience, most news nowadays has an agenda: selling itself. Newspapers and the main tv news have become far more clickbaity and far less informative. These used to be fairly decent sources of news; nowadays, you'll learn what some folks in your country are shouting on twitter, how b-rank celebrities are messing up their lives, and what's happening in the nation and in the US. Perhaps 2-3 tidbits of big international news.
You'll have next to no clue what's happening in middle nor South America, Africa, China, India, the rest of Asia, or the Arab peninsula.
In short: a lot of news nowadays has the agenda of selling itself and takes time to select stories and spin headlines for this. It has become genuinely harder to stay reasonably informed about what's going on in the world.
Are you high? Murdoch has a massive agenda. They have persistently chosen governments to favour in multiple countries. Honestly just have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
Well, for months Russia has been losing, and yet they have taken over what, 20% of Ukraine's territory and today I heard The Telegraph say that they have knocked out 40% of Ukraine's energy system.
That's because you're using the wrong measures. They have taken way more during first week than they have now.
Hitler's empire was far greater than just Germany at the beginning of 1945 and he was still sending V-2s to London and Antwerp at the end of March that year.
I am envious of your faith in western media in much the same way I am envious of highly religious people that are certain what happens upon death: seems comfortable and reassuring, but it is likely not true.
> "Most western media (Murdock/Berlusconi type oligarch media aside) is fairly factual. It doesn't have 'spin' or 'agenda' in the sense that the journalists conspire to mislead..."
I have a hard time believing that anyone can be this naive. We're you paying attention the last two years?
When journalists lied, suppressed and told everyone that Hunter Biden's laptop from hell was 'Russian disinformation" and refused to even investigate whether the claims that it had been verified by people with actual knowledge of Biden's dealings were true, how is that not journalists conspiring to mislead?
> "Hunter Biden's laptop isn't news. It is a US-centric celebrity story."
Hunter Biden's businesses dealings are not "U.S. centric" and Hunter Biden is not a celebrity (except maybe in addiction recover centers). They involve allegations that the son of a sitting VP (at the time), who had absolutely no experience in the energy sector, used his father's influence to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in business dealings with Chinese and Ukrainian energy firms. That involves allegations of international corruption. Including having a prosecutor removed who was investigating one of the businesses tied to Hunter Biden (you know, the famous Joe Biden story about how he told Ukraine to fire the prosecutor or they would not receive a billion dollars in U.S. aid).
> "Thus all reporting on it was tabloid style sensationalism."
Except the reporting was not tabloid style sensationalism. It was actual investigative reporting that the media tried to CONVINCE people was "tabloid style sensationalism".
If you'd like to see how the media worked to convince you that the whole story was just "sensationalism", take a look at how the NY Times repeatedly dismissed everything that was being said before the election (when they called the laptop "unsubstantiated"), but then earlier this year (when it could no longer hurt Biden's chances) finally admitted that at least some of the allegations are likely to be true: https://nypost.com/2022/03/17/the-times-finally-admits-hunte...
But my suspicion is, you really wouldn't care in the slightest if Joe and Hunter Biden are actually corrupt.
Western media is not controlled by the goverment, so they are free to report on anything they want. I saw them interview pro-russian people in those regions right in the battle areas.
On YouTube I follow Denys Davydov, a Ukrainian pilot that reports about the war. A few days ago he showed a video of a Ukrainian helicopter flying close over traffic, and he was critiquing how irresponsibly and dangerous that was. He claims to know that road and that is was far from the battlefield. So even him as a Ukrainian is able to try and be as objective as possible.
News can be objective. The claim that western media is full of propaganda is just kremlin propaganda.
You have to ask this question: How is the government controlling the media?
In Russia's case, it's pretty clear. They have laws to prohibit free press, jail time for claiming things opposite to the Kremlin.
In some other cases, it's more subtle. In Hungary, Orban's influence on the media is very high, and not healthy for a democracy.
But if you claim that the most objective news sources in the west still show straight-up propaganda, I would love to see some evidence of that. Any evidence, like a journalist that is fired over going against a government. Or laws, or some other influence from the government straight to media companies.
You are only focusing on government punishing journalists and journalists complying due to fear. This ignores journalists being lazy by accepting and printing leaked stories from government as truth without any verification. Another example is not reporting on topics due to fear of losing their job or social status because it goes against a popular narrative.
Luckily in 2022, you don't have to take news at face value.
5 seconds to enter "Ukraine wheat exports by country" into Google, yielding a USDA page saying: "In 2021, Ukrainian wheat exports were valued at $5.1 billion, with Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, and Bangladesh as the primary destinations."
To coin a phrase, the nice thing about news websites is that there are so many to choose from:
Here's the BBC quoting the UN:
> However, UN figures show that the bulk of Ukrainian food exported in the last three months has been going to Spain, Turkey, Italy, China and Netherlands.
Mainly through access. If you don't report favorably, your government sources might withdraw. Sources that provide you with exclusive information that you can provide first. There are of course unimaginable other venues to enforce compliance to a certain framing. There is also documentation how this was achieved in the past.
I saw how the press quickly turned people in favor of the Iraq war. It was clear propaganda. You can see the same stuff happening today with different enemies. Yes, Russia is a despotic state, but you are a victim of disinformation as soon as that prevents you to demand accountability at home. Because that would be your job as a citizen of a democratic state and what you can influence.
I use understandingwar.org. to me it does not seem like western propaganda, but rather an attempt to convey accurate information. But then again, to me mainstream news (which I stay away from) seems sensationalistic, not propagandistic.
