prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Is there any evidence of heaven and hell?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: LOL Anonymous I'm here! & I did answer you back there 
kl el kotb el qadema (tawrat + enjel + 9o7f ibrahem) 7orfat w t'3ayarat   law ma 9ar hal shy chan ma 6ala3 ktab yded ye;3y elly gablah l7ad ma 6ala3 lna el quraan b norah elly allah 7f'6ah don ta7ref w tabdel ela yom el dein    shlon tyeeb Joan shy ma5ooth 5erah?!
1- Imagine you have two individuals  One truly believes in God but he is a bad husband and father who cheats on his wife and neglects his children  The other man is a nonbeliever; he accepts religion in theory and doctrine but simply does not have faith no matter how hard he tried  He is a good father and a good husband as well  When they stand before God at the Day of Judgment, would the nonbeliever be condemned to eternal hell only for that one flaw in him? Don't the other good traits in that person matter at all? Does being a nonbeliever equal being evil?
2-God knows everything  However, why would He have created when He knows exactly what each person is going to do and where they will end up? For example, let us suppose that tomorrow I will murder someone  God knows that I will do that  And He knows that I will suffer in hell when the time comes  So why does He purposely inflict that pain on me? To teach me a lesson? He knows the outcome of everything and everyone He has created 
3-Since you brought up science in the previous comments section, I am seriously curious (I am not trying to be glib) about dinosaurs and prehistoric humans  We have seen the evolution of humans and we have fossils and hard evidence of it  The science world has traced back "Eve" to Africa  The concept of Adam and Eve seems too mythological to be 100% factual  It has the same tone of Greek and Ancient Egyptian legends 
-Note: I am not trying to corner you here, I just want to know your response to my queries and thoughts  Thanks 
_ ولماذا نصلى ولمن نصلى    انى لا ارى لصلاتكم هذه اى حكمه ولماذا كل تلك الحركات اما كان يكفى الخشوع  
اعتقد ان المشكلة ليست كما ذكرت  فما ذكرته يعني ان هناك العديد من المسائل الفقهية المتصلة بالعصر الجديد دون حل  على العكس, فالحلال بين والحرام بين  اعتقد المشكلة تكمن بالمسلمين الذين اصابهم الوهن 
You'll be answerd personaly only if; you comment with your blogger's name/nick 
I answered you before & there was no response from your behalf  Why would you think you're worth an answer from me since you can seek answers from good books?
Your questions are very simple, with clean cut answers  Don't use the word corner; it indicates things you don't have the first alphabet for!
Religion was established to calm our fears from the unknown  Freud did write about it in the father figure argument  Try to read it 
I deleted my last comment because in the end of it I inserted some thing that may offend some people (if you read it, I gauss you know what I mean)  Abraham did not believe in God until he saw the birds come to life  So, all what I want is a single prove similar to Abraham 
I indeed busy doing my homework; I have to solve the energy equation and the continuity equation to come with another, hopefully, exact solution to the problem 
Do you work? I mean do you have a job, it seems that you are always on line!!!???? It is amazing how some one would stick to the internet  Try to go out more often, play sport or find any other hobby  If you could not disattach yourself from the internet try and seek a professional help… :-)  Honestly, I’m not making fun of you it is just an advice… sincere advice 
I measure prosperity of a nation by the degree of its civilization in comparison to others of its time  Islamic civilization was at the peak during the Umayyad and Abbasid reigns, at the time when Moslems conquered other nations and dying civilizations, and mixed with them, and the new comers in Islam started researching for the truth  In their quest they translated Greek philosophy books and dug into ancient ones  Their search for truth led them to the emergence of chemistry, Algebra and other sciences And their findings excelled them in innovative inventions  The maps and astrolabes that Columbus used to sail on his quest to discover the West years later were taken from the Arabs  And in contrary to the scribbles of their holy book, Arabic books were the first that brought the roundedness of earth to world attention  Arabic language romanticized the rigid Latin, poetry and verse advanced  At one time, civilization was dubbed as Arabization in Andalusia and that was evident in Andalusia’s Christian and Jewish ancient books  Islamic Architecture and their aggregation systems portrayed marvels of their time  Islamic libraries were huge and rich for the European knowledge seekers 
And history tells us that those were the times when Moslems were the furthest from the dogma of their religion, there societies were open to controlled prostitution in the name of dancimng Jawari, and alcohol was openly consumed  We also notice in these periods that struggle for power among them mounted, yet they were the most tolerant to other nations and beliefs  There was nothing Islamic about them at that time, only a name  After that time, the Islamic civilization collapsed and kept deteriorating as people clung more to the their religious beliefs that were diverted through different interpretations 
And based on that; I believe that it’s not only Moslems who missread their religion, the problem stemmed from the core of the religion (Quran and tradition) for being vague and subject to different interpretations  If Quran was the true word of God, then it should have contained the miracle of not being subject to different interpretations, at least to keep Moslems united, and then, one would believe that Islam is suitable for every location and time 
Nothing can give a solid proof of the existence of heaven and hell, yet, nothing can disprove it either  Same goes to God  So the chance remain fifty-fifty  You either believe in it for the sake of taking a lesser risk if you don’t believe in blind faith, or discard it all together  Yet, the possibility is there until proved or disproved  As for now; these cases can only be understood through logic  So let’s reiterate your question and narrow it down to make it closer to something that can be measured 
Is there any mention of the stories of prophets outside the holy books? Are there any archeological evidences of each prophet’s reign (and I stress prophet’s)? Are there any mention of each prophet in history books outside its holy book, or the books that were based on it’s holy books? Ok, that was too general, let’s narrow it down a bit since your knowledge of your religion, mashallah, especially in reciting Quran is superb 
Is there any mention of the prophet Mohammad reign in non-Moslem history books other than those referenced to Moslem books? And if there were; did those stories mach? Did archeology of Mohammad’s time match those stories? Did ancient books of other nations confirm those stories? After all Mecca was an open, mid trade center for traders of the South and the North, and supposedly was exposed and open to other nations, and an emergence of a new religion would not have gone unnoticed in the ancient books of those nations 
That's why faith is called "FAITH" to believe in the unseen, you see 
keep in mind that every major religion has gone through various phases from emergence to growth to stagnation to depression and reformation  these are cycles that play out across centuries and i suspect islam is not immune to them 
islam is unique in that it is truly the last 'great' religion and it is here to stay  the future should be one of consilience and consolidation between religions and peoples 
at the end of the day - tolerance of thought will be the salvation of mankind 
I've been asking your first question for as long as I can remember and nobody has given me a convincing answer yet  I also asked the second question verbatim when I was in my high school's Tarbiya Islamiya class, and the teacher had no answer  I kept hounding him until the students yelled at me to shut up and then he kicked me out!
