1) the way he's enunciating every word and then pausing stops this from flowing nicely as a tune. Maybe its good for teaching but it doesn't sound as nice as flowing nicely would, and the tune ends up helping you memorize it better than the trop (since reading at the actual torah scroll doesn't have the trop).
2) while he has good overall sound and reading of the trop, the interface isn't highlighting the trop involved - you can memorize the reading but it isn't doing a good job teaching the tune of each trop to someone who needs the help enough to use it. It needs some re-work to make sure people associate the correct trop with the tune it creates.
still totally usable but a student needs to know to make an effort to connect the words smoothly and not pause as this person does.
edit: listening to some of this I also notice some inconsistencies in how he treats some of the trop. It might be a different style issue but I don't think so.
> Lots of people did shitty things in that war (and all wars)
I don't think Germany's singular goal of racial domination - and specifically extermination of world Jewry - is comparable to most wars. Nazi Germany is viewed differently historically because it was different.
That is not to say OP's grandfather is responsible for all of Nazi Germany's actions, but it is not just "lots of people did shitty things."
>I don't think Germany's singular goal of racial domination - and specifically extermination of world Jewry - is comparable to most wars.
That wasn't the reason for the war. Nor were there any country actually try to help the jews before or during the war.
It's also not different from thoughts at the time held throughout the western world. Britain specifically didn't help the jews during ww2 because they thought they would flood Palestine (a british colony) after the war. A famous quote in Canada before ww2 was that "We'd take as many as we can, but none was too much." America as well famously turned away boat loads of jews.
> Nor were there any country actually try to help the jews before or during the war.
Depending on how you define "country" (as opposed to just "a large fraction or majority of its citizens"), Denmark did in fact help Jews, at least Danish ones.
And the story of Bulgaria is .. complicated. Again, they protected Bulgarian Jews in practice.
Portugal helped not only Portuguese Jews, but many others as well. In particular, they generally allowed a huge number of refugees (16% of the country's population), including Jews, into the country.
It's true that the main Allied powers were not particularly going out of their way to help Jews, but "any country" is a high bar.
That's absolutely veritably false. The Polish government-in-exile in London first reported crimes in the Auschwitz complex to the western public in 1941.
Yes you are correct. I should amend my previous statement.
>It was only afterwards that evidence of holocaust was verified and/or believed.*
The reports from the Polish government in exile did not make front page news. I'd still stand by the earlier statement:
> Saving the Jews was not on any country's radar entering WWII.
You might argue that Poland wanted to save the Jews, but at the point that reports of mass murder were coming out of Germany in 1941, the Polish government no longer had a country to manage. They had exited WWII as losers.
Reports of mass murder of Jews weren't verified by the USG until 1942. I would still argue that saving the Jews did not even crack the top 10 reasons for the USG invading Europe. After all, they verified these reports and still waited 2 years before making landfall.
>Saving the Jews was not on any country's radar entering WWII
&
>Reports of mass murder of Jews weren't verified by the USG until 1942. I would still argue that saving the Jews did not even crack the top 10 reasons for the USG invading Europe. After all, they verified these reports and still waited 2 years before making landfall.
Yes, America turned away boatloads of Jews. Yes, the world did not do enough, and turned a blind eye when it didn't affect them directly.
> That wasn't the reason for the war.
This is false. Hitler spoke and wrote at length about the "Jewish problem." It wasn't the _only_ reason for the war but it certainly was _a_ reason for the war. Even the war against the USSR was framed as against "Jewish Bolsheviks."
This is aside from the fact that OP referenced their grandfather being a member of the SS. The SS was _not_ the German army. The SS was the military organization of the Nazi party - often conflicting with the army to achieve their goals. They enforced racial policy in Germany and its conquests, ran the concentration camps and death camps, and were specifically tasked with eliminating Jews.
Perhaps it is because of the collective guilt of not having done enough for Jews at the time, but people often gloss over the explicitly racial and antisemitic aspect of World War II. The extermination of Jews was not a byproduct, it was one of the key goals.
For further detail, I encourage the interested reader to check out "The War Against the Jews" by Lucy Davidowitz.
Except they purchased their way into many of these.
