my_hat_stinks

So what was the joke? People try to play off a lot of really horrific shit with "it's only a joke".

The desire path curved towards the road crossing, they paved a straight path pointing away from the crossing, new curved desire path formed by people crossing the road

The fact you feel the need to hide significant aspects of yourself from your employer means that these social issues greatly affect you. So much so that I'm not convinced this isn't a troll, "it's fine as long as I don't see it" is literally a homophobe trope.

You're just not looking hard enough. This was the first hit when I searched.

I can kind of see their thought processes there. They're sharing right-wing media so they're likely already primed for those biases, plus that article title is intentionally misleading by suggesting asylum seekers will by default get priority over all other patients. It isn't until the sixth paragraph that they admit it's priority care for vulnerable people which is a group that happens to include asylum seekers and undocumented migrants (terms which this writer uses interchangeably, because of course they do). Very poor journalistic integrity even for a rag like this one, imo.

This type of article is intentionally misleading and written primarily to rile up people with poor media literacy. Making people angry makes it easier to manipulate them, and vulnerable groups are naturally less able to fight back so they're an easy target.

In an ideal world after being challenged they would have reevaluated the source and their beliefs. In practice very few people do that and they just get more entrenched instead. Especially if it's someone anonymous online just telling them they're wrong.

What's the end game for cancer?

There isn't one, it doesn't matter that the host dies eventually as long as they get to keep growing for now.

They were, but chose to remove the feature instead of complying.

You're absolutely right, Google chose to inconvenience their users rather than make it simpler for the user to choose their service. This is what Google chose to do rather than comply with regulation to make the field fairer. Google did this. The article is a PR piece to shift blame from Google for yet another anti-user decision Google made.

Google is not the good guy.

They only need to overlap at the start and end, meaning the rest of the line can be way off and it'll still start and stop at the same places. Here's a quick graph courtesy of WolframAlpha showing three curves with the same start and end point.

Which line is more gradual or smooth really depends on what you mean by those terms.

Another way to visualise it is to imagine a string tied taut between two posts making a straight line. If you add some slack to the string so it's no longer taut you'll see the middle curve as it's pulled down by gravity, but it's still tied to the same two posts so it starts and ends in the same place as the taut one.

I don't know about the big bang, but the elephants and turtle are Terry Pratchett. Discworld, Pratchett's most well-known setting, is a disc shaped world on the back of four elephants on the back of a turtle.

Okay, I'll simplify. Store advertises three sandwich. You buy three sandwich. You get one sandwich. Store says fees+taxes ate other sandwiches. You say it's fine, you got sandwich. I say it's not, store lied.

They absolutely can give a solid number even when a lottery runs in areas with different taxes, they simply choose not to because they make more money that way and for some reason you lack regulation there. See for instance here where the prize money may be partially subjected to income tax, meaning tax varies wildly depending on the winner's other income:

£10,000 every month for 30 years. [..] However, based on tax rules and rates at the date of these Procedures, the monthly payments will not be less than £10,000 after tax.

So there's three obvious choices: mislead customers, calculate the correct prize after relevant taxes and advertise that, or give a fixed value and eat the cost of any taxes themselves. They chose the first one.

A lottery isn't necessarily inherently a scam, at least no more than gambling is in general. In practice the odds of winning are pretty poor compared to alternatives but as long as they're up front about the odds of winning I wouldn't call that a scam. Eg, this lottery lists the odds of winning each prize, though it would definitely be better if they published those on the main page rather than in the terms. A fairer lottery is possible pretty easily by adjusting the prize values, range of numbers to select, or how many numbers the gambler selects. This would kind of defeat the purpose of most lotteries to raise money for government, but personally I'm for more progressive taxes anyway.

Advertising one prize when the real prize is significantly lower is just lying and not an inherent trait of lotteries.