We're all adults here, so why can't you answer Anon's query? I still find it amazing that you named yourself after Saint Joan  A Christian (gasp!) who will burn in hell according to some of the comments here 
All men are my brothers  I would have liked to have said it then, and I would like to say it now: all men are my brothers  But all men are not my brothers  Why? Because all women are my sisters  And the brother who denies the rights of his sister: that brother is not my brother  At the very best, he is my half-brother - by definition  Osama is not my brother 
Religion is sensitive ground, as well it might be  Here we walk on eggshells  Because religion is itself an eggshell  Today, in the West, there are no good excuses for religious belief - unless we think that ignorance, reaction and sentimentality are good excuses  This is of course not so in the East, where, we acknowledge, almost every living citizen in many huge and populous countries is intimately defined by religious belief  The excuses, here, are very persuasive; and we duly accept that 'faith' - recently and almost endearingly defined as 'the desire for the approval of supernatural beings' - is a world-historical force and a world-historical actor  All religions, unsurprisingly, have their terrorists, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, even Buddhist  But we are not hearing from those religions  We are hearing from Islam 
Let us make the position clear  We can begin by saying, not only that we respect Muhammad, but that no serious person could fail to respect Muhammad - a unique and luminous historical being  Judged by the continuities he was able to set in motion, he remains a titanic figure, and, for Muslims, all-answering: a revolutionary, a warrior, and a sovereign, a Christ and a Caesar, 'with a Koran in one hand', as Bagehot imagined him, 'and a sword in the other'  Muhammad has strong claims to being the most extraordinary man who ever lived  And always a man, as he always maintained, and not a god  Naturally we respect Muhammad  But we do not respect Muhammad Atta 
Until recently it was being said that what we are confronted with, here, is 'a civil war' within Islam  That's what all this was supposed to be: not a clash of civilisations or anything like that, but a civil war within Islam  Well, the civil war appears to be over  And Islamism won it  The loser, moderate Islam, is always deceptively well-represented on the level of the op-ed page and the public debate; elsewhere, it is supine and inaudible  We are not hearing from moderate Islam  Whereas Islamism, as a mover and shaper of world events, is pretty well all there is 
So, to repeat, we respect Islam - the donor of countless benefits to mankind, and the possessor of a thrilling history  But Islamism? No, we can hardly be asked to respect a creedal wave that calls for our own elimination  More, we regard the Great Leap Backwards as a tragic development in Islam's story, and now in ours  Naturally we respect Islam  But we do not respect Islamism, just as we respect Muhammad and do not respect Muhammad Atta 
المؤامرات على الأديان وجميع الانقلابات المخربة والثورات على القيم والمبادئ خرجت من هذا التراث    وان كل معول هدم كان وراءه توجيه يهودي 
•تذكروا أن الشعب الذي لا يهلك غيره يهلك نفسه 
•يجب ان نخلق الجيل الذي لا يخجل من كشف عورته (ألا تفسر لنا هذه الجملة موجة العرى في الافلام والموضات التى تسود العالم الآن) 
 علينا ان نشعل حربا بين الشعوب ونضرب الدول بعضها ببعض فبهذا يصبح جميع المتحاربين في حاجة الى أموالنا فنفرض عليهم شروطنا 
•الجماهير عمياء فاشتروها بالمال وسوقوها كالبهائم الى أهدافكم 
•سيطروا على الانتخابات ووسائل الاعلام والصحافة (وهم قد سيطروا عليها بالمال والجنس والمرأة في الغرب الرأسمالي وبالحزب والسلطة في العالم الاشتراكي) 
•ادفعوا الجماهير العمياء الى الثورة وسلموهم مقاليد الحكم ليحكموا في غوغائية وغباء (وقد فعلوا هذه في الثورة الفرنسية) وحينئذ نأتي نحن ونعدمهم فنكون منقذين للعالم (وقد اعدموهم جميعاً من روبسبير الى ميرابوا) 
•ارفعوا شعار الحرية واهدموا بها الاخلاق والاسرة والقومية والوطنية 
 ارفعوا شعار العلم واهدموا به الدين    وهذا ما فعله كمال أتاتورك (حفيد مزاراحي) حينما اقام الدولة العلمانية في تركيا ووقف يخطب في البرلمان التركي عام 1923 ساخراً من القرآن 
نحن الآن في القرن العشرين لا نستطيع ان نسير وراء كتاب تشريع يبحث عن التين والزيتون 
•الذي يعرقل مؤامراتكم اوقعوه في فضائح ثم هددوه بكشفها (وقد فعلوها في ووترجيت) او في مآزق مالية ثم تقدموا لانقاذه (وقد فعلها دزرائيلي مع الخديو واستولى على القنال)   وإذ تعذر الامر سارعوا الى اغتياله (وقد فعلوها بكنيدي) ثم اقتلوا قاتله لتدفنوا اسرارنا معه الى الأبد (وقد فعلوها بقاتل كنيدي) 
•اقتلوا القوميات والوطنيات بالدعوة الى الاممية والمواطنة العالمية وقد فعلها ماركس في الشيوعية 
•كل ما عدا اليهود حيوانات ناطقة سخرها الله في خدمة اليهود 
واليهودية ترى ان الله واحد ولكنها تحتكره لنفسها فلا عمل لله الا الحفاظ على اسرائيل وتسخير جميع الشعوب لخدمتها 
واللاهوت اليهودي لا يؤمن بآخرة، وقد شطبوا كل ما جاء عن الآخرة في التوراة    والقيامة عندهم هي قيامة دولتهم في فلسطين والبعث بعثها والنشر نشرها    ويوم الحساب هو اليوم الذي يحاسبون فيه كل الأمم يوم يعود المسيح ويباركهم ويختارهم نواباً له في حكم العالم وإقامة ملكوت الله على الأرض    والعجيب انهم كفروا بالمسيح حينما جاء ثم أعلنوا إيمانهم بعودته وشرطوا هذه العودة بانها رجعة من المسيح ليختارهم رؤساء وحكاماً للعالم الى الأبد 
والفكر اليهودي يلقى غلالة من الأسرار والطلاسم والكتمان والغموض على كل شئ    والكبالا والسحر وعلم الأعداد والحروف وتسخير الشياطين من علومهم التى شغفوا بها وروجوها ونشروها 
وكانت وسيلتهم الى هدم الكتب السماوية هى تفسيرها بالتأويل وذلك برفض المعاني الظاهرة واختراع معان باطنة تهدم الغرض الديني وتفسد هدفه 
ونستطيع ان نرى اثر التوجيه الهودي في الفلسفات العبثية والدمية والمادية والفوضية والإباحية    واحيانا نلمح اسماء يهودية خلفها مثل : سارتر – فرويد – ماركس – ماركوز 
واذا فتحنا ملف الديانة البهائية فإننا نجد اثر التوجيه اليهودي واضحا في كتبها 
عبد الهاء تأليف سليم قبعين القاهرة مطبعة العمران 1922 
مفواضات عبد البهاء الطبعة الاولى 1928م  موعود كل الامم 
جورج تاوزنه مطبوع بإذن من المحفل الروحاني لمصر والسودان 
•اكثر فلاسفة اليونان تعلموا الحكمة من بنى اسرائيل 
•رسالة عبد البهاء هي توحيد المسلمين والنصارى واليهود وجمعهم على أصل نواميس موسى 
•عمل موسى لا يس
Context 2: 2015-05-14 Assigned to ROVI GUIDES, INC  reassignment ROVI GUIDES, INC  MERGER (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)  Assignors: TV GUIDE, INC 
2015-05-14 Assigned to UV CORP  reassignment UV CORP  MERGER (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)  Assignors: UNITED VIDEO PROPERTIES, INC 
2015-05-14 Assigned to TV GUIDE, INC  reassignment TV GUIDE, INC  MERGER (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)  Assignors: UV CORP 
Methods and systems are described herein for quickly and easily displaying supplemental information about an event occurring in a media asset  In some embodiments, a media application may use a content-recognition module to determine the context of an event and distribute itemized tasks to multiple entities in order to generate the supplemental information about the event 
While viewing media assets (e g , a television program), users may wish to learn more information about an event (e g , a statement made by a person appearing in the media asset, the validity of a claim in an advertisement, etc ) occurring in the media asset  While some media assets allow a user to select additional options or added features (e g , pop-up biographies about the cast and crew), when the added features appear and what topic the added features concern are determined by the content producer and not the user  Furthermore, as the added feature is derived from the content producer, the added feature may be biased or may present limited viewpoints about an event  Therefore, added features provided by a content producer may not provide the added information about an event that a user desires 
In order to gain the added information that a user desires, the user may use additional devices (e g , a laptop computer) to search (e g , using an Internet search engine) for more information about the event  However, without knowing the proper context (e g , who said the statement, what was the tone of the statement, when was the statement said, etc ) of the event or what search terms to use to describe the context of the event (e g , how to describe the tone of the statement), a user may not be able to determine (even using a search engine) more information about the event  Moreover, the use of general search terms may not provide the accuracy or precision needed by the user  Furthermore, even if a user may eventually determine the information, the effort and time required may distract the user from the media asset 
Accordingly, methods and systems are described herein for quickly and easily displaying supplemental information about an event occurring in a media asset  In some embodiments, a media application may use a content-recognition module to determine the context of an event in a media asset and distribute itemized tasks to multiple users in order to generate the supplemental information about the event  The context-recognition module prevents the user from being distracted from the media asset (e g , while the user attempts to describe the context of the event or search for information about the event)  In addition, by distributing tasks to multiple entities (e g , crowd-sourcing), the media application may collect large amounts of information in relatively short periods of time (or in real-time) and aggregate and/or filter the information to generate the supplemental information about the event based on multiple viewpoints and/or sources  By using multiple viewpoints and/or sources, the media application enhances the completeness (e g , by providing unbiased information) and accuracy of the supplemental information 
For example, when a statement or action is made by a character or person appearing on a media asset (e g , a television program), a user may request supplemental information about the statement or action  In response, the media application may determine the context of the statement (e g , who said the statement and to what the statement was referring) or action (e g , what was the reason for the action)  After determining the context of the statement or action, the media application may itemize into tasks the additional information it requires in order to generate the supplemental information  The media application may then transmit requests including the tasks to a plurality of other users  Based on the responses from the plurality of other users, the media application may generate the supplemental information for display to the user 
In some embodiments, a media application may use multiple types of content-recognition modules and/or algorithms to determine the context of an event  For example, the media application may process data associated with the event in order to determine the context of an event  In some embodiments, processing the various types of data may include cross-referencing the data in a database indicating the different contexts the event may have 