Their advertising business was built on a number of acquisitions (DoubleClick, AdMob) - strategic acquisitions, surely, and they improved on them since - but it is not as if they bult the business from the ground up. The same goes for video streaming (YouTube - after attempting to create their own), and mobile OS (Android).
With Android in particular it can be argued that it would not be what it is today without them, but they also heavily leveraged their other services to promote and maintain control over Android.
> Except they purchased their way into many of these.
They did. But youtube.com wasn't that big when they bought it. In fact by definition most of the things they bought (like maps.google.com) weren't big. The obvious corollary is Google is very good buy scaling something up while keeping it rock solid.
And, they are. Examples of original things that did come out of Google are Kubernetes, the Site Reliability Engineering Handbook, and pulling off something I thought was impossible: Spanner, a global distributed ACID database. From what I can tell they have constructed the fastest, most reliable distributed computing platform on the planet.
They are the Toyota's of the computing landscape: nothing particularly outstanding in any particular model of car, the secret sauce is the infrastructure and processes they've developed to manufacture those cars that ensures they are both cheap and reliable. And so it is with Google. They aren't particularly good at coming up with new products. In fact they often buy them. But then those products get moved onto best computing infrastructure on the planet. If the products are any good, they seemingly grow without effort to become a dominant player.
YouTube then wasn't then anything like it is now, but it was by far the largest video website of its type. I felt like they bought it because Google Video failed to compete with it.
I see this oft repeated comment about Google acquiring YouTube, DoubleClick and Android. Yes they did. But the companies they acquired were tiny upstarts, which might have even died on their own. Google built them into what they are today, and deserve 90% of the credit for their current significance.
The same applies to FB and Instagram as well, fwiw. Though imo, not as much for WhatsApp, which already had 400MM users and would have organically reached 1B+ users on its own.
YouTube was delivering an average of 100 million video views per day in July 2006, months before the Google acquisition for $1,650,000,000 that same year. It's inaccurate to characterize them as a "tiny startup."
>It's inaccurate to characterize them as a "tiny startup."
YouTube had 65 employees when they were acquired.
I do agree that they were not a startup. This word should only be used for companies that are starting up; getting their legal structure together, hiring, and initial R&D. Once you are offering widgets (ad space), you are no longer a startup. Profitability is immaterial to startup status.
YouTube saw the writing on the wall early - Google's capital allowed them to scale without paywalling or drowning viewers in advertisements like they are now.
The Android acquisition is a redherring - manufacturers started adopting Android en mass because it was royalty free(ish) and they had to compete against Apple's new app store mostly with feature phone OSes entirely unfit for the job.
Neither Youtube nor Google's selfless "donation" to the consumer electronics industry would have been possible without the ad business. IANAL but that looks like textbook predatory pricing (and in Android's case, can't be defended by pointing at Apple, since they don't participate in the smartphone OS market).
> it was pent up hate in the local population that was released with an aggreement of o Nazi occupation force because people felt they can do whatever they want and decided to act on their hatred
In my opinion much more damning than the actions of a government - not necessarily explicitly supported by the population.
The implication - that Jews who were in Eastern Europe are not "real" Jews - is a wonderful example of anti-semitism. You only forgot to add on "Go back to Poland!"
Edit: Also, "the persecution complex" - as if the single greatest attempt at genocide in modern history was NOT targeted at Jews.
So you are doubling down on your conpiracy-minded and anti-semitic claim that Ashkenazi Jews are not real. I am going to link a Reddit comment I found with a very quick Google search that addresses it and call it a night. I hope you are able to remove the hate from your eyes.
Edit: One more thing. Please point me to the thriving North African and Middle Eastern Jewish communities that you describe. They do not exist because they were persecuted. Some countries less so, but to claim that there was no persecution is a complete distortion of history. Good night!
This (to my understanding) was the purpose of the Senate originally. Appointed by the states (however they choose), for terms of 6 years. This means they represent the interest of the state as a whole, not of the individual voters.
Yeah. And I was about to say something to the effect that this plan was a bad idea, because then you end up with out-of-touch political elites in the Senate. But then I thought about the current makeup of the Senate...
