> Throughout World War II, the American media published and broadcast timely, detailed, and accurate accounts of what was happening to the Jews in Europe. The New York Times alone printed nearly 1,200 articles about what we have now come to call the Holocaust, about one every other day.
> The articles in the Times and elsewhere described the propagation of anti-Semitic laws in German allied countries; death from disease and starvation of hundreds of thousands in ghettos and labor camps; mass executions in Nazi-occupied Russia; and mass gassings in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek. The articles also indicated that these were not isolated incidents, but part of a systematic campaign to kill all the Jews in Europe.
> And yet, at the end of the war and for decades afterward, Americans claimed they did not know about the Holocaust as it was happening. How was it possible for so much information to be available in the mass media and yet simultaneously for the public to be ignorant?
> The reason is that the American media in general and the New York Times in particular never treated the Holocaust as an important news story. From the start of the war in Europe to its end nearly six years later, the story of the Holocaust made the Times front page only 26 times out of 24,000 front-page stories, and most of those stories referred to the victims as “refugees” or “persecuted minorities.” In only six of those stories were Jews identified on page one as the primary victims.
You kind of misrepresented your references as the later link essentially makes the case that the NYT actually did not give prominent coverage of the holocaust. That's actually the point of the article.
Also - I wouldn't meant to indicate that 'nobody knew that Jews were having trouble in Germany' - but rather the true horrors of the situation.
The 'final solution' was not fully on until the world was fully at war, essentially. Millions of people are dying all over the world ... and Americans started fighting and dying on mass (i.e. front page news, and everyone knows someone personally who's dead) - this is going to be the visceral thing people are concerned with. The 'holocaust' is only a chapter of that.
There was no reference point for 'death camps' - since American Japanese were interned in camps - I suggest that's probably what many were thinking of.
And before the war, during the 1930's ... this was an international issue. Very few of the proles are concerned with international affairs. Internment of the Jews in the 1930's I think would be comparable to victims of African wing of ISIS etc. It's tragic, but it's not something we reference every day.
And of course - farmers and townsfolk don't read the NYT! There was no 'mass media' as we know it. No television. Unless it was on some kind of national broadcast, constantly, it was not going to be in the hearts and minds of regular people.
And of course, once the 'final solution' was scaled up - Americans were doing something about it, they were literally fighting and dying while liberating such camps (!). So I'm doubtful of the premise that Americans 'knew but didn't care' while they were quite actively working against the Nazis.
It solves the problem of being emotionally connected to the job.
Maybe it doesn't materially change the day-to-day work, but it's a completely different experience when you can sit back and and get paid $100/hr while other people do stupid things.
You clearly did not read the posting you're commenting on. Nowhere does he say he made a game. Nowhere does he say he's never tried to find his own solutions. Nowhere does he say he hasn't done well. In fact he stated the opposite. He is no longer doing well because Google broke their own shit and don't seem to be in any particular hurry to address it. In case you missed it: Out of Milk went from doing extremely well to dead in the water almost overnight. We are working as hard we can to try and figure out solutions from our own end, but Google is the guy driving this bus and we can only do so much on our own.
Google's market problems aren't app developers responsibility to overcome just because they are 'sort of known'.
"Google's market problems aren't app developers responsibility to overcome just because they are 'sort of known'."
Ummm yes they are. When apple changes their policy for subscription, you either quit or adjust.. When twitter says no in stream ads to an ad company like ad.ly, they either quit or adjust, when facebook says no to an app that notifies users of changing relationship , you either quite or adjust... etc, etc.
Seems you don't develop for Android or you'll know google messed up the search algorithm and after a lot of complaints from developers and users who couldn't find apps, google started fixing things...
Well I do, but my business is not reliant on being in the top google search results. I have nothing to brag about, or complain about, as like I've stated, everything he's said has been addressed prior.
Well it seems you're mixing things up. Having a change in policy has nothing to do with bugs on the way the market performs.
One thing is a shift in direction from Google and another is bugs that prevents developers and users from finding apps.
On a other post you talk about marketing as if would make any difference. There's a lot of developers complaining users couldn't find their apps after they were told to look for them on the market. How would a marketing campaign solve this problem?
It's Google's duty to provide developers and users with a reliable market experience.
I've been trying to be constructive and help you guys, but clearly you just wanted to come here and complain. You guy should just give up, because google won't fix their customer service and won't fix your search rankings and probably in general won't do anything to help you. The next think you should try is making another app on either market and complain about all the deficiencies of either market instead of focusing on figuring out how to get over limitations and being successful
You guy should just give up, because google won't fix their customer service and won't fix your search rankings and probably in general won't do anything to help you.
I disagree, if it weren't for the complains of developers and users google wouldn't fix the search algorithm like it's doing right now.
If we developers didn't complain about issues with the Developer Console things would have been much worse than it is now...
If something isn't right we have the obligation to speak and not just accept it like it's a done deal and we can't do anything about it...
This has caused our purchases to fall from doing very well to almost getting no purchases at all.
I think you missed this line. Presumably they were doing quite well for themselves, got nailed by some change Google made, and now are not recouping any costs due to all the lost sales.