In some embodiments, a media application may generate supplemental information about an event in a media asset in response to a user request  In order to generate the supplemental information, the media application may transmit, to multiple users, a request for additional information regarding a context of an event shown in a media asset  Upon receiving messages from the plurality of users that include the requested additional information, the media application may generate the supplemental information associated with the context of the event based on the messages 
It should be noted, the systems and/or methods described above may be applied to, or used in accordance with, other systems, methods and/or apparatuses 
FIG  9 is a flowchart of illustrative steps for generating supplemental information based on additional information provided by a plurality of users in accordance with some embodiments of the disclosure 
Accordingly, methods and systems are described herein for quickly and easily displaying supplemental information about an event occurring in a media asset  The methods and systems described herein alleviate the need for a user to determine the proper context (e g , who said a statement, what was the tone of the statement, when was the statement said, etc ) of an event in a media asset, or the search terms to use to describe the event (e g , the proper search terms to describe the tone of the statement), in order to determine more information about the event  In addition, the methods and systems increase the completeness and accuracy of the information compared to information gathered using traditional searching methods (e g , an Internet search engine), without distracting the user from the media asset 
In some embodiments, a media application may receive a user input from a user device for supplemental information about the context of an event shown in a media asset  The media application may determine additional information required to generate the supplemental information about the context of the event shown in a media asset, and transmit requests for the additional information to one or more users  The media application may receive one or more messages, which include the requested additional information, from the one or more users and generate the supplemental information based on the one or more message  The media application may then instruct the user device to display the supplemental information 
As used herein, “supplemental information” refers to any information related to or associated with an event in a media asset  For example, supplemental information may include, but is not limited to, the verification of a statement or claim in a media asset, further descriptions and/or information about objects or entities shown and/or described in a media asset, and/or any other information, including, but not limited to, a video or audio segment, that may interest a user about an event in a media asset  In some embodiments, the media application may generate supplemental information based on one or more pieces of additional information 
As used herein, “additional information” refers to any information used to generate supplemental information  For example, in an embodiment in which supplement information is the verification of a statement made by a person displayed in a media asset, and a request for the additional information from the media application includes a request for a fact needed to verify the factual basis of the statement, the additional information may be the fact used to verify the statement  For example, if an advertisement claims to have the best product on the market, the media application may use additional information such as the name of the product in question, a list of all other products in the market, and the results of a comparison study of the product in question to all other products to determine whether or not the product is actually the “best” product on the market  Additionally or alternatively, the media application may request industry and/or user reviews related to the event (e g , reviews indicating the quality of the product)  The media application may then use the information in the reviews to generate the supplemental information 
As used herein, an “event” is any action (e g , a verbal statement, opinion and/or physical movement), segment (e g , a portion of a news broadcast featuring a particular topic), or other occurrence during a media asset that may be of particular interest to a user  For example, in some embodiments an event may be a statement or gesture made by a character or person in a media asset affirming or denying a claim 
As referred to herein, the terms “media asset” and “content” should be understood to mean an electronically consumable user asset, such as television programming, as well as pay-per-view programs, on-demand programs (as in video-on-demand (VOD) systems), Internet content (e g , streaming content, downloadable content, Webcasts, etc ), video clips, audio, content information, pictures, rotating images, documents, playlists, websites, articles, books, electronic books, blogs, advertisements, chat sessions, social media, applications, games, and/or any other media or multimedia and/or combination of the same  Media applications also allow users to navigate among and locate content  As referred to herein, the term “multimedia” should be understood to mean content that utilizes at least two different content forms described above, for example, text, audio, images, video, or interactivity content forms  Content may be recorded, played, displayed or accessed by user equipment devices, but can also be part of a live performance 
As referred to herein, the phrase “user equipment device,” “user equipment,” “user device,” “electronic device,” “electronic equipment,” “media equipment device,” or “media device” should be understood to mean any device for accessing the content described above, such as a television, a Smart TV, a set-top box, an integrated receiver decoder (IRD) for handling satellite television, a digital storage device, a digital media receiver (DMR), a digital media adapter (DMA), a streaming media device, a DVD player, a DVD recorder, a connected DVD, a local media server, a BLU-RAY player, a BLU-RAY recorder, a personal computer (PC), a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a WebTV box, a personal computer television (PC/TV), a PC media server, a PC media center, a hand-held computer, a stationary telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile telephone, a portable video player, a portable music player, a portable gaming machine, a smart phone, or any other television equipment, computing equipment, or wireless device, and/or combination of the same 
In some embodiments, the user equipment device may have a front facing screen and a rear facing screen, multiple front screens, or multiple angled screens  In some embodiments, the user equipment device may have a front facing camera and/or a rear facing camera  On these user equipment devices, users may be able to navigate among and locate the same content available through a television  Consequently, media may be available on these devices, as well  The media provided may be for content available only through a television, for content available only through one or more of other types of user equipment devices, or for content available both through a television and one or more of the other types of user equipment devices  The media applications may be provided as on-line applications (i e , provided on a website), or as stand-alone applications or clients on user equipment devices  Various devices and platforms that may implement media applications are described in more detail below 
In some embodiments, a media application may transmit, to a plurality of users, a request for additional information regarding a context of an event shown in a media asset  As used herein, a “plurality of users” may include, but is not limited to any device, entity, or source of information that may process a request for additional information  For example, the plurality of users may include a person operating a user equipment device  In some embodiments, the person may receive (e g , via e-mail, Internet posting, advertisement, or any other applicable information delivery method) the request from the media application for additional information, and in response generate a message (e g , via a return e-mail, an answer to the Internet posting, a user input in the advertisement, or any other applicable method of transmitting information) that includes the additional information  It should be noted that in some embodiments, transmitting a request to a plurality of users may also include querying one or more databases (e g , an Internet search engine or any other storage device, including, but not limited to, databases containing previously generated supplemental information and/or additional information) or consulting one or more data gathering services (e g , a intelligent personal assistant application) for the additional information 
In some embodiments, a media application may use a content-recognition module or algorithm to determine the context of an event and distribute itemized tasks to multiple users in order to generate the supplemental information about the event  The content-recognition module may use object recognition techniques such as edge detection, pattern recognition, including, but not limited to, self-learning systems (e g , neural networks), optical character recognition, on-line character recognition (including but not limited to, dynamic character recognition, real-time character recognition, intelligent character recognition), and/or any other suitable technique or method to determine the objects and/or characteristics in media assets  For example, the media application may receive media assets in the form of a video  The video may include a series of frames  For each frame of the video, the media application may use a content-recognition module or algorithm to determine the context (e g , the person that is speaking or a facial gesture affirming or denying a statement) of an event occurring during the frame or series of frames 
In some embodiments, the content-recognition module or algorithm may also include speech recognition techniques, including but not limited to Hidden Markov Models, dynamic time warping, and/or neural networks (as described above) to translate spoken words into text  The content-recognition module may also use other techniques for processing audio and/or visual data  For example, the media application may monitor the volume of a statement in a media asset to determine the tone of the statement (e g , a high volume may indicate an angry tone) 
