Given a document, generate a short title of the document. The title should convey the main idea/event/topic about which the document is being written. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

Example Input: In an interview with Vanity Fair  James Cameron answered the question fans have been asking for years â why didnât Rose let  Jack  on the wooden plank  clearly big and stable enough to hold two people? The director said the decision to let Leonardo DiCaprioâs character die was âvery simple.â
âAnd the answer is very simple because it says on page 147 [of the script] that  Jack  dies â Cameron joked to Vanity Fair.
But to really answer the question plaguing fans since the movieâs release 20 years ago  Cameron said it was an âartistic choiceâ and that if  Jack  didnât die the film would have been âmeaningless.â
âBut it does show that the film was effective in making  Jack  so endearing to the audience that it hurts them to see  him  die. Had  he  lived  the ending of the film would have been meaningless â  he  added. âThe film is about death and separation;  he  had to die. So whether it was that  or whether a smoke stack fell on  him    he  was going down.â
 He  also said  Jack  âwas dead anywayâ even with Rose on the wooden door.
Example Output: 'Titanic' director James Cameron reveals why Jack ' had to die'

Example Input: Hillary Clinton . (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
Thereâs not much to do when youâre home for the holidays  so this season some have decided to fill up their free time by melting down over  a video that snipes at Hillary Clinton .
âTake up a hobby in the new year â a young writer holding a glass of champagne says to  Clinton  in the short  which Vanity Fair magazineâs âHiveâ vertical produced as part of a series proposing âresolutionsâ to various political figures. âVolunteer work  knitting  improv comedy â literally anything that will keep you from running again.â
Well  no.  The video  had sexist overtones  and the lameness of the jokes made them all the more offensive.  It âs harder to plead comedic license when your comedy isnât funny. But  Clinton  occupies an odd place in the political sphere:  She  was so close to the Oval Office for so long leading up to 2016 that  her  heir apparentness discouraged potential challengers. A career candidate from a Democratic dynasty held little appeal for anyone dissatisfied with the party status quo then  and will hold even less in 2020. Itâs not surprising that some cringe to think  Clinton âs shadow could still loom over races to come.
So then why resurrect  her ?
Although ride-or-die  Clinton  supporters werenât they only ones who took umbrage at the knitting comment  it was that cohort who turned particularly hysterical. These all-in  Clinton  fans seem determined to keep their candidate relevant: Even if they arenât calling on  her  to run again  they want  her  at the center of the political conversation. Every faux pas of President Trumpâs becomes an opportunity for Clinton-would-have-been-bettering. No kidding  she  would  yet thatâs neither here nor there when it comes to countering the damage Trump does every day  or to cultivating a roster of candidates who will win the seats to turn things around.
[Vanity Fair staffers provide snotty  condescending life tips for  Hillary Clinton ]
But more perplexing than the multitude of Clinton crusaders who are still crusading are the  Clinton  critics who continue to place the defeated candidate center-stage in their narratives even as they shriek that they want  her  out. This  besides its blatant unfunniness  may be the greatest failing of Vanity Fairâs ill-advised advice video. The staffers have devoted one minute and three seconds to telling  Clinton  to go away  and all theyâve succeeding in doing is bringing  her  right back.
This is âWhat Happened?â week on repeat. Journalists lambasted  Clinton  for re-litigating the 2016 primary in writing  and then they did the exact same thing. Over and over. They rolled their eyes at  her  play for attention  cash  catharsis or whatever else it was â and then they helped  her  find all of the above.
And itâs not only professional pundits who canât seem to give  Clinton  up. For every amateur commentator or plain old civilian re-upping a  Clinton  campaign talking point on Twitter  thereâs someone ready to fire back with an explanation of why  Clinton  is the worst politician of all time. This goes on  every day  more than a year after the election and almost a year after the man who beat  Clinton  walked into the White House.
Hours before the Vanity Fair outrage  Trump sent a Boxing Day Twitter missive from Mar-a-Lago in his usual style: âThey used this Crooked Hillary pile of garbage as the basis for going after the Trump Campaign!â he concluded  harping on his beef with  Clinton  yet again. Which prompted all his critics  left  very left and right alike  to tell him to get over it. Perhaps they should  too.
Example Output: The Vanity Fair Hillary Clinton video isn't worth the fuss

Example Input: PARIS/LONDON (Reuters) - French drugmaker Sanofi has agreed to buy  Belgian biotech company Ablynx  for 3.9 billion euros ($4.8 billion)  beating Novo Nordisk and marking its second big deal this month after buying Bioverativ.
The deal is a further sign of accelerating merger and acquisition (M&A) activity in the global biotech sector and comes after  Ablynx  rejected a 2.6 billion euro offer from Denmark’s Novo Nordisk.
Sanofi said on Monday it would pay 45 euros per share in cash for Ablynx  a premium of 21 percent over its closing price on Friday - and more than double the price before Novo went public with its initial bid.
Novo Nordisk conceded defeat  saying it did not intend to make a revised offer for Ablynx  which is developing a prized experimental drug for a rare blood disorder.
Sanofi said  Ablynx  would boost long-term value for  its  shareholders  while the takeover was expected to have a neutral impact on Sanofi’s business earnings per share (EPS) in 2018 and 2019.
Sanofi is already one of  Ablynx ’s big pharma partners  after striking a deal in July 2017 to find new treatments for inflammatory diseases.
By buying the company outright it will now get access to  Ablynx ’s most promising asset  the experimental drug caplacizumab for treating the rare bleeding disorder acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.
Sanofi will be able to use its existing infrastructure and the recently acquired platform from Bioverativ to help to commercialize caplacizumab. It will also benefit from some of the other drugs  Ablynx  is working on  such as an infant anti-viral treatment  that would not have fitted within Novo Nordisk.
Berenberg analysts said  Ablynx  was a good fit but they estimated the deal would generate no more than a 4 percent return on invested capital  assuming caplacizumab sales of around 400 million euros by 2023.
The Danish group has sat out previous rounds of M&A in the drugs sector to focus on its core diabetes business but it now needs to find new products for its struggling smaller biopharmaceutical unit  where Ablynx would have been a good fit.
Morgan Stanley and Lazard advised Sanofi on the deal while JP Morgan advised Ablynx.
Example Output:
Sanofi beats Novo to buy Ablynx for $4.8 billion in biotech M&A boom