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].
--------
Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Joseph Orbeso is Neutral . Investigators say  Joseph Orbeso   22  shot and killed  his  girlfriend  Rachel Nguyen  20  and then turned the gun on  himself   according to a release Friday from the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department Morongo Basin station.
 Orbeso  and Nguyen were reported missing July 28  after a bed-and-breakfast owner in the Morongo Basin told the Sheriff’s Department that they may have gone hiking in the park that morning.
 Rachel Nguyen and Joseph Orbeso  went missing July 28  and  their  bodies were found earlier this week. (National Park Serivce)
"Based on evidence located at the scene  detectives believe  Orbeso  shot Nguyen  then shot himself. The investigation into  Orbeso ’s actions remains under investigation " the statement said.
The sheriff’s update comes days after  Orbeso ’s father  Gilbert Orbeso  publicly identified the pair and authorities said they were found in an "embrace."
"I want  Joseph  to be remembered as a kind  caring and thoughtful person "  his  father told the Southern California News Group in an email. "The way  he  was found beside Rachel holding her as they were seeking shade under the brush says everything you need to know about  him  as a man and as a human being."

Answer: yes


Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Scott Pruitt is Negative . Scott Pruitt  Declares War on Wind and Solar Energy  While Fossil Fuels Get Billions in Subsidies
 Scott Pruitt  speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor  Maryland  on February 25  2017.
Photo Credit:  Gage Skidmore/Flickr
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt  recently proposed eliminating federal tax credits for wind and solar power  arguing that  they  should âstand on  their  own and compete against coal and natural gas and other sourcesâ as opposed to âbeing propped up by tax incentives and other types of credits....â
Stand on  their  own?
 Pruitt  surely must be aware that fossil fuels have been feasting at the government trough for at least 100 years. Renewables  by comparison  have received support only since the mid-1990s and  until recently  have had to subsist on scraps.
Perhaps a review of the facts can set  Administrator Pruitt  straight. Thereâs a strong case to be made that Congress should terminate subsidies for fossil fuels and extend them for renewables  not the other way around.
A new study by Oil Change International brings us up-to-date. Published earlier this month  it found that federal subsidies in 2015 and 2016 averaged $10.9 billion a year for the oil and gas industry and $3.8 billion for the coal industry. By contrast  the wind industryâs so-called production tax credit  renewed by Congress in December 2015  amounted to $3.3 billion last year  according to a Congress Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate. Unlike the fossil fuel industryâs permanent subsidies  Congress has allowed the wind tax credit to expire six times in the last 20 years  and  it  is now set to decline incrementally until ending in 2020. Similarly  Congress fixed the solar industryâs investment tax credit at 30 percent of a projectâs cost through 2019  but reduced  it  to 10 percent for commercial projects and zeroed  it  out for residences by the end of 2021. The JCT estimates that the solar credit amounted to a $2.4-billion tax break last year. Totaling it up  fossil fuels â at $14.7 billion â still received two-and-a-half times more in federal support than solar and wind in 2016.

Answer: yes


Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Tesla is Neutral . A Morgan Stanley analyst and Tesla bull teased a merger with  SpaceX.
Tesla  wouldn't gain any meaningful synergies from a tie-up  but  its  business would become more complicated.
Last year   Tesla  merged with struggling SolarCity  making Elon Musk CEO of both companies. The tie-up hasn't hurt  Tesla  in 2017 as the company's stock has surged above $300 per share and the combined enterprise hit a market capitalization of over $50 billion.
That doesn't mean it wasn't a terrible deal.  Tesla's balance sheet  instantly became loaded up with SolarCity debt  and what had been primarily a carmaker was suddenly responsible for rolling out a new solar roof product  at a time when  it  should have been all-hands-on-deck to launch the Model 3 mass-market vehicle.
The Model 3 is woefully behind schedule at this point  and although the solar roof is compelling  The Solar City side of  Tesla  business isn't any more coherent than it was a year ago.
Musk is also CEO of SpaceX  and last week Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas teased a merger with  Tesla   arguing that such a deal would yield powerful synergies. The financial mechanics of how a  SpaceX-Tesla  merger would happen are both speculative and unclear; in July  SpaceX raised $350 million  bringing it valuation to $21 billion. An IPO has long been discussed.
But maybe Musk doesn't want to be running another public company. He's expressed some exasperation with playing that role at  Tesla   where investors have the carmaker under constant scrutiny and short sellers are always circling like sharks. SpaceX's mission is ultimately more ambitious than Tesla's — the whole go-to-Mars thing — and the company have been wowing the the space community by routinely launching and landing rockets.
 Tesla  doesn't have enough cash to buy SpaceX outright  so investors would have to accept a largely stock-based deal  and that might make sense to many of them: since  its  own 2010 IPO   Tesla  shares have returned over 1 ooo%  and several analysts have said that the stock hundreds of dollars of upside potential from  its  current level.
Unfortunately  a Tesla-SpaceX merger would raise