While the math parts of this book were OK and sometimes even pretty good, it has many issues.
We spend too much time on the lottery example and mostly on parts that have nothing to do with math (why didn't the state stop the lottery? If it has nothing to do with differential equations or anything like that, why should we care?).
But the most striking problem is the one you can find in many bad popular science books written in the USA. Basically it goes like this: "Some math stuff or physics or whatever and then hey! Democrats are great and Republicans are poopyheads". Did you know that some Republican senator from some state made a stupid decision? Did you know that some stupid Republican said that Obama was wrong, but Obama was right (because he is cool)? And most importantly, Al Gore should have won Florida, yes, you will read about that at least three times in every chapter. I'm afraid to think what would have happened if this book had been written after Trump won the election.
And if you're not an American (like me) and don't care about this stuff, don't worry. North Korea is also terrible (maybe Kim Jong Un is a Republican?). And while we don't go to the USSR in this book, which is great, there is a mention of Stalin killing 50 billion people, because of course he's evil (I would suggest to the author to shit on his own country's history in the future, being good at math doesn't make you an expert in history or political science for that matter).
And not only do these examples make you feel like someone is trying to shove their political views down your throat, but they are not very good examples either.
Let's take one about Syria. There's a guy, an author friend from university, who used to sell T-shirts and he had piles of these T-shirts in his room and he decides to wear them because he's lazy and he doesn't want to bother with laundry. Everyone thinks that he is the dirtiest guy because he wears the same T-shirt every day, but actually he is the cleanest because it is a new T-shirt every day. The conclusion is that you shouldn't make assumptions unless you know all the possibilities. Makes sense.
So there were elections in Syria, and Bashar Assad won (and Assad is a dictator, evil guy, probably killed many billions of people, maybe he is even a republican). And the voting numbers looked strange, not random enough for the author's taste. Then we are told that while this is not hard evidence, it looks like the elections were rigged. But isn't that the same situation as a few chapters before? There could be other reasons why the numbers look that way, but because of the author's political stance, he tells us that Bashar Assad wears dirty t-shirts every day. He could have taken any other election that was proven to be rigged and show us numbers, but no, this book is about how bad Assad is, the math is just for background.
The author's political views have more influence on him than the math. This book is not about mathematical thinking, this book is about a political position. And that was not what the notes said it was. It has some math, and the math parts are good, but there are many books that are much better. For example, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" covers most of this stuff (but with less math in it, unfortunately), "Algorithms to Live By" was also good. Read those and skip this one.
I've noticed that if a book about science mentions Stalin, it's a bad book, like this one. Stalin is not an astronomical object, you can't make Stalin in a particle accelerator, you can't find him in your DNA, so you won't find him mentioned in books by Neil deGrasse Tyson or Stephen Hawking, in Smashing Physics or The Selfish Gene, because those are good books about science and Stalin is a historical and political figure and his place is in books about history and politics. So if you open up a popular science book and the author is trying to convince you that Stalin is evil or that Al "He actually won in Florida" Gore actually won in freaking Florida, then that book is probably a shitty book.