Lancome Juicy Tubes changed my life. Ok, well that's a slight exaggeration but it was the first high-end make-up item that I ever bought and it made me feel like I was really getting somewhere. I'd got a good job, was in the process of buying my own house and I could afford to buy premium beauty products. I chose a transparent lemon yellow gloss with tiny flecks of iridescent glitter in, and over the following months I treated myself to several other Juicy Tube variants including a shimmery nude gloss called Pamplemousse which I wore on nights out for years (incidentally Pamplemousse is still going!). Fast forward several (ahem) years and Juicy Tubes are still going strong, but there's a new member of the Juicy family vying for attention the Juicy Shaker.*. Another lip product, this one is a nourishing tinted lip oil which acts a bit like a gloss, and I was sent two of the new shades to try out Piece of Cake and Show Me The Honey. Juicy Shakers are a bi-phase nourishing lip oil, when the product is allowed to settle the pigment falls to the bottom and the oil rises to the top, giving a split effect. Then you need to shake the bottle to mix the two layers together, giving the product it's name. The ingredients include sweet almond oil, omega 3 and cranberry oil and really help care for your lips unlike most other glosses. Show Me The Honey is a nude coral shade, it looks rather orange and scary in the bottle but in reality it's much more of a gentle shade. Piece of Cake is a damson pink, and again looks much darker in the bottle. I found that Piece of Cake matches almost exactly with the natural colour of my lips so it's perfect for when I want my make-up to look really pared back with glossy supple natural looking lips. What shades of Juicy Tubes look good on her? A. not enough information B. natural C. nude D. a gentle orange
A

With almost two years left of my law degree, and with no intention of doing anything so idiotic as actually attending lectures or studying law, I had plenty of time to come up with my next bid for online fame. The Griff Rhys Jones TV project had stalled after a couple of meetings when everyone involved realised that the idea - to pipe broadband comedy programming into the nation's workplaces under the noses of bosses - was a bit of a non-starter. But I had become quite good friends with Rhys Jones's partner in the project, a comedy writer called Charlie Skelton, and he, Clare and I frequently met to brainstorm possible projects we might work on together. It was during one of these meetings that Clare proposed the idea of starting a comedy magazine - something like Private Eye, but for the Internet generation. My days as a school magazine publisher had taught me that printing magazines and distributing them was a royal pain in the arse and, anyway, if it was to be a magazine for the Internet generation then shouldn't it actually be on the Internet? The Zingin.com newsletter had attracted a ton of subscribers and had a distribution cost of basically nothing so why, I suggested, didn't we start a weekly comedy ezine, sent out by email? And, in a nod to Charlie's failed office comedy project, we could target it at bored office workers, sending the email to them on a Friday afternoon to cure the crushing boredom of those final few hours of the working week. And with that, The Friday Thing was born. To promote our fledgling publication we came up with a brilliant ruse: an online petition to have Friday afternoons declared a national holiday. British people worked harder than any other Europeans (we made up) and so it was only fair that our working week should end at noon on a Friday. We created an official website explaining our demands, registered a web address - letsgetitoff.com (snigger) - and sent a press release to the media. Clearly we had tapped into a seam of strong feeling among the nation's overworked... How long was the writer probably a school magazine publisher? A. Throughout middle school B. Throughout elementary school C. not enough information D. Throughout high school
D

Q: 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. What is Cambridge Analytica? A. An advertising company B. not enough information C. A networking company D. A data company
A: B

(Q).
Relatives of a dying lady I was caring for kicking and screaming not to give their Mum pain relief because they were so terrified / knew it would probably be the thing to end her life. She had a horrible aggressive cancer that ravaged her whole body and needed very regular doses of strong pain relief which - as she had a terminal illness and was receiving end of life care - did not have an upper limit so to speak. She had pain relief as and when needed to make her comfortable and that often results in people ultimately overdosing. Mum had Alzheimer's and was howling and writhing in agony so we were giving her pain relief but daughters knew it would probably result in her death - which they were right about possibly happening and in their grief and panic, started trying to prevent us from doing anything. Didn't want us getting near her at all and we had to go through an awful scenario of trying to explain what we had to do for Mum and why and when they still wouldn't have it or allow us near, we had to do what nobody wants and go against their wishes by administering the pain relief anyway. One daughter screamed the place down, threatened to have me arrested and struck off / said she would go to the papers and tell them about how we killed her Mum and in the end she had to be removed from the bedroom. Her Mum was given the pain relief, immediately relaxed and fell asleep then died peacefully in her sleep about 15 mins later. The saddest thing is her daughter wasn't able to be there and see her Mum dropping off so peacefully and her last memory will forever be of her screaming and thrashing about as she (daughter) was physically removed from the room. Tragic. The writer probably believes that A. the daughter does not care about her mum B. the daughter is mean and cruel C. the daughter is thoughtful D. not enough information
(A).
B