“Without giving too much attention to any kind of one situation, not having the legal ability to play music with other people was definitely difficult,” drummer says
Jay Weinberg has opened up about a challenging time in his life when he said he was prevented from collaborating with other artists because he didn’t have the “legal ability” to do so. He added that part of his creative self “was dying” as a result.
… %!s()
Weinberg has been working with a variety of bands and projects since his departure from Slipknot in 2023. He toured with Suicidal Tendencies, recorded with Fuming Mouth, launched the new band Portraits of an Apparition, recorded his first solo music, and recently collaborated with Canadian duo Softcult on a song called “Drown Fountain.”
However, in a new interview with Loyal to the Craft, he revealed that there was a period where he was unable to collaborate with other musicians. He said that the idea behind “Drown Fountain” came to him more than a decade ago. “I’ve had that song kicking around since 2013, you know. And much of this material is stuff that I’ve been honing for years,” he said.
He added: “But without giving too much attention to any kind of one situation, you know not having the legal ability to play music with other people was definitely difficult because I look at music at least the creation and sharing of it, it’s that twofold thing,” he said.
Weinberg said that while he continued to create and collaborate “in private,” he knew that it wasn’t music that could be released due to his legal obligations at that time.
“Although I was super intensely focused on one aspect of my creative life and happy to do so, like a little part of my creative self, it was dying for sure because this is stuff that means a lot to me,” he continued. “These are songs that, still even 13 years later after initially coming up with a song, I feel passionate to put the effort into getting it across the finish line and it is emotionally gratifying for me to put out there.”
“So I’ve always considered that a healthy thing, to be able to play and create with people of all sorts of disciplines, all sorts of backgrounds and that’s certainly what I’m leaning into with this project, this music that it’s like I’m kind of primary songwriter of all this stuff and playing all the instruments for the most part, but then approaching other friends to bring it across the finish line,” he said.
Editor’s picks
Weinberg did not directly reference Slipknot, whom he played with for a decade until the fall of 2023 when the band made what they called a “creative decision” to jettison him. But he had joined the group in late 2013, around when he said some of the song ideas he referenced in the interview were already in the works.
Trending Stories
In an interview with Rolling Stone published in April, Weinberg discussed his exit from Slipknot and the feelings he had after the band’s manager informed him his contract would not be renewed, and shortly afterward the band released a statement about their parting ways.
“It came after an extraordinarily tense year for the band, things that I could only see as an outsider in relationships that are 25 years deep,” Weinberg told Rolling Stone. “It came without an explanation, no reason. It was confusing then. If I’m perfectly honest, it remains confusing.” %!s()
Respondents were asked to estimate how many of their fellow citizens would be willing to contribute 1 percent of their income. The average guess: 43 percent. The actual share, again, is 69 percent, and in all 125 countries the average estimate fell below it. A majority willing to pay for climate action exists, and it believes it is a minority.
… %!s()
getty
The largest global climate surveys keep finding overwhelming support for stronger action. The politics keeps moving the other way. The explanation is simple math, and it can be changed.
Two facts about climate politics should not be able to coexist.
The first: in a globally representative study covering nearly 130,000 people in 125 countries, 89 percent said their government should do more to fight global warming, and 69 percent said they were willing to contribute 1 percent of their household income every month. A separate survey, the UN Development Programme’s Peoples’ Climate Vote, asked 75,000 people in 77 countries and landed in the same place: 80 percent want stronger climate action from their governments. Not a Western elite opinion, a planetary supermajority, confirmed twice.
The second: over the past year, I have documented 45 significant climate policy reversals and rollbacks across governments and international institutions. In a previous Forbes article: Climate Denial Didn't Disappear. It Moved From The Diagnosis To The Treatment, I offered a psychological explanation for that retreat: governments accept the science and reject every measure proportionate to it.
But psychology is only half the answer. The other half is math. Democracies are majority systems on paper, so how does an 89 percent majority keep losing to much smaller minorities? Because the majority has size, but very little else that matters in politics.
The Majority Doesn't Know It Exists
Start with the study’s strangest finding. Respondents were asked to estimate how many of their fellow citizens would be willing to contribute 1 percent of their income. The average guess: 43 percent. The actual share, again, is 69 percent, and in all 125 countries the average estimate fell below it. A majority willing to pay for climate action exists but it believes it is a minority.