In addition, the media application may use multiple types of optical character recognition and/or fuzzy logic, for example, when determining the context of a keyword(s) retrieved from data (e g , media data, translated audio data, subtitle data, user-generated data, etc ) associated with the media asset (or when cross-referencing various types of data with databases indicating the different contexts of events as described below)  For example, the particular data field may be a textual data field  Using fuzzy logic, the system may determine two fields and/or values to be identical even though the substance of the data field or value (e g , two different spellings) is not identical  In some embodiments, the system may analyze particular data fields of a data structure or media asset frame for particular values or text  The data fields could be associated with characteristics, additional information, and/or any other data required for the function of the embodiments described herein  Furthermore, the data fields could contain values (e g , the data fields could be expressed in binary or any other suitable code or programming language) 
As used herein, the “context” of an event refers to the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event that influence or affect the meaning of the event  For example, when determining the context of a written and/or spoken statement, the media application may determine who or what authored/stated the statement, the written and/or spoken words and/or other statements that preceded and/or followed the statement, the tone of the statement, and/or any other conditions that may alter the connotation of the statement 
FIG  1 shows an illustrative example of a media application that may be used to display supplemental information in accordance with some embodiments of the disclosure  Display 100 illustrates a display on a user device displaying a media asset  Display 108 illustrates a display featuring supplemental information as described and/or generated in FIGS  6-9  It should be noted that display 100 and display 108 may be presented on any of the devices shown in FIGS  3-4  For example, in some embodiments, display 100 and display 108 may be displayed on user equipment 402, 404, and/or 406 (FIG  4) 
In FIG  1, display 100 represents a display of a media asset (e g , a streaming television program) on a user device (e g , user equipment 402, 404, and/or 406 (FIG  4))  Display 100 includes entity 102 and entity 104  In display 100, entity 104 is currently speaking as indicated by event 106  As shown in FIG  1, event 106 is a statement (e g , “We export a lot of coal”) by a person in the media asset 
In some embodiments, display 108 represents the continued display of the media asset on a user device, after a user has requested supplemental information about event 106  For example, a media application may have received a user input (e g , via user input interface 310 (FIG  3)) while entity 104 was speaking  Using the systems and methods described herein (e g , FIGS  6-9), the media application generated supplemental information 110  Supplemental information 110 represents more information about event 106 
For example, the media application (e g , media application 206 (FIG  2)) may have determined the context of event 106  Specifically, the media application may determine via a content-recognition module or algorithm the words spoken and/or actions by the person during the event  Additionally or alternatively, the media application may analyze the words and/or action during a predetermined amount of time (e g , ten seconds) before and/or after the event (e g , in order to better understand the context of the event)  Furthermore, by cross-referencing the words and/or other information obtained by the content-recognition module (e g , as discussed below in relation to FIG  5) with a database, the content-recognition module determines that the term “we,” the person in the media asset refers to an organization or body
Context 3: South Dakota v  Wayfair, Inc  - Harvard Law Review
Fourth Circuit Invalidates Maryland Statute Regulating Price Gouging in the Sale of Generic Drugs 
South Dakota Supreme Court Holds Unconstitutional State Law Requiring Internet Retailers Without In-State Physical Presence to Remit Sales Tax 
Judicial junk, the Court has long thought, is easier to scrap when the erroneous precedent cannot be fixed by Congress, as in constitutional cases 1× 1  See Burnet v  Coronado Oil & Gas Co , 285 U S  393, 405–10 (1932) (Brandeis, J , dissenting); Lee Epstein, William M  Landes & Adam Liptak, The Decision to Depart (or Not) from Constitutional Precedent: An Empirical Study of the Roberts Court, 90 N Y U  L  Rev  1115, 1116 (2015) (“[Justice Brandeis’s] dissenting opinion       now has the status of black letter law ”)  On the flip side, whenever a bad precedent can be corrected by Congress, stare decisis applies with “special force ”2× 2  See Patterson v  McLean Credit Union, 491 U S  164, 172–73 (1989)  The Court, following Justice Brandeis, usually articulates the rule as distinguishing between “constitutional” and “statutory” precedents  See, e g , id  But the distinction is occasionally said to be between “constitutional” and “nonconstitutional cases ” See, e g , Glidden Co  v  Zdanok, 370 U S  530, 543 (1962) (plurality opinion)  Nomenclature aside, the Court has — until now — adhered to Justice Brandeis’s key insight that the important factor is whether or not the mistake may be legislatively corrected  Last Term, in South Dakota v  Wayfair, Inc ,3× 3  138 S  Ct  2080 (2018)  the Court tinkered with this thinking in overruling an outdated dormant commerce clause precedent  Dormant commerce clause decisions technically produce constitutional holdings, but Congress may override them at will 4× 4  See Prudential Ins  Co  v  Benjamin, 328 U S  408, 421–27 (1946)  Under the usual logic of stare decisis, it should take special force to dislodge such precedents  But Wayfair applied the weakened stare decisis of constitutional cases, asserting that the Court must “address a false constitutional premise         whether or not Congress can or will act ”5× 5  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096–97 
Emerging from Wayfair is an odd and ominous development in stare decisis doctrine  Odd, because it turns on a formal classification instead of on Congress’s practical ability to fix the problem  Ominous, because the Court’s logic leads far past the dormant commerce clause  Wayfair grants only feeble stare decisis to precedents that set a “constitutional default rule,”6× 6  Id  at 2096 (“While       Congress has the authority to change the physical presence rule, Congress cannot change the constitutional default rule ”)  meaning constitutional decisions that allow for legislative adjustment or override  This new stare decisis analysis makes other precedents setting constitutional default rules more vulnerable — including, perhaps, mainstays of criminal procedure like Miranda v  Arizona7× 7  384 U S  436 (1966)  and Mapp v  Ohio 8× 8  367 U S  643 (1961) 
Since its 1967 decision in National Bellas Hess, Inc  v  Department of Revenue,9× 9  386 U S  753 (1967)  the Court has held that, under the “dormant” or “negative” implication of the Commerce Clause,10× 10  The dormant or negative commerce clause is a judicial derivation from the Commerce Clause “prohibiting States from discriminating against or imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce without congressional approval,” which “strikes at one of the chief evils that led to the adoption of the Constitution, namely, state tariffs and other laws that burdened interstate commerce ” Comptroller of the Treasury of Md  v  Wynne, 135 S  Ct  1787, 1794 (2015)  states may not compel remote sellers with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales taxes 11× 11  See Bellas Hess, 386 U S  at 759–60  In Quill Corp  v  North Dakota,12× 12  504 U S  298 (1992)  the Court refused to overrule the “bright-line, physical-presence requirement” of Bellas Hess, leaning heavily on stare decisis 13× 13  Id  at 317–18  Three Justices joined a concurrence explaining that their decision rested solely “on the basis of stare decisis ” Id  at 320 (Scalia, J , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)  So the physical presence test remained the law of the land while the internet conquered the earth  Justice Kennedy had joined the Quill majority and Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion emphasizing stare decisis, but by 2015 he had second thoughts  Writing separately in Direct Marketing Ass’n v  Brohl,14× 14  135 S  Ct  1124 (2015)  Justice Kennedy acknowledged that “[t]he Internet has caused far-reaching systemic and structural changes in the economy” and therefore “Quill now harms States to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier ”15× 15  Id  at 1135 (Kennedy, J , concurring)  He concluded with the wish that “[t]he legal system should find an appropriate case for this Court to reexamine Quill and Bellas Hess ”16× 16  Id 
Seldom has a concurring opinion signed by a lone Justice prompted a state to officially declare an emergency  Yet in 2016, in response to Justice Kennedy’s overture, the South Dakota legislature passed a law, S B  106, “to provide for the collection of sales taxes from certain remote sellers       and to declare an emergency ”17× 17  2016 S D  Sess  Laws ch  70 pmbl  217 (codified at S D  Codified Laws § 10-64 (2017))  It required every remote seller to collect and remit sales tax if the seller’s business in South Dakota comprised either a “gross revenue” greater than $100,000 or at least 200 “separate transactions” within one calendar year 18× 18  Id  § 1  Significantly, the law did not apply retroactively 19× 19  Id  § 5  The “emergency” declaration was necessary to give the law immediate effect, for the purpose of “permitting the most expeditious possible review of the constitutionality of this law” by the U S  Supreme Court 20× 20  Id  § 8(8)  As Justice Alito put it, the “South Dakota law [was] obviously a test case ”21× 21  Transcript of Oral Argument at 27, Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  2080 (No  17-494), https://www supremecourt gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/17-494_7lho pdf [https://perma cc/8HYH-VU8N] 
Expeditiously, a group of remote sellers challenged the law  After being sued by South Dakota for refusing to register for the newly required sales tax license, Wayfair, Inc , Overstock com, Inc , and Newegg, Inc  moved for summary judgment in South Dakota circuit court on the grounds that S B  106 was unconstitutional under Quill and Bellas Hess — a point South Dakota conceded, indicating that it was seeking review by the U S  Supreme Court to overturn Quill 22× 22  State v  Wayfair Inc , 2017 SD 56, ¶¶ 9–11, 901 N W 2d 754, 759–60  Accordingly, the South Dakota circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment and South Dakota appealed to the state’s highest court 23× 23  Id  ¶ 12, 901 N W 2d at 760  The South Dakota Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, recognizing that South Dakota’s “arguments on the merits” may be “persuasive” but “Quill remains the controlling precedent ”24× 24  Id  ¶ 18, 901 N W 2d at 761  See generally Recent Case, State v  Wayfair Inc , 2017 SD 56, 901 N W 2d 754 (S D  2017), 131 Harv  L  Rev  2089 (2018) 
