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.
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.
There definitely is already a resale market for Steam accounts, mostly used by cheaters or scammers who want a legitimate-looking account with no game or trade bans.
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.