Sadly, bryanlarsen is correct about Google's culture, especially when it comes to the code they've written: the search code is doing what we told it to and there won't be any reconsideration of decisions made about code.
I think it's true that there is a huge opportunity for someone like Amazon here.
However, I rather disagree that Amazon will ever provide a panacea. The Amazon market currently poses its own problems to app sellers. Once your app is on their market, you do not control it.
Amazon sets the price, Amazon sets the description and classification. If Amazon hires some marketing copy-writer to write your app's description and that person doesn't know anything about your app, guess who gets to deal with angry customers who didn't get what they were expecting? It won't be Amazon.
Amazon has had some technical hangups that be explained by 'early product bugs'. While I expect such problems to be eventually ironed out by better QA and development processes, my understanding is that they have not yet been ironed out.
Finally, the Amazon market is tiny compared to Google's. If I told you that putting your software on Amazon's market would net you 5% of the sales you get on Google's, but you'd spend just as much time fighting through problems in the market itself, would you jump on that opportunity? I probably would not.
You hit the nail in the head with Amazon Appstore app description issue. Our app has had (and still has) that problem. Our content has been written by Amazon, but we have no control over it. In the meantime, our app (and even our business model) has evolved but the description is still the old description. As a result we get emails from confused users.
I've found plenty of helpful information on StackOverflow via Google as well, but I definitely would not say that it "really really works."
I've asked two questions (C#/.NET so there's a large pool of potential answerers) and neither question ever got the answer it deserved, even though both got answers from genuine experts (Jon Skeet and Eric Lippert). I found the answer to my first question on some MSDN blog after I asked on StackOverflow, the second question is still unresolved.
Maybe my enthusiasm for the quality of StackOverflow results in Google is because I remember the pre-SO days of scrolling through experts-exchange's hideous site and fictional paywall for a low quality answer in a tiny font.
Me too; though I also thought that experts-exchange was a good idea at the time, including its concept of an economic reward system (in fact, I got a wonderfully helpful answer on that forum). Yet, it turned out to have problems, which lead to SO with an even better, karma/game mechanics reward system.
And now, some people experience problems with SO. This opens an opportunity for something even better than SO. I wonder what that would be?
Have you gone back and provided the answer to your first question? If not, then you're part of the reason that SO doesn't "really really work" in all cases.
You've made over a dozen posts in this discussion making factual claims without posting a single link to back up your assertions. Coupled with this ridiculousness: "I believe the left does not really care about people, especially poor people, at all" you can't seriously be miffed that people aren't putting in a lot of effort to refute your positions.
I couldn't agree more with this article (though I sadly can't say 'no' to Facebook development). I recently did a tiny amount of Facebook integration into a site and it was horrific.
All I wanted to do was add a `Like` button that would broadcast to the clicker's friends timeline. What could be simpler? Just copy and paste their code onto your page and you're done. Right?
The second sentence on their documentation page says "when the user clicks the Like button on your site, a story appears in the user's friends' News Feed with a link back to your website."
But it turns out that's not true. It turns out you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get that behavior. The documentation for their simplest and most used integration feature couldn't go one paragraph without falsehood.
Yup, the whole point of putting a `Like` button your page is so that site visitors can broadcast your page to their friends. However, to cause that broadcast to actually occur you have to put a bunch of Open Graph meta tags on your page and also (I think?) have a registered Facebook Application to go along with your site.
There's no place that's documented except for the developer forums.
It's pretty easy to imagine that when Gosling was employed by Sun, he enjoyed significant power to shape his own job. Under Oracle, he clearly did not have the power to make his own job into what he wanted.
It's not much of a stretch to believe that lower-tier technical staff didn't have that power to begin with, and hence did not feel the same sting of new management.
Yes, that's probably very true, in part this is Gosling being a similar sized fish in a much larger pond.
But if I compare that to google where there are lots of 'names' from just about every era of computing working and being reasonably happy I can't help but notice the contrast.
That changes the atmosphere of the place and that definitely does filter down to lower levels.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/07/how-horrific-things-c...
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/10903
> Throughout World War II, the American media published and broadcast timely, detailed, and accurate accounts of what was happening to the Jews in Europe. The New York Times alone printed nearly 1,200 articles about what we have now come to call the Holocaust, about one every other day.
> The articles in the Times and elsewhere described the propagation of anti-Semitic laws in German allied countries; death from disease and starvation of hundreds of thousands in ghettos and labor camps; mass executions in Nazi-occupied Russia; and mass gassings in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek. The articles also indicated that these were not isolated incidents, but part of a systematic campaign to kill all the Jews in Europe.
> And yet, at the end of the war and for decades afterward, Americans claimed they did not know about the Holocaust as it was happening. How was it possible for so much information to be available in the mass media and yet simultaneously for the public to be ignorant?
> The reason is that the American media in general and the New York Times in particular never treated the Holocaust as an important news story. From the start of the war in Europe to its end nearly six years later, the story of the Holocaust made the Times front page only 26 times out of 24,000 front-page stories, and most of those stories referred to the victims as “refugees” or “persecuted minorities.” In only six of those stories were Jews identified on page one as the primary victims.