instruction:
Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
question:
CONTEXT: "She'll find out eventually" isn't good enough. Earth is in trouble right now. Captain Marvel needs to find out right now. It's unclear how much time has passed between the snap and her arrival back on Earth in Captain Marvel's post-credits scene, but she didn't get there immediately, so the sooner she found out, the sooner she would arrive. As for the 50% chance, I don't think Fury knew exactly what was happening. He doesn't appear in Infinity War until the post-credits scene, and IIRC, there's no indication he knew about Thanos or his plan to wipe out half the universe. All he knew was that, across the planet, people had started disintegrating. He had no way of knowing that Captain Marvel herself could potentially have been affected.  <sep>  Q: Was the pager message from Nick Fury to Captain Marvel unnecessary? A: I don't think Fury knew exactly what was happening  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did Captain Marvel care about Earthlings?
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: David was of great historical interest to the future A.I.s, since he had actual memories of human beings, who are apparently long extinct by their time. Beyond that, he was actually built by humans, where they are undoubtedly built by other A.I.s. Studying him would help them understand their own past. They wanted to preserve him, and although they are not organic, seem to have a morality which prevents them from simply taking him apart or locking him in a cage.  <sep>  Q: Why was David's happiness so important to the Mecha descendants? A: he had actual memories of human beings, who are apparently long extinct by their time  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What movie was this event in?
answer:
No


question:
CONTEXT: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch. He's definitely not (at least from Michael's point of view) an employee of the Scranton branch, so Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy. Toby's role as a HR employee would primarily be protecting Dunder Mifflin from Michael's stupidity. Michael Scott is, by design, an absolute idiot of a character. He's totally incompetent as a manager and also has absolutely no understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for the workplace, especially when occupying a managerial position. Toby would be the one who calls him up on his inappropriate conduct, reports that conduct back to corporate, and who would be responsible for telling Michael "no" before he does things that he shouldn't. Children will occasionally tell their parents that they hate them (or at least don't love them) when they've been denied something they want or have been told off for doing something they shouldn't. Michael's essentially having a childish - and ongoing - reaction against the authority figure who denies him the things he wants. The impression I got was that the other employees didn't have any particularly strong feelings about Toby either way. They didn't exactly dislike him but they didn't consider him a friend either.  <sep>  Q: Can you talk to me about the US version of the Office?
answer:

Yes