MORE FOR YOU
A majority willing to pay for climate action exists but it believes it is a minority.
Social scientists call this pluralistic ignorance: everyone is wrong about everyone else. And it is not a fringe effect. A 2025 study put the same question to 191 attendees at the United Nations Environment Assembly, one of the world's most important environmental policy gatherings: government representatives, UN officials, researchers, civil society and journalists. They guessed that about 38 percent of the global public would contribute. The real figure is 69 percent. Fewer than one in five of them guessed at or above the truth. The finding echoes research from the United States showing that state politicians systematically misjudge what their constituents want. The mandate for climate action exists. Almost nobody in the room can see it, including the people holding it.
This matters because a majority that thinks it is a minority stays quiet. That silence makes others think nobody cares. And politicians see the same silence and draw the same conclusion.
The second missing thing is intensity. A survey asks what you want. An election asks what you want most, and it compresses twenty issues into a single cross on a ballot. A voter can sincerely demand stronger climate policy and still vote on food prices, security or healthcare, because wanting something is not the same as ranking it first. That is not dishonesty in the polling. It is the difference between an opinion's direction and its weight.
What a politician weighing a rollback actually calculates is not how many people disagree, but the expected punishment, and punishment depends on four factors:
Size. How many people care. The majority wins this one, overwhelmingly.
Intensity. How many will change their vote over this single issue. Here the minority wins: the furious few are single-issue voters, the supportive many are not.
Attribution. Whether people can trace the harm to the decision-maker. A fuel tax has the minister's name on it by Friday. A heatwave averted in 2045 thanks him never.
Concentration. Whether the angry live in places that decide elections. Tractors in the capital and swing-seat commuters beat a majority spread evenly across the map.
The majority dominates on size. But size alone is not enough. A much smaller group can create more political pressure when it is angrier, more focused and concentrated in the right places. This is a classic political problem: small groups with a lot at stake often organize better than large groups where each person has less at stake.
495 Votes That Moved A Country
If the mechanism sounds abstract, look at Uxbridge. In July 2023, a by-election in this London suburb was decided by just 495 votes. The result was widely seen as a backlash against an expanded charge on older, more polluting cars.
Within two months, the British government delayed key net zero policies, and both major parties changed their climate messaging.
But four days after the election, a YouGov poll found that 71 percent of Britons still supported net zero by 2050, while only 16 percent opposed it.
That is the point. A small, angry and concentrated group had more political impact than a quiet national majority. France's fuel-tax revolt in 2018 followed the same math.
This is also what makes the math so valuable to fossil fuel incumbents. Their winning strategy does not require converting public opinion. It only requires that the majority stay diffuse, silent and unaware of itself, while politicians are pointed toward the tractors.
The chart shows how much support climate action really has, and how badly we misjudge it. 69 percent of people worldwide say they are willing to give 1 percent of their income to fight climate change (blue bar). But when asked how many others would do the same, the public guesses 43 percent, and even UN summit attendees guess just 38 (gray bars). The support is real but almost no one can see it.
Ingmar Rentzhog
The Cheapest Way To Change The Math
Here is the constructive part, because the four factors also say what to do. The majority cannot easily out-anger the minority. Anger of that kind grows from concentrated, immediate loss. But one lever is astonishingly cheap to pull: visibility. When the majority becomes visible, intensity and attribution both rise.
The perception gap is an information problem, and information problems can be fixed. Research shows that when people learn how many others actually support climate action, they become more willing to act themselves.
Every person who says they vote with the climate in mind makes the majority more visible. Every media report that names the politician behind a rollback makes responsibility clearer. Every business leader who says clean investment matters shows politicians that the political math is changing.
None of this requires convincing the opposition. The 89 percent already exists.
The two articles describe two halves of the same trap. The first explains why leaders move from denying the problem to rejecting the solutions. The second explains why voters do not punish them for it.
Both have the same solution: make the majority visible. Then silence no longer looks like permission, and rolling back climate action is no longer politically free.
The first job of the climate movement is no longer to create a majority for stronger climate action. That majority already exists. The job now is to introduce the majority to itself. %!s()
Every diesel truck owner eventually hears about the DPF — the diesel particulate filter that catches soot before it can escape out the tailpipe in order to burn it off once the exhaust is hot enough. It's a great idea in theory. The problem is that a DPF only cleans itself out through a process called regeneration, which requires the exhaust to reach a specific operating temperature to burn off the trapped soot.