The U S  Supreme Court vacated and remanded 25× 25  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2100  Writing for the Court one last time, Justice Kennedy26× 26  Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, and Gorsuch joined Justice Kennedy’s opinion  pilloried Quill’s physical presence rule as “arbitrary, formalistic,” “anachronistic,” and “unfair and unjust” to both states and brick-and-mortar retailers 27× 27  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2092, 2095  After all, the rationale of Quill was that remote sellers lacked a sufficiently “substantial nexus” with the state to justify imposing a duty of tax collection 28× 28  Quill Corp  v  North Dakota, 504 U S  298, 311 (1992) (quoting Complete Auto Transit, Inc  v  Brady, 430 U S  274, 279 (1977))  This was wrong even in the mail-order catalog days of 1967 and 1992, but “the Internet revolution has made [Quill’s] earlier error all the more egregious and harmful ”29× 29  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2097; see also id  at 2092  The rule deprived the states of billions of dollars, since they could not force remote sellers to collect the tax and consumers hardly ever paid it on their own 30× 30  Id  at 2088 (“[C]onsumer compliance rates are notoriously low ”)  Quill “serve[d] as a judicially created tax shelter” for remote retailers who do a great deal of business online 31× 31  Id  at 2094 
Satisfied that Bellas Hess and Quill were wrongly decided, the Court then jumped the hurdle of stare decisis  The Quill Court had feared upsetting reliance interests 32× 32  Quill, 504 U S  at 317 (“Bellas Hess       has engendered substantial reliance and has become part of the basic framework of a sizable industry ”)  Wayfair shrugged off this concern, noting that “stare decisis accommodates only ‘legitimate reliance interest[s]’”; by contrast, reliance on the physical presence rule was largely due to consumers evading their use-tax obligations 33× 33  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2098 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v  Ross, 456 U S  798, 824 (1982))  Quill had also appealed to Congress’s ultimate authority over interstate commerce as a reason to abide by a precedent, even if wrongly decided 34× 34  See Quill, 504 U S  at 318–19; id  at 320 (Scalia, J , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“Congress       can change the rule of Bellas Hess by simply saying so ”)  But Wayfair denied that Congress’s ability to change the law was a proper consideration:
While it can be conceded that Congress has the authority to change the physical presence rule, Congress cannot change the constitutional default rule  It is inconsistent with the Court’s proper role to ask Congress to address a false constitutional premise of this Court’s own creation  Courts have acted as the front line of review in this limited sphere; and hence it is important that their principles be accurate and logical, whether or not Congress can or will act in response 35× 35  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096–97 
Having dispensed with the physical presence rule, the Court remanded the case to the South Dakota courts to determine in the first instance “whether some other principle in the Court’s Commerce Clause doctrine might invalidate the Act ”36× 36  Id  at 2099  But the Court listed “several features [of South Dakota law] that appear[ed] designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate commerce ” Id 
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions  Justice Thomas wistfully likened himself to Justice White — who voted for Bellas Hess but against Quill a quarter-century later — and confessed that he “should have joined [Justice White’s dissenting] opinion ”37× 37  Id  at 2100 (Thomas, J , concurring)  Justice Thomas added that the “Court’s entire negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence” is wrong and should be abandoned 38× 38  Id  Justice Gorsuch also wrote separately to express skepticism of the Court’s dormant commerce clause jurisprudence, raising “questions for another day” of whether the doctrine “can be squared with the text of the Commerce Clause, justified by stare decisis, or defended as misbranded products of federalism or antidiscrimination imperatives flowing from Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause ”39× 39  Id  at 2100–01 (Gorsuch, J , concurring) 
Chief Justice Roberts dissented 40× 40  Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the Chief Justice’s dissent  Surprisingly, the dissenting Justices “agree[d] that Bellas Hess was wrongly decided, for many of the reasons given by the Court ”41× 41  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2101 (Roberts, C J , dissenting)  The dispute between the majority and the dissent turned entirely on the principles and application of stare decisis  Chief Justice Roberts argued that whether or how to reverse Quill should be left to Congress, which “has the flexibility to address these questions in a wide variety of ways” and “can focus directly on current policy concerns rather than past legal mistakes ”42× 42  Id  at 2104  He also pointed to the “baffling” burdens of compliance with the idiosyncratic tax codes of “[o]ver 10,000 jurisdictions,” particularly for small businesses, and doubted that new “software” — the majority’s proposed solution to this mess43× 43  Id  at 2098 (majority opinion) (“Eventually, software that is available at a reasonable cost may make it easier for small businesses to cope with these problems ”)  — would soon solve the problem 44× 44  Id  at 2103–04 (Roberts, C J , dissenting)  In Bellas Hess, the Court reasoned that the dormant commerce clause protects interstate business from being “entangle[d]       in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions ” Nat’l Bellas Hess, Inc  v  Dep’t of Revenue, 386 U S  753, 759–60 (1967)  The dissent replied that the Court “vastly underestimate[d] the skill of contemporary man and his machines ” Id  at 766 (Fortas, J , dissenting)  The dispute in Wayfair over whether software is up to the task effectively reprised the old debate from Bellas Hess, only this time couched as part of the stare decisis inquiry’s concern for reliance interests rather than as a matter of dormant commerce clause doctrine  While Wayfair acknowledged that “[c]omplex state tax systems could have the effect of discriminating against interstate commerce,” 138 S  Ct  at 2099, the Court remarked that “[t]he physical presence rule is a poor proxy” for an inquiry into any actual burdens imposed on interstate commerce, id  at 2093 
Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that a “heightened form of stare decisis”45× 45  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2102 (Roberts, C J , dissenting)  applies when “Congress       can, if it wishes, override this Court’s decisions with contrary legislation ”46× 46  Id  at 2101 (first citing Michigan v  Bay Mills Indian Cmty , 134 S  Ct  2024, 2036 (2014) (tribal sovereign immunity); then citing Kimble v  Marvel Entm’t, LLC, 135 S  Ct  2401, 2409 (2015) (statutory interpretation); and then citing Halliburton Co  v  Erica P  John Fund, Inc , 134 S  Ct  2398, 2411 (2014) (judicially created doctrine implementing a judicially created cause of action))  In Quill, the Chief Justice noted, the Court had taken to heart that “Congress may be better qualified” and “has the ultimate power to resolve” the question47× 47  Id  at 2102 (quoting Quill Corp  v  North Dakota, 504 U S  279, 318 (1992))  while Justice Scalia had “recogniz[ed] that stare decisis has ‘special force’ in the dormant Commerce Clause context due to Congress’s ‘final say over regulation of interstate commerce ’”48× 48  Id  (quoting Quill, 504 U S  at 320 (Scalia, J , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment))  Moreover, “[i]f stare decisis applied with special force in Quill, it should be an even greater impediment” afterward since Quill effectively “tossed [the ball] into Congress’s court ”49× 49  Id  (alteration in original) (quoting Kimble, 135 S  Ct  at 2409); cf  Bay Mills, 134 S  Ct  at 2039 n 12 (“When we inform Congress that it has primary responsibility over a sphere of law, and invite Congress to consider a specific issue within that sphere, we cannot deem irrelevant how Congress responds ”)  Because the Court invited Congress to act and then “suddenly chang[ed] the ground rules, the Court may have waylaid Congress’s consideration of the issue ”50× 50  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2102–03 (Roberts, C J , dissenting) 
In Wayfair, the Court applied the flimsier form of stare decisis to a precedent that could have been overruled by Congress  It did so in the context of a dormant commerce clause case, but Wayfair’s logic extends to all constitutional default rules — that is, constitutional decisions that Congress remains free to change  Not only does Wayfair deviate from the Court’s decades-old stare decisis analysis, it also imperils other precedents that set constitutional default rules 
The Court’s reasoning in Wayfair departs from its prior stare decisis analysis  In 1932, Justice Brandeis posited that stare decisis must bend “in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible ”51× 51  Burnet v  Coronado Oil & Gas Co , 285 U



ground_truth: Unknown.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: How does a media application determine the context of an event?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2:  The content-recognition module or algorithm may also determine that the term “export” refers to shipping goods out of a country  The content-recognition module or algorithm may also determine that the term “a lot” refers to a particular numerical amount  Finally, the content-recognition module or algorithm may also determine that the term “coal” refers to a mineral of fossilized carbon 
The content-recognition module or algorithm may also determine the relationships between words and/or other information obtained by the content-recognition module  For example, by processing the relationship between the words, the media application determines that event 106 is a statement regarding a particular amount of a particular substance shipped out of a particular country  Therefore, the media application determines that the request for supplemental information is likely a request to determine the validity of the statement  The media application then generates the supplemental information 
The media application may also have stored supplemental information generated by previous requests (e g , supplemental information generated in response to the same or different user viewing the media asset at an earlier date), and display the supplemental information again during the event (either in response to a user input requesting supplemental information or automatically without a user requesting supplemental information) 
