user: NOT A PROBLEM: Person A: I was really surprised to learn that your mum used to live in Wales. Person B: My mum? No, she never did that. You must be thinking of someone else. Person A: No, I’m not. I told her how my parents are from Cardiff and she said she’d lived in Newport until she was 18. Person B: She did not. Person A: Yes, she did. Person B: Nope. She’d have told me. Person A: Well, where do you think she grew up, then? Person B: In Yorkshire, of course. Like the rest of us. Person A: You’re wrong, you know. Person B: Bet I’m not. Person A: OK, well, I’m going to phone her and ask her. You’ll see. PROBLEM: Person C: You still have my Kindle. Person D: I do not. I gave it back to you two weeks ago. Person C: No, you didn’t. You said you were going to, but you never actually gave it to me. Person D: I did. I remember. It was when we were having lunch in Starbucks. Person C: No, that’s when you said you’d left it in your car and would get it when we’d finished eating but then you forgot all about it. Person D: Look, I gave it back to you. I think you’re just trying to get a new Kindle out of me, and let me tell you: it ain’t gonna work. Person C: You’re just trying to keep my Kindle for yourself. Well, I’m not going to let you get away with it. I’m going to tell your mum, so there. It really depends whether the parents are in a position to shed any light on the contentious issue or if involving them would just make an awkward situation worse. If parental input will be helpful, welcome the chance to confer with them; if it won’t, let the other person do what they will and trust your parents to have more sense than to get involved in a purely private argument. When did Person D finally give back the kindle?  A. next month  B. never  C. next week  D. not enough information
D

Sheila split open and the air was filled with gumballs. Yellow gumballs. This was awful for Stan, just awful. He had loved Sheila for a long time, fought for her heart, believed in their love until finally she had come around. They were about to kiss for the first time and then this: yellow gumballs. Stan went to a group to try to accept that Sheila was gone. It was a group for people whose unrequited love had ended in some kind of surrealist moment. There is a group for everything in California. After several months of hard work on himself with the group, Stan was ready to open a shop and sell the thousands of yellow gumballs. He did this because he believed in capitalism, he loved capitalism. He loved the dynamic surge and crash of Amazon's stock price, he loved the great concrete malls spreading across America like blood staining through a handkerchief, he loved how everything could be tracked and mirrored in numbers. When he closed the store each night he would count the gumballs sold, and he would determine his gross revenue, his operating expenses, his operating margin; he would adjust his balance sheet and learn his debt to equity ratio; and after this exercise each night, Stan felt he understood himself and was at peace, and he could go home to his apartment and drink tea and sleep, without shooting himself or thinking about Sheila. On the night before the IPO of gumballs.com, Sheila came to Stan in a dream. She was standing in a kiddie pool; Stan and his brothers and sisters were running around splashing and screaming; she had managed to insert herself into a Super-8 home movie of Stan's family, shot in the late 70's. She looked terribly sad. "Sheila, where are you?" Stan said. "Why did you leave me, why did you become gumballs?" "The Ant King has me," Sheila said. "You must rescue me." Why was Stan going to a support group?  A. not enough information  B. Because he was having bizarre dreams.  C. Because of his failing shop.  D. Because he missed Sheila terribly.
D

Facebook has a long track record and sordid history of abusing their users’ trust and privacy, including the most recent and egregious cases currently making headlines with Cambridge Analytica as well as election meddling in the US and Britain. As if that wasn’t enough, it then came to light that they have also been tracking and storing users’ phone call and text message data, including “who contacted whom, what time, and how long the conversation was.” This is nothing new, as we can see from this 2012 “study” in which they deliberately manipulated news feeds to influence users’ emotional state. And again with their settlement with the FCC back in 2011 (that they likely violated with their recent offenses) over deceiving consumers by telling them their information was private, but then repeatedly sharing it and making it public. And then there’s The Ugly Memo, in which a FB exec justifies growth at any cost in the name of connecting people, even if that results literally in people dying: We talk about the good and the bad of our work often. I want to talk about the ugly. We connect people. That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. And still we connect people. The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good. And up until this most recent Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook was negotiating with various healthcare organizations to share patients’ health data with FB so they could match it up to your social circle to allegedly provide better health care. Um yeah right. Each time this stuff happens, they issue an apology (or a justification for their behavior) and promise they will take steps to better inform users and protect their privacy, but it’s clear that this is just lip service at this point. At this point Facebook has probably:  A. Continued the same practices.  B. Followed through on fixing issues.  C. Stopped collecting information on users.  D. not enough information


assistant: A