Understandingwar has been great, daily updates throuought war. Many other news outlets either recycle or use the same source material; i rarely learn anything new from any other source. Note they avoid detailing ukrainian movements unless confirmed as known by Russian sources, i assume to avoid being a source of Russian intel. That context helps to explain the reporting style, where Ukrainian intel is always reported from confirmed Russian sources, ie stuff Russians are guaranteed to already know. In practice it means there is usually a delay before knowing the latest status of Ukrainian offensive strategy.
Sensationalistic because of their need to sell attention. Especially rage is profitable. In other words, the agenda of news is to earn money with advertisement and not giving useful information.
Oryx (blog and Twitter) provides good raw open source intelligence data.
I've found The Guardian's reporting and FT's analysis to be quite good. They report based on verifiable facts and also claims by both sides, with explicit mentions if there's corroborating sources or not. The Guardian also have a daily "what's new" so that's useful to keep up.
I read the guardian but it's pretty biased l and sometimes the reporting is terrible. It tends to align with my views but it's still super flawed. Recently I've also been reading dw.com Deutsche Welle. They are more straight factual and of course biased to German related news which is interesting.
I don't keep a record of the articles that have made me roll my eyes. Usually it's when they report on an area I know a little about, like New Zealand or tech news, and I think "wait, that's not entirely true" or "that's not what people actually think about this subject" and it makes me think if I feel that way about those articles then that reduces the credibility of all articles by a small amount. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ has some information and examples.
You're probably being downvoted because of the mere suggestion that Western propaganda is shaping the narrative but this is something that also irks me. I do not defend at all any of Russia's actions but the fact that it's just become commonly accepted that the war happened because "PuTiN iS cRaZyyy" is kinda scary. Absolutely no mention of the US' role in this or the fact that NATO specifically sent Boris to stop the peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia that would've prevented this or that Biden has been very explicit about a foreign policy to "weaken Russia" since taking office.
The complete lack of geopolitical and historical context in the media around this event has really shaken my trust. In the future I'll probably just be heading directly to the history books rather than trying to parse out the missing context from the media
The situation and background are complicated and the mainstream media doesn't really have so much time to go into it all - both a lack of reporter time and reader interest. I find it interesting to read takes from people on different sides of it.
One reason the US and UK come across stoppy (eg "Boris to stop the peace negotiations") is Ukraine used to have nukes and in 1994 the US, UK and Russia signed an agreement for them to give them up in return for the parties to guarantee their borders. If you let Russia just send in tanks, kill a few people and then say lets have a new agreement then what's even the point? If they don't stick to the first one they probably won't stick to the second. And then why even bother with nuclear non proliferation? If the agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on you may as well try to get nukes instead.
In war you're either for us or against us. No gray zones, no "love thy enemy", no nuance or fair analysis even. It is a social psychological mechanism, because if you try to distribute blame on both sides you are potentially aiding the enemy, resulting in potentially greater losses on your own side (i.e. your neighbor might die).
It has little to do with the quality of the news, more with the psychosocial mechanisms of any polarized conflict that involves life and death. One may lament it, but only from the outside and at some distance.
As a side note one might wonder if this is not a main purpose of war: to create a polarized environment where dissent becomes impossible.
“Crimea's election committee said that 97% of voters backed a union between the largely ethnic-Russian peninsula and the huge neighboring country.”
“Residents of Crimea, up to 60% percent of whom are Russian, were given a choice of either joining Russia or opting for more autonomy from Ukraine under the 1992 constitution.”
There's a political process for that, which necessarily includes central government.
Isn't it suspicious that Ukraine's large, aggressive, well-armed neighbor was somehow involved in the referendum, and then sent in the "green men" to enforce the inevitable results?
And what about the native ethnic Tatars? Russia pretends they don't exist.
If you look at surveys conducted even when the region was under Ukraine, you'll see that it's always had a very pro-Russia bias (Eastern Ukraine in general was staunchly opposed to the Euromaiden protests).
However, it's worth mentioning that Eastern Ukraine has also been heavily targeted with Russian propaganda for decades now and it's quite likely that had an impact. I haven't read into it, but I'd be surprised if they didn't also encourage Russians to move to Ukraine to make it more ethnically Russian. This is pretty much in the playbook of every colonizer (e.g. Israel with Palestine, Morocco with SADR, or China with Xinjiang).
I mean, my mother hosted georgians refugees when i was still in highschool, so i have talked to them (at least tried to, we all had broken english). To be honest, i have no problem at all believing the propaganda talking about rapes (including those targeting young kids, which aren't talked about in MSMs) and massacres from the Russian army.
I know i'm biased, but first, this is a belief i held in my formative years (that the Russian army was full of violent pigs), and it seems to align the the propaganda i'm seeing now. So perhaps there is some exageration right now, perhaps there was some exagerations 15 years ago, but to me it aligns perfectly.
I also know two ex-special force guys, one who worked in Africa against Wagner, and while Wagner seems to be less rape-happy than the average Russian military guy, massacring and trying to put it on their opponent is their MO. I think i can say it now because Wagner was recently caught and will be more carefull next time, but the French army decided to keep satellite + air surveillance over all their old bases and now put bodycams and surveillance on all sites that can be used to frame them.
I work for a media company that works with YouTube creators. From my experience you should add following items to your list:
- new uploaded videos drive traffic to old videos of the same channel
- schedule consistency and calendar: 2-3 videos at least each week. It's very important
- links from other channels: it helps when other channels promote your videos.
- live streams help boost views (see https://gyre.pro/ - I'm not affiliated with this, but I know creators use it and get good results)
Generally services like vidiq or tubebuddy help you. Many creators use them.
The algorithm that you talk about changes quite often. Most of creators make lots of experiments to find their algorithms.
Make sure to stick to YouTube community guidelines. Seriously, YouTube can ban you forever if something in their view goes wrong.