FIG  2 shows an illustrative example of a system that may be used to generate supplemental information (e g , supplemental information 110 (FIG  1)) based on additional information provided by a plurality of users in accordance with some embodiments of the disclosure  For example, in some embodiments, system 200 may be used to generate supplemental information (e g , supplemental information 110 (FIG  1)) on a display (e g , display 108 (FIG  1)) of a user device (e g , user equipment 402, 404, and/or 406 (FIG  4))  It should be noted that in some embodiments, the devices shown in FIG  2 may correspond to one or more devices in FIGS  3-4 
FIG  2 shows system 200  In system 200, a user is currently accessing a media asset on display 202  In some embodiments, display 202 may correspond to display 100 (FIG  1))  During an event (e g , event 106 (FIG  1)) a user may have requested supplemental information about an event (e g , event 106 (FIG  1)) in display 202 using user device 204  Media application 206, which in some embodiments, may be implemented on user device 204 or at a remote location (e g , supplemental information source 418 (FIG  4)), receives the request for supplemental information 
Media application 206 determines the context of the event (e g , who said the statement making up the event and to what the statement was referring)  After determining the context of the statement, the media application may itemize into one or more tasks, additional information (e g , facts) it requires in order to generate the supplemental information (e g , a verification or correction of the factual basis of the statement)  For example, if the event is a statement about the amount of coal that is exported from the United States (e g , as described in relation to FIG  1 above), media application 206 may determine the fact required to generate the supplemental information is the exact numerical amount of coal that is exported from the United States  The media application may then transmit requests for the additional information (e g , a request for the exact numerical amount of coal that is exported from the United States) to a plurality of other users 
In FIG  2, users operating user device 208, user device 210, and user device 212 represent a plurality of users  Having determined the additional information it requires in order to generate the supplemental information, media application 206 requests the additional information from the plurality of users  In system 200, media application 206 has transmitted the same task (e g , the same question) to each of the plurality of users  In some embodiments, one or more of the users may receive different tasks  For example, by breaking the additional information into small, independent tasks, media application 206 may increase the speed (e g , multiple users may work concurrently to solve different parts of a problem) and accuracy (e g , reducing the tasks to smaller, less complex problems reduces the chance of human error) of the additional information returned by the plurality of users 
In addition, by breaking the additional information into small, independent tasks, the plurality of users may not know to what they are contributing (enhancing the privacy of the user that requested the supplemental information), however, the plurality of users can still be effective in their individual tasks  In addition, by breaking the additional information into small, independent tasks, the media application may more easily outsource the requests for additional information  For example, one or more of the tasks used to generate the additional information may be the same as one or more of the tasks used to generate other additional information (e g , additional information used to generate different supplemental information in response to a request for supplemental information about the same or a different event issued by the same or a different user)  The response to each of the request and/or the additional information may be stored (e g , on any of the devices accessible by communications network 414 (FIG  4)) for subsequent retrieval 
Based on the responses, transmitted as messages including the additional information, from the plurality of other users, media application 206 may generate the supplemental information (e g , supplemental information 110 (FIG  1)) for display to the user on the user device 204  For example, media application may aggregate, append, and/or compare the additional information in each of the messages received from the plurality of users  The supplemental information may then be generated based on the aggregated, appended, and/or compared additional information (e g , as described in FIG  9 below) 
In some embodiments, the plurality of users may receive summary information about the event with the request for additional information  (e g , a video clip of a portion or segment of the media asset, a textual description, etc ), which may help the plurality of users provide additional information  For example, in some embodiments, the media application may instead of (or in addition to) determining the context of an event, determine a particular portion of the event that would be needed for the plurality of users to provide additional information about the event 
For example, the media application may use progress information associated with the progress of the media asset (e g , line 506 (FIG  5)) to determine at what point during the progression of the media asset the event occurred, and in response, transmit a portion of the media asset beginning ten second before that point and ending ten seconds after that point  For example, if the event is a statement made by a character or person in a media asset, the media application may determine when the statement began (e g , the point of progress of the media asset in which the statement began) and ended  The media application may then include the portion containing the entire statement (and the event) in the request for additional information sent to the plurality of users 
The selected portion may include any amount of summary information that the media application determines is necessary for the user or any one of the plurality of users to understand the main action sequence  This summary information (e g , a portion of the media asset) may be included with the request for additional information (e g , in a file transmitted with the request), or may be included with the generated supplemental information as a reference for the user  For example, the media application may select a segment of the play length of the media asset or a particular scene of the media asset, which includes the event, for to display to the plurality of users along with the request for additional information 
For example, if an event (e g , a statement) was in response to a question, the media application may also determine when the question began and ended, and send the entire question (or the play length of the media asset corresponding to the question) to the plurality of users as well  After determining the portion to provide to the plurality of users (e g , a segment including the ten seconds before and the ten seconds after the event), the media application may provide the summary information of the event and any other material needed by the plurality of users to understand the event and/or request for supplemental information from the user 
In some embodiments, a portion of the media asset containing the event, as selected by the media application, may also include any amount of the play length of the media asset, or any amount of scenes or segments from the media asset  In some embodiments, the portion may include segments of the play length of the media asset or scenes from the media asset that are not adjacent during the normal playback of the media asset  For example, in some embodiments, a portion of the media asset may include one or more sequences or scenes of interest to the plurality of users, even though the particular sequences or scenes are featured at different points in the play length of the media asset  The media application may determine the segments or scenes to include based on a content recognition file (e g , data structure 500 (FIG  5)) describing the media asset  For example, if a plot point or other information, which may be relevant to an event is displayed earlier in the media asset, the summary information may include a portion of the media asset displaying the plot point 
In some embodiments, the length of a portion may be determined based on the genre of the media asset  In some embodiments, the length of the portion may depend on a user profile for the user or for anyone of the plurality of users  For example, a user profile and/or a content recognition file (e g , data structure 500 (FIG  5)) may indicate that a particular user may require more or less additional content  For example, the user may be aware of particular characters or plot points in the media asset and, therefore, may not require the additional content to introduce those aspects 
In some embodiments, the plurality of users may receive a particular user interface, which organizes the data about the event (e g , a clip of the actual event, summary information about the event, information about the request for supplemental information issued by the user, etc )  The interface may also include an automatic submission form, which may be used to generate a message, which is sent to the media application 
In some embodiments, the media application may also receive user input from the user requesting the supplemental information that further affects the generation of supplemental information by the media application  For example, the user may request the supplemental information includes particular information (e g , the factual basis of a statement), may request a multimedia format of the supplemental information (e g , textual description, a video clip, etc ), may request a form of the supplemental information (e g , a short description about the event, an Internet link to other sources of information on the event, or a true or false designation about the event) by entering user inputs (e g , via user input interface 310 (FIG  3)) 
It should be noted that any information or process referred to in this disclosure that is referred to as being in response to a user input may alternatively and/or additionally be performed automatically by the media application (e g , via control circuitry 304 (FIG  3))  For example, in some embodiments, a user may request a true or false designation (e g , an on-screen pop-up box indicating whether an event was true or false)  Additionally and/or alternatively, in some embodiments, the true or false designation may appear automatically based on predetermined settings indicating to the media application to display a true or false designation in response to detecting an event 
