Given a document, an entity and its sentiment towards the entity, verify if it is the correct sentiment towards the entity. Answer should be yes or no. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

Example Input: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Melania Trump is Positive . President Donald Trump  first lady Melania Trump and their son  Barron  walk to Marine One at the White House en route to Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach  Fla.
March 17  2017 President Donald Trump  first lady Melania Trump and their son  Barron  walk to Marine One at the White House en route to Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach  Fla. Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post
Upset about damaging leaks of  his  calls with world leaders and other national security information   Trump  has ordered an internal investigation to find the leakers. Staffers  meanwhile  are so fearful of being accused of talking to the media that some have resorted to a secret chat app — Confide — that erases messages as soon as they’re read.
The chaos and competing factions that were a  Trump  trademark in business and campaigning now are starting to define his presidency  according to interviews with a dozen White House officials as well as other Republicans. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss internal White House dynamics and deliberations.
Staffers buzz privately about who is up and who is down  with many eagerly gossiping about which poor colleague gets an unflattering portrayal on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.” For the past two weeks  it has been White House press secretary Sean Spicer. But aides said  Trump  was especially upset by a sketch that cast White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon as the Grim Reaper manipulating the president — who was ultimately relegated to a miniature desk  playing dolefully with an expandable toy.
[ Trump  turns Mar-a-Lago Club dinner table into an open-air situation room]
On Monday afternoon  as speculation of a staff shake-up was rife on cable news channels   Trump  made clear to a small group of reporters what  he  thought of  his  chief of staff: “Reince is doing a great job. Not a good job. A great job ” the president said.
The problem:  Trump  had yet to weigh in  and aides and advisers were loath to take sides without knowing for certain whether their often mercurial and erratic boss wanted to keep Flynn or cut him loose.
On Monday  after  Trump  made it through a joint news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau without being asked about Flynn  a group of reporters gathered outside Spicer’s office for more than 80 minutes. Spicer twice declined to answer questions about Flynn. When White House chief of staff Reince Priebus walked by  he was asked whether the president still had confidence in Flynn. Priebus gave no answer.
Not long after  Kellyanne Conway  the counselor to the president  said  Trump  had “full confidence” in Flynn. Yet a few minutes later  Spicer issued an official — and conflicting — statement  saying  Trump  was “evaluating the situation.”
[As Flynn falls under growing pressure over Russia contacts   Trump  remains silent]
In an administration where proximity to  Trump  is power  aides  advisers and visitors often mill about in the West Wing  lingering long after their scheduled appointments have ended.
[ Trump  friend says Priebus is ‘in way over his head’]
Christopher Ruddy  a longtime friend of  Trump ’s who on Sunday publicly criticized Priebus in television and print interviews as being “in way over his head ” received calls from both the chief of staff and Jared Kushner — Trump’s son-in-law  senior adviser and enforcer — and said Monday that he thought the White House was working to remedy its challenges.
 Trump ’s legislative affairs team — headed by Rick Dearborn and Marc Short  both veterans of the Hill — is also considered well-liked  disciplined and professional. But congressional staffers say they have been given advance notice about some executive orders on topics such as cybersecurity and Guantanamo Bay that have never materialized  a delay they attribute to chaos within the West Wing.
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Donald J. Trump is Neutral . "Wow "  Mr. Trump  wrote on Twitter  "Matt Lauer was just fired from NBC for 'inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace.'"
Wow  Matt Lauer was just fired from NBC for âinappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace.â But when will the top executives at NBC & Comcast be fired for putting out so much Fake News. Check out Andy Lackâs past! â Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29  2017
Last October  in the final weeks of the presidential campaign  Summer Zervos claimed she had repeatedly been harassed by  Mr. Trump  when she was a contestant on  his  NBC show  "The Apprentice."
Earlier this fall  Zervos' attorney served  Mr. Trump  a subpoena to preserve "all documents concerning any accusations that were made during the campaign that he subjected any woman to unwanted sexual touching and/or sexually inappropriate behavior."
Throughout the campaign   then-candidate Trump  dismissed the allegations.
"The events never happened ... never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over  " Mr. Trump  said.
But  Mr. Trump  has not followed through on that threat. And one of  his  accusers told CBS News that she never believed  he  would sue.
"This was locker room talk  " Mr. Trump  has said.
Example Output: yes

Example Input: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Rachel Botsman is Neutral . In her witty new book Australian technology author and TED celebrity Rachel Botsman tells us why it did not work. Who Can You Trust? How Technology Brought Us Together and Why It Could Drive Us Apart might be a bit too perky for some but it reveals some deep truths.
With industrial power collapsed  social media’s “distributed trust” began its run to win popular trust.  Botsman  even claims to have predicted the next stage of evolution  anticipating Airbnb  Zipcar and Uber in  her  previous book. At first the masses took to social technology like ducks to water but few thought through the costs of power flowing from institutional experts to less sophisticated individuals. It turned out that these social media had institutions too  if less hierarchical  but still leading to someone at the top with a great degree of control over the people’s “open” media below them.
 Botsman  says  she  would not have written  her  book if  she  did not think distributed networks could solve many problems and develop popular trust  but the many examples presented in  her  book demonstrate that “distributed trust always seem to lead us back to centralized power ” with Facebook  Amazon  and Alibaba leading the list.
 Her  thesis is that distributed systems need to know who is telling the truth in order to be social but their media technology develop so fast and anonymously it becomes difficult to trace accountability. Perhaps 75 percent of automobiles will self-drive by 2040. How can sufficient trust develop in such a major activity in such a short time? Blockchains like Bitcoin may replace governmental currency and financial transactions. Robots threaten to take everyone’s job. The most famous bot was HAL 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey and we all know what happened then. Some “trust pause” will certainly be necessary for such major social transitions.
Take the number one social media technology guy  Mark Zuckerberg  who created Facebook to be an open forum for public discussion. Yet  after social media was accused of biasing the presidential election even  he  had to reluctantly concede (the second time) that there was an abundance of fake news on  his  site  which  he  then promised to fix in a socially positive way.  His  solution was to balance alternative views by adding “additional perspectives ” including noting after doubtful material that fact checkers disputed the claims in the original published news. But who would do the “fact checking”?
 Botsman  does not mention  it  but Google’s top scientist Ray Kurzweil had bigger ideas. Computers would be thinking for themselves by 2014 with humans becoming immortal soon after. Humans would become immortal under Kurzweil’s Calico project to replicate nature’s control of mitochondrial DNA by moving toxic bacteria into the cell nucleus to stop aging. With age under control people would live forever. At the same time  artificial intelligence would develop computers that learn by themselves. Ageless individuals could then link an AI machine to their brain so they could give accurate and immediate responses to every kind of question. But if this takes place instantly  is that a person still a person or a computer?
China’s Social Credit System would produce a “social credit score” for every Chinese citizen and introduce national networks of shame to ameliorate and control unruly segments of the population. This system should have a bullish future in much of the world now under authoritarian governments.  Botsman  quips: “Today China  tomorrow a place near you.”
Not a place in the U.S. with its democratic government protecting privacy  right? One big obstacle to such protection mentioned by  Botsman  is that government regulation simply cannot keep up with the explosive rate of change in private social media technology. There is that free speech and press stuff but Congress just approved another renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act seventeen years after 9/11 and few doubt that some similar future horrendous terrorist act would make the government’s surveillance even more intrusive.
 Botsman ’s general solution to increase social trust is to rely upon reputation  which is sound  but extremely difficult to evaluate as  her  book proves.
How do we even know if  Botsman  isn’t a bot already  predicting China for us all?
Example Output:
no