(Question)
Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: It will come as no surprise to those working in the UK's higher education (HE) sector that universities are currently suffused with anxiety. The University and College Union (UCU) has recently been in dispute with employers over proposed changes to the USS pension scheme, and the most sustained period of industrial action in the sector's history has highlighted the fears staff have for the security of their futures post-retirement. Such unprecedented strike action needs to be situated within the wider context of a public sector undergoing transformation: while the concept remains contested, the influence of "neoliberal" ideas on universities can most clearly be seen in Success as a Knowledge Economy the government white paper that preceded the 2017 Higher Education and Research Act which states: "Competition between providers in any market incentivises them to raise their game, offering consumers a greater choice of more innovative and better quality products and services at lower cost. Higher education is no exception." Yet what might "raising our game" mean for academic staff? The university has been described as an "anxiety machine": the creeping marketisation of the sector along with pressure to recruit students (now "consumers"), increasing managerialism, and the implementation of processes of audit such as the REF and TEF to evaluate performance have arguably contributed to a progressively anxious landscape in which to labour. In 2016/17, 34% of academic staff were employed on fixed-term contracts a figure likely to be disputed by the UCU, since in 2016 it estimated the extent of casualisation in the sector to be closer to 54% once atypical contracts had been taken into consideration. In addition to pressures facing many staff in universities such as time-management, meeting growing employer expectations, and the evaluation of performance "casualised" contracts present particular challenges for those facing employment uncertainty: in a material sense, this can be a case of keeping up with... Question: How do education workers probably feel about their work environment? Options: - They feel comfortable with the pressures they have at work - They are frustrated with their situation - not enough information - They are happy with the amount of oversight they have
(Answer)
They are frustrated with their situation

(Question)
Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: Recently the news broke that Microsoft are acquiring GitHub. Effusive opinions flowed from all directions: some saw the acquisition as a sensible fit for Microsoft to better support developers, and some saw it as a tyrant getting their grubby fingers on open source's ecosystem. I am thrilled for Microsoft and GitHub for many reasons, and there will be a bright future ahead because of it, but I have been thinking more about the reaction some of the critics have had to this, and why. I find it fascinating that there still seems to be a deep-seated discomfort in some about Microsoft and their involvement in open source. I understand that this is for historical reasons, and many moons ago Microsoft were definitely on the offensive against open source. I too was critical of Microsoft and their approach back in those days. I may have even said 'M$' instead of 'MS' (ugh.) Things have changed though. Satya Nadella, their CEO, has had a profound impact on the company: they are a significant investor and participant in open source across a multitude of open source projects, they hire many open source developers, run their own open source projects (e.g. VSCode), and actively sponsor and support many open source conferences, events, and initiatives. I know many people who work at Microsoft and they love the company and their work there. These are not microserfs: they are people like you and me. Things have changed, and I have literally never drunk Kool-aid; this or any other type. Are they perfect? No, but they don't claim to be. But is the Microsoft of today a radically different company to the Microsoft of the late nineties. No doubt. Still though, this cynicism exists in some. Some see them as a trojan horse and ask if we can really trust them? A little while ago I had a discussion with someone who was grumbling about Microsoft. After poking around his opinion, what shook out was that his real issue was not with Microsoft's open source work (he was supportive of this), but it was with the fact that they still produce... Question: How was Microsoft different now compared to the old days? Options: - because they support open source now - because they have taken over the software world - not enough information - because they don't charge money for software now
(Answer)
because they support open source now

(Question)
Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: SEOUL The U.S. and South Korea remain united in pursing a diplomatic solution to end the North Korean nuclear threat, but their national security priorities may differ over what would be the role of the U.S. military in Korea after a denuclearization deal is reached. "That is going to be the moment of truth, so to speak, when the United States and South Korea will have to agree on what kind of security alliance we want to maintain moving forword," said Go Myong-Hyun, a North Korea analyst at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul. U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday revived the June 12 Singapore summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, eight days after canceling it. Trump said he was convinced of Kim's commitment to denuclearization by the renewed diplomatic talks that included a visit to Washington by Kim Yong Chol, the North's former intelligence chief, who carried a letter from the North Korean leader. South Korean President Moon Jae-in has been influential in facilitating the U.S.-North Korea summit, in getting Kim to agree to the broad goal of denuclearization, and in urging Trump to stay committed to the diplomatic process to resolve differences with North Korea. President Trump seems to be leaning now towards Moon's approach versus the more confrontational stance advocated by some of his security team in demanding that North Korea unilaterally and completely disarm before any concessions are granted. Friday Trump downplayed expectations for a major breakthrough at the summit, saying it will be the beginning of a process. He also backed away from his "maximum pressure" approach that stressed tough sanctions and the threat of military force, focusing instead on brokering an agreement to end the North's nuclear program for economic aid and security guarantees that could include a peace treaty to replace the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953. South Korean officials said there is possibility that Moon may join Trump in Singapore to help negotiate a nuclear deal with Kim, as the... Question: When did Trump revive the Singapore Summit? Options: - not enough information - June 12th - Eight days after cancelling it - When Kim came to Washington
(Answer)
Eight days after cancelling it