In some embodiments, an indicator that supplemental information has previously been generated or is currently ready to generate (e g , a plurality of users are available) may be displayed to a user (e g , on display 100 (FIG  1) during the event)  The indicator may also indicate the particular information, the multimedia format, and/or the form of supplemental information that is available  An indicator may also appear with the supplemental information (e g , supplemental information 110 (FIG  1)), which allows the user to request additional supplemental information or provide feedback/responses (e g , rating the quality of the supplemental information) to the media application and/or plurality of users 
In some embodiments, a user may also access (e g , via selection of an indicator and/or automatically upon the supplemental information being generated) summary information about the event  For example, in some embodiments (e g , when the supplemental information is not generated in real-time), the media asset may have progressed to a different point by the time the supplemental information is ready for display  Therefore, the media application may need to provide a video clip of the event or other summary information, so that the user remembers about what or why the supplemental information was requested 
FIG  3 is a block diagram of an illustrative user equipment device in accordance with some embodiments of the disclosure  It should be noted that the components shown in FIG  3 may be used to store, receive, transmit, and/or display the media assets, additional information, and/or supplemental information as described herein  For example, media application 206 (FIG  2) may be implemented on user equipment device 300, and may issue instructions (e g , displaying supplemental information 110 (FIG  1)) via control circuitry 304 
Users may access media assets and the media application (and its display screens described above and below) from one or more of their user equipment devices  FIG  3 shows a generalized embodiment of illustrative user equipment device 300  More specific implementations of user equipment devices are discussed below in connection with FIG  4  User equipment device 300 may receive content and data via input/output (hereinafter “I/O”) path 302  I/O path 302 may provide content (e g , broadcast programming, on-demand programming, Internet content, content available over a local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN), and/or other content) and data to control circuitry 304, which includes processing circuitry 306 and storage 308  Control circuitry 304 may be used to send and receive commands, requests, and other suitable data using I/O path 302  I/O path 302 may connect control circuitry 304 (and specifically processing circuitry 306) to one or more communications paths (described below)  I/O functions may be provided by one or more of these communications paths, but are shown as a single path in FIG  3 to avoid overcomplicating the drawing 
Control circuitry 304 may be based on any suitable processing circuitry such as processing circuitry 306  As referred to herein, processing circuitry should be understood to mean circuitry based on one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, programmable logic devices, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), etc , and may include a multi-core processor (e g , dual-core, quad-core, hexa-core, or any suitable number of cores) or supercomputer  



ground_truth: It uses a content-recognition module or algorithm.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What did Justice Kennedy argue about Quill in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3: S  393, 406–07 (1932) (Brandeis, J , dissenting)  The Court has long since adopted his argument,52× 52  See, e g , Smith v  Allwright, 321 U S  649, 665 (1944)  as well as its corollary — that stare decisis commands “special force in the area of statutory interpretation” where “Congress remains free to alter what [the Court has] done ”53× 53  Patterson v  McLean Credit Union, 491 U S  164, 172–73 (1989)  For normative evaluations of heightened stare decisis for statutory precedents, see generally Einer Elhauge, Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation 211–23 (2008); and William N  Eskridge, Jr , Overruling Statutory Precedents, 76 Geo  L J  1361, 1364–1409 (1988)  Justice Brandeis’s logic demands that dormant commerce clause cases, where Congress is free to act, be granted the weightier stare decisis 54× 54  Scholars have noted the curious fact that Justice Brandeis included many dormant commerce clause cases as examples of overruled constitutional precedents  See, e g , Earl M  Maltz, Commentary, Some Thoughts on the Death of Stare Decisis in Constitutional Law, 1980 Wis  L  Rev  467, 468–469, 469 n 11  One explanation for this is that Justice Brandeis sought the authority of Chief Justice Taney’s dictum that the Court’s “opinion upon the construction of the Constitution is always open to discussion” — which referred to the dormant commerce clause  See Burnet, 285 U S  at 408 n 3 (Brandeis, J , dissenting) (quoting The Passenger Cases, 48 U S  (7 How ) 283, 470 (1849) (Taney, C J , dissenting))  In Chief Justice Taney’s time, it was thought that Congress could not override the Court’s dormant commerce clause decisions, see Cooley v  Bd  of Wardens, 53 U S  (12 How ) 299, 321 (1852), so the context of Chief Justice Taney’s dictum does not conflict with Justice Brandeis’s theory of stare decisis  The Court applied this reasoning in Quill, as Chief Justice Roberts underscored 55× 55  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2102 (Roberts, C J , dissenting) 
Yet the Wayfair majority refused to consider Congress’s authority to legislate as a relevant factor for stare decisis 56× 56  Even Justice Kennedy’s earlier opinion in Direct Marketing contemplated judicially overruling Quill, conspicuously neglecting a possible legislative solution  See supra p  278  The Court even insisted that to do so “is inconsistent with the Court’s proper role,” since Quill embodied “a false constitutional premise of th[e] Court’s own creation ”57× 57  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096 (emphasis added)  This refusal breaks from the practical Brandeisian wisdom that has guided the Court’s treatment of precedent for the better part of a century  The point is not that stare decisis should have ultimately propped up Bellas Hess yet again, as Wayfair’s dissenting Justices maintained  After all, a realistic approach that is alert to each branch’s institutional capacities might have led to the conclusion that Congress was actually ill-equipped to overrule Quill  In this vein, the Court could have sensibly pointed out that Congress is unlikely to stick its neck out with a tax hike (or a look-alike) from which only the states would benefit 58× 58  For two practical arguments to this effect, see Brian Galle, Essay, Kill Quill, Keep the Dormant Commerce Clause: History’s Lessons on Congressional Control of State Taxation, 70 Stan  L  Rev  Online 158, 160–62 (2018), https://review law stanford edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/03/70-Stan -L -Rev -Online-158-Galle pdf [https://perma cc/22YP-P4V5]; Edward A  Zelinsky, The Political Process Argument for Overruling Quill, 82 Brook  L  Rev  1177, 1191–92 (2017)  Indeed, South Dakota advanced such practical arguments in its brief 59× 59  See Petitioner’s Brief at 54, Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  2080 (No  17-494) (“Congress has little incentive to act here because it would be (or appear to be) authorizing new or greater tax collections from its constituents, while receiving none of the revenue in return ”)  More generally, the Court might have discussed the limits of the states’ influence in the federal system as a reason not to wait for congressional intervention, a topic it has debated on other occasions 60× 60  See Richard H  Pildes, Institutional Formalism and Realism in Constitutional and Public Law, 2013 Sup  Ct  Rev  1, 30–32; see also Galle, supra note 58, at 159 (“Congress is not a trustworthy guardian of state fiscal power, making continuing judicial involvement a more appealing prospect ”)  Or it could have argued that new facts on the ground — namely, the blast of e-commerce that hit like a comet after Quill — overpowered stare decisis of any force, special or plain 61× 61  Two recent studies of stare decisis highlighted the physical presence rule as exemplifying a precedent that may reasonably be overruled due to changed facts  See Bryan A  Garner et al , The Law of Judicial Precedent 364–65 (2016); Randy J  Kozel, Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent 112–13 (2017)  It should be noted that the authors of The Law of Judicial Precedent classify the physical presence rule as a constitutional precedent for stare decisis purposes, thus anticipating the Court’s misstep in Wayfair  Garner et al , supra, at 354–65  Because even statutory precedents may sometimes be overruled,62× 62  See Patterson v  McLean Credit Union, 491 U S  164, 173–74 (1989) (discussing justifications for overruling statutory precedents)  Contra Lawrence C  Marshall, “Let Congress Do It”: The Case for an Absolute Rule of Statutory Stare Decisis, 88 Mich  L  Rev  177 (1989)  the Court could have killed Quill without first planting its constitutional kiss of death 63× 63  Cf  Thomas R  Lee, Stare Decisis in Historical Perspective: From the Founding Era to the Rehnquist Court, 52 Vand  L  Rev  647, 704 (1999) (“Justice Brandeis’       memorable prose has since become a mandatory part of the burial rite for any constitutional precedent ”) 
The Court resisted such arguments  Instead, Wayfair reasoned that Congress’s total ability to correct an erroneous decision counts for nothing when the Court gets the Constitution wrong  That such a theory sprouts from a case like Wayfair, which repudiated a “formalistic distinction,”64× 64  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2092  is ironic  Wayfair’s stare decisis analysis resorts to the formalism of making constitutional a “magic” word65× 65  See Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 21, at 12  rather than asking whether Congress can step in 
