Thank you for a beautiful summation, I am sorry I cannot offer you a mod point.

And me without mod points - Well played, sir or madam. Well played.

Please don't take offense, but the only thing making you work the extra time ... is YOU. The manager is breaking the law to require you to be there during your lunch hour, so use the power of your feet and leave for that time. If they fire you, turn them in and let the state or feds go after them.
Plus, why would any sane person keep working for a company that is willing to lie so blatantly to you? Have you checked to ensure you are getting the other benefits they promised? Have you been able to take the vacation time you supposedly earned? Maybe you should ...

Those users quite simply "Google it" ... what they really lack is the desire or understanding of why they might want to do such a thing.

If you want people to switch their default browser you need to make them want to, and that's just not happening. As for the other apps, they are quite easy to ignore, IF the users want to use another application. Most people don't care.

If the "mistaken" news organization trumpets the original on page one and buries the correction on page 27 (like nearly all printed sources, and many TV presenters) then correcting the original means little.

If they fix the posted story (like websites can and sometimes do) AND leave the information that the story was updated then yes, they can keep a bunch of credibility.

If, however, they pull down the original story and post a different story WITHOUT posting the fact that they have updated things, then no, they get no points for credibility. Getting it wrong should matter if you are in the news business. Getting it FIRST instead of getting it RIGHT is one of the most annoying things the "news" organizations do these days ... YMMV.

And old Satan Claus, Jimmy, he's out there. And he's just getting stronger.

Here is a perfectly cromulent explanation of what the expression means, and where it came from: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fenglish.stackexchange.com%2Fquestions%2F34793%2Fwhat-is-the-origin-of-the-phrase-cut-and-dried

The use of past tense is important to the explanation in that 'dried' implies completion where 'dry' does not.

See, that is the kind of lazy use of English that makes people not listen to you, Ami. ... your "resisting the government trying to deport your family" can also be written as "legally deporting people who are in the country illegally, many of whom have made no effort to become citizens"" and your "take away the healthcare that is keeping you alive" can be written as "I just want to make up false stories about what might be in a healthcare bill I never read". Please try to stick to facts if you intend to malign large groups of people, some of whom are more than tired of your slant on things.

Why, because they can't subtract? The US didn't magically come into existence when the Civil Rights Laws were passed (to pick one date for arguement's sake) the origination date was in 1776. (2017-1776=241 ... or ~250 in political speech.) The amount of freedom has (mostly) waxed and (sometimes, see Manzanar) waned but the goal, the concept of America as a free nation has been around since that date. Perhaps you mean to argue that those groups are still not free. If so, bring us your arguement so we may gaze upon it and become learned.

Nicely said, I wish I had a Mod point to give you. Instead, please accept my thanks. Aloha!

So you are saying that as a non-customer who has become accustomed to the use of a service you are NOT paying for these providers should not be able to prioritize network bandwidth or "speed" for the benefit of their paying customers? Well, why didn't you say so, of course we should do things your way. Here is your unicorn-shaped-balloon and a can of WTF. Enjoy, guy-whose-opinion-makes-no-bit-of-difference!

Thank you, that made sense.

Oddly enough, I read the original article and at no point did they say President Trump HAD actually threatened to kill the merger, instead they were just stirring the pot by suggesting he COULD. The second article allegedly quotes an unidentified WH insider as saying that President Trump liked the idea, but again did NOT say he had made any such threat.
It may be true, of course, but this is just a big nothing burger again ... it would be just as true to say the "President Trump could dispense the contents of Fort Knox to veterans and the elderly." I expected better of ArsTechnica.. Feel free to hate on the President for what he has actually done, but every time you bandwagon one of these claims you help to bolster the 'fake news' arguement. And no, I voted for the lesser johnson, Gary, not the Donald.

Re this section:
You think the government should be able to limit profits and capital?
It already does, via taxation. There are numerous other limitations placed on companies too.

No, the government does NOT get to limit profits and capital directly, that is a minor secondary effect of taxation. Were they to attempt to make it a primary effect (like you do in England/UK/Europe et al - remember when the Beatles were in the 98% tax bracket? Pepperidge Farms remembers!) we WOULD see a revolution. We Americans like the practice that if we work harder/longer/etc we get more for our efforts, and having the government penalize us for doing so would NOT be tolerated here.

Those are all good reasons a reader may not have read the article in question, so why then would such a non-reader feel qualified to comment upon the article? If this blocks out those who were not able to (or more likely, couldn't be bothered to) read the article don't we all GAIN from not having their uninformed commentary?