… %!s()
Spend most of your time on short trips around town, and your truck may never get hot enough for long enough to pull that off. Eventually, the filter clogs. However, even if you drive your truck hard and allow the system to regenerate, the DPF is a wear item, just like brake pads or an air filter. That means that it will eventually need service, no matter how you use your truck. So, what do you do about it?
There are a few options. You can let the truck DPF regenerate on its own while driving, force a regeneration with a scan tool, or pull the DPF off the truck entirely and clean it yourself or hire a professional to do it for you. That DIY option exists, and plenty of truck owners have done it successfully. Whether it's the right call for your filter is a separate question — if you're not confident cutting into your own exhaust system, take it to a shop instead.
How to clean a DPF
Soot is what regeneration burns off — and what packs the filter solid when a truck never runs hot enough. When regen alone won't clear it, the whole aftertreatment unit may need removal. The DPF always sits downstream of the diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC), though the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) unit can fall either before or after it, depending on the truck. Cut at the welds, after scribing a witness mark across both halves. Clean everything upstream, too, since a plugged DPF backs soot into whatever sits ahead of it.
Home mechanic Redneck Oriental, who's cleaned filters this way on camera, uses a 4,200-psi washer. Most professionals advise against copying him. The ceramic honeycomb is brittle, and water at that pressure can crack the substrate — which cannot be cleaned, only replaced. That gap is the point: A professional cleaning runs in the low hundreds, while a new filter starts around $1,000 and goes up from there.
Ash is what burning that soot leaves behind: incombustible residue. No regen removes it, which is why filters come off for professional cleaning somewhere in the 100,000 to 200,000-mile window. However, done doesn't always mean fully clean. A Lehigh University study, hosted by Springer Nature Link, ran 34 filters through commercial cleaning and found "back pressure may be decreased while DPFs may still retain significant levels of ash."
Liqui Moly confirms that cleaning DPF ash has its limits, also stating that "If the DPF is overloaded with too much ash, the diesel particulate filter must be removed and replaced." Since cleaning can only do so much, in order to prevent your DPF from clogging, make sure to follow regeneration cycles, skip frequent short trips, and make sure you are only using appropriate additives.
What to do after cleaning a DPF
Lecaros fotografix 77/Shutterstock
Once the DPF is back on the vehicle, check for exhaust leaks, warning lights, and fault codes. The system uses pressure measurements to monitor restriction through the filter, so diagnostic readings can help show whether airflow has improved after cleaning. DPF restriction testing is also used to determine filter condition and cleaning needs.
Don't automatically force a regeneration after cleaning. Regen is designed to burn accumulated soot, and whether a forced or manual regen is appropriate depends on the truck and its current soot load. Cummins explains that regeneration removes carbon buildup from the DPF, while Ford notes that some vehicles will not allow manual regeneration until the DPF reaches a specified load.
If regeneration is required, follow the manufacturer's procedure. For instance, with Ford diesel trucks, manual regeneration takes approximately 30 minutes. Sustained highway driving may also provide the exhaust temperatures needed for normal regeneration, depending on the vehicle and operating conditions.
Either way, mistakes such as these are ruining your diesel engine, which is why you need to follow all of the maintenance requirements, schedules, additive choices, and habits to minimize chances of having issues with the DPF entirely. The system is complex and expensive to repair — warranty coverage and long-term reliability both depend on sticking to the manufacturer's recommendations. %!s()
Sunday at the Edinburgh Intl. Film Festival turned into Edinbranagh, with a morning screening of the four-hour epic “Hamlet” followed by a wide-ranging onstage conversation with Kenneth Branagh, which began with him receiving the inaugural EIFF Outstanding Contribution to Cinema award.
… %!s()
“Festivals are more important to our industry than ever before,” Branagh said, holding the award and arguing they offer a lifeline to films struggling to find a traditional theatrical path. He promptly turned the honor back on the packed audience: “You are the reason, certainly the reason why I stand here.”
Hosted by Guardian critic Peter Bradshaw, the talk jumped across Branagh’s sprawling career.
He recalled preparing his 1991 thriller “Dead Again” from Sydney Pollack’s office when he felt the room move. Then Pollack’s Academy Awards started sliding.
“I started to see the two Oscars do a sort of dance on the top shelf,” Branagh said. “It was an earthquake.”
“Dead Again,” his neo-noir follow up to “Henry V,” had its own shaky beginnings. Early previews were “disastrous,” with audiences heading for the exits. The fix? Restore screenwriter Scott Frank’s original idea of rendering the past in black and white. “Suddenly the preview score went through the roof,” Branagh said. “We were loved again by our studio family.”
Christopher Nolan offered a different kind of ordeal. On “Tenet,” Branagh asked whether his Russian oligarch should speak Russian backwards while moving backwards through time.
“I saw this terrible, dangerous light in his eye,” he recalled. Nolan’s answer: “Yes, I think you would.”
So Branagh spent lunch learning backwards Russian.
Then came Hogwarts.
Branagh had assumed Gilderoy Lockhart in “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” might mean three or four weeks’ work. Instead, “I was on it for nine months.” The crew list, he said, was “the size of a telephone directory.”
On his first day, Branagh thought he saw Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint, only to discover stunt doubles and stand-ins filling an entire classroom while the young stars were at school. When the real actors appeared, Hogwarts had become its own ecosystem: “Notes were being passed. Little darts were being thrown at people.”
For Branagh, the scale was staggering, children essentially living inside a fictional school while surrounded by “the entire British film industry.”
The conversation kept circling back to Shakespeare. Branagh said his early theater company had a “missionary zeal” to make the plays feel immediate rather than bogged down by reverence. He wanted his parents to be able to watch Shakespeare “and not feel they had to read the play beforehand.”
“When Shakespeare was real, there was nothing in the way,” he said. “You just had truth. If it was truthful, you felt it, you understood it.
That instinct fuelled his directorial debut “Henry V,” made despite producer David Puttnam’s late warning that the film could collapse and damage Branagh’s career, a sentiment Puttnam later retracted in a gracious note of apology. Branagh said one of the most useful lessons he learned as a director could be summed up in three words: “I don’t know.”
The afternoon’s most personal moment came with “Belfast.” Written during the pandemic, the semi-autobiographical film emerged, Branagh said, after the story had sat inside him for roughly 40 years.
His sister’s reaction to the script: “My God, for a very private man, you’ve really put it all out there now, haven’t you?”
Branagh grew emotional.
“It was cathartic,” he said. “It was necessary. Somehow it was necessary.”
After a career spanning Shakespeare, superheroes, Poirot, Hogwarts and Hollywood, his closing advice to an audience member was simple:
Leicestershire 303-7 (50 overs): Shaikh 104, Kelly 53; Pennington 3-65
Nott Outlaws 280 all out (49 overs): McCann 64, Hameed 54; A Green 4-40
…%!s()
Leicestershire beat Notts Outlaws by 23 runs
Scorecard
Leicestershire reached their second One-Day Cup final in four years, overcoming Notts Outlaws by 23 runs in their semi-final at Grace Road.
Hamza Shaikh set the 2023 competition winners on their way to the decider against Middlesex, scoring a match-defining 104 off 109 balls as the Foxes set a challenging 303-7 to chase.
The 20-year-old, who joined Leicestershire from Warwickshire just a month ago, combined with Nick Kelly (53) for a 117-run fourth-wicket partnership to give Notts plenty to do.
Shaikh eventually fell to Liam Patterson-White, while Dillon Pennington went on to claim 3-65 for the Outlaws.
Notts, aiming to reach their first home final since the List A decider was moved to Trent Bridge from Lord's in 2021, started well with openers Ben Martindale and Freddie McCann putting on 63 in 11 overs.
But, with his first delivery, England all-rounder Rehan Ahmed trapped Martindale leg before for 43.
The Outlaws' chase slowed after that, and while the 69-run partnership between McCann and captain Haseeb Hameed helped to steady the visitors, a mix-up cost the opener his wicket on 63 as he was run out.
When 19-year-old Alex Green, who would finish with 4-40, dismissed the ever-dangerous Kyle Verreynne (43) and Farhan Ahmed in the space of four balls in the 48th over, Leicestershire's victory was all but assured.
The Foxes' showdown with Middlesex will be the sixth One-Day Cup final to be played at Trent Bridge since English cricket's only remaining List A competition left Lord's in 2019.
The first planned Nottingham final in 2020 was wiped out by the Covid pandemic, but there have been five since, all won by counties some would consider unfashionable: Glamorgan (twice), Kent, Leicestershire and Worcestershire. %!s()