Moreover, the Court’s new thinking on stare decisis threatens other constitutional default rules  Wayfair now stands for the proposition that a “constitutional default rule” — a term the Court apparently lifted from South Dakota’s reply brief on the merits66× 66  Reply Brief at 22, Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  2080 (No  17-494) (“Congress is polarized, which makes it critical       to get the constitutional default rule right ”)  — gets only weakened stare decisis  To appreciate why this holding matters, it is worth exploring the concept and scope of constitutional default rules  Contract theory describes default rules as legal rules that the parties may “contract around ”67× 67  See, e g , Ian Ayres & Robert Gertner, Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules, 99 Yale L J  87, 87 (1989)  Although “constitutional default rule” could be read broadly to include a variety of actors and contracting mechanisms,68× 68  See John Ferejohn & Barry Friedman, Toward a Political Theory of Constitutional Default Rules, 33 Fla  St  U  L  Rev  825, 826 (2006) (“When we speak of default rules in constitutional law, we typically are talking about specifications of ways the government can act (or modify its behavior) to get around a constitutional prohibition ”)  the Court’s use of the term for purposes of stare decisis may be narrowly defined as judicial precedents of constitutional law that “are ultimately subject to congressional control ”69× 69  Gillian E  Metzger, Congress, Article IV, and Interstate Relations, 120 Harv  L  Rev  1468, 1525 (2007) (describing judicially enforceable “constitutional default rules imposing obligations on the states in the name of union [that] are ultimately subject to congressional control”)  The dormant commerce clause is a paradigmatic constitutional default rule because what the Court does today Congress may undo tomorrow  Justice Scalia declared this fact “[t]he clearest sign that the negative Commerce Clause is a judicial fraud,” for “[h]ow could congressional consent lift a constitutional prohibition?”70× 70  Comptroller of the Treasury of Md  v  Wynne, 135 S  Ct  1787, 1808 (2015) (Scalia, J , dissenting)  But that’s what a constitutional default rule is  The Court has allowed Congress to overturn its dormant commerce clause cases since 1891 71× 71  See In re Rahrer, 140 U S  545, 560–62 (1891) 
Dormant commerce clause cases are not the only constitutional default rules  Professor Laurence Tribe’s treatise identifies two others 72× 72  1 Laurence H  Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 6-35 (3d ed  2000)  And in a groundbreaking article, Professor Henry Monaghan revealed “a substructure of substantive, procedural, and remedial rules” forming “a constitutional common law subject to amendment, modification, or even reversal by Congress ”73× 73  Henry P  Monaghan, The Supreme Court, 1974 Term — Foreword: Constitutional Common Law, 89 Harv  L  Rev  1, 2–3 (1975); see also Susan R  Klein, Identifying and (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, and Incidental Rights in Constitutional Criminal Procedure, 99 Mich  L  Rev  1030 (2001) (further developing Monaghan’s theory in criminal procedure context)  What follows is a list of six lines of cases beyond the dormant commerce clause that may be fairly described as constitutional default rules  The first two are drawn from Tribe’s treatise while the next four are found in Monaghan’s article:
(1) State Taxation of Federal Instrumentalities: States may not tax instrumentalities of the federal government74× 74  McCulloch v  Maryland, 17 U S  (4 Wheat ) 316, 436 (1819)  — unless Congress consents 75× 75  See, e g , Helvering v  Gerhardt, 304 U S  405, 411 n 1 (1938) (“Congress may curtail an immunity which might otherwise be implied or enlarge it beyond the point where, Congress being silent, the Court would set its limits ” (citations omitted))  One court has described such judicial decisions as setting a “constitutional default rule ” United States v  Delaware, 958 F 2d 555, 560 n 9 (3d Cir  1992) (“[W]e must decide the constitutional default rule for this type of tax, fully aware that Congress could decide at any time to reverse our decision statutorily ”)  (2) Article I, Section 10 Cases: Article I, Section 10 provides that certain prohibitions on the states may be waived by Congress 76× 76  See U S  Const  art  I, § 10, cls  2–3  The Court has taken note of this when considering whether to overrule, for instance, an Import-Export Clause precedent 77× 77  See Hooven & Allison Co  v  Evatt, 324 U S  652, 668 (1945) (“In view of the fact that the Constitution gives Congress authority to consent to state taxation of imports and hence to lay down its own test for determining when the immunity ends, we see no convincing practical reason for abandoning the test which has been applied for more than a century        ”), overruled on other grounds by Limbach v  Hooven & Allison Co , 466 U S  353 (1984)  In Michelin Tire Corp  v  Wages, 423 U S  276 (1976), the Court left open the question whether “Congress may authorize, under the Import-Export Clause, an exaction that it could not directly impose under the Tax Clause ” Id  at 301 n 13  Metzger, however, argues that the Import-Export Clause is free of other clauses’ limits on congressional power  See Metzger, supra note 69, at 1500 & n 120  (3) Bivens Cases: In Bivens v  Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,78× 78  403 U S  388 (1971)  the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment gives rise to a right to sue for damages 79× 79  Id  at 397  But the Court has also held that “[s]uch a cause of action may be defeated       when       Congress has provided an alternative remedy which it explicitly declared to be a substitute for recovery directly under the Constitution and viewed as equally effective ”80× 80  Carlson v  Green, 446 U S  14, 18–19 (1980)  (4) Miranda Cases: The Miranda Court famously “encourage[d]” Congress and the states to explore alternative “procedures which are at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it ”81× 81  Miranda v  Arizona, 384 U S  436, 467 (1966)  In Dickerson v  United States, 530 U S  428 (2000), the Court struck down a congressional attempt to effectively abolish Miranda, holding that “Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively ” Id  at 444  But Dickerson also stood by Miranda’s “invitation for legislative action” to replace Miranda with an adequate substitute  Id  at 440; see also Michael C  Dorf & Barry Friedman, Shared Constitutional Interpretation, 2000 Sup  Ct  Rev  61 (discussing legislative alternatives to Miranda)  (5) The Police Lineup Case: In United States v  Wade,82× 82  388 U S  218 (1967)  the Court created an exclusionary rule for evidence obtained from a police lineup in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel but acknowledged that it could be replaced by “[l]egislative or other regulations       which eliminate the risks of abuse ”83× 83  Id  at 239  (6) The Exclusionary Rule Cases: Mapp v  Ohio made the Fourth Amendment “exclusionary rule” binding on the states,84× 84  367 U S  643, 655 (1961)  yet Congress is thought to have the power to replace it 85× 85  See Bivens v  Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed  Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U S  388, 422–24 (1971) (Burger, C J , dissenting) (inviting Congress to replace the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule); Harold J  Krent, How to Move Beyond the Exclusionary Rule: Structuring Judicial Response to Legislative Reform Efforts, 26 Pepp  L  Rev  855, 864–71 (1999) 
All of the above are arguably constitutional default rules set by the Court that remain, to one degree or another, open to congressional revision  The list could be longer or shorter, depending on which default rules the Court will view as constitutional86× 86  A shorter list could be produced by whittling away at the constitutional status of the cases identified by Monaghan  While the Court has held that Miranda is a constitutional decision, Dickerson, 530 U S  at 444, some of the other cases may be viewed as nonconstitutional  See, e g , Collins v  Virginia, 138 S  Ct  1663, 1675–80 (2018) (Thomas, J , concurring) (arguing that Mapp is “nonconstitutional,” id  at 1678 n 5); Richard H  Fallon, Jr  et al , Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 775–77 (7th ed  2015) (discussing whether Bivens is constitutionally required)  Conversely, a longer list might include any constitutional right that can be waived by a party  See, e g , Daniel A  Farber, Another View of the Quagmire: Unconstitutional Conditions and Contract Theory, 33 Fla  St  U  L  Rev  913, 918 (2006) (describing the Eleventh Amendment as “just a contractual default rule that the states are free to barter away”)  Such a list might also include various constitutionally inspired judicial presumptions  See, e g , Jack Goldsmith & John F  Manning, The President’s Completion Power, 115 Yale L J  2280, 2299 (2006) (describing the Chevron presumption of delegated interpretive power to administrative agencies as “a constitutionally inspired default rule”); Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 115 Harv  L  Rev  2085, 2097–98 (2002) (describing clear statement rules as “constitutional default rules” reversible by Congress)  Many other decisions could likely be characterized as constitutional default rules; the list above is only an initial stab  and on how it will answer open questions about congressional authority over certain constitutional provisions 87× 87  See, e g , Thomas v  Wash  Gas Light Co , 448 U S  261, 272 n 18 (1980) (plurality opinion) (leaving unresolved whether Congress may limit constitutional full faith and credit obligations); White v  Mass  Council of Constr  Emp’rs, Inc , 460 U S  204, 215 n 1 (1983) (Blackmun, J , concurring in part and dissenting in part) (leaving unresolved “whether Congress may authorize       what otherwise would be a violation” of the Privileges and Immunities Clause); 1 Tribe, supra note 72, § 6-35, at 1243–44 (arguing that Congress cannot override judicial constructions of the Privileges and Immunities Clause); Metzger, supra note 69, at 1486–89 (arguing the opposite)  But the takeaway is clear: weaker stare decisis for constitutional default rules  Pre-Wayfair, one would have thought that stare decisis applies with special force to such precedents, given congressional power to set them straight  Not anymore  Why? Because it is improper to “ask Congress to address a false constitutional premise of th[e] Court’s own creation ”88× 88  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096  The Latin for Wayfair’s doctrine is not stare decisis, which should reflect a realistic, working relationship between the legislative and judicial branches  It is mea culpa 
In its zeal to update the Constitution for “the Cyber Age,”89× 89  Id  at 2097  the Court deleted Congress from stare decisis doctrine in constitutional cases  The Court had better options  It could have left Quill on Congress’s doorstep, as the dissent argued  Or it could have justified overruling Quill notwithstanding the special force of stare decisis  Instead, the Court reasoned that it doesn’t matter whether Congress is willing and able to do the job: a constitutional mess calls for a judicial clean-up crew  For constitutional default rules — a category of decisions embracing the dormant commerce clause and sweeping far beyond — Wayfair’s new theory of stare decisis makes the Court’s precedents less sticky and Congress less relevant 



ground_truth: Quill harmed states more than anticipated due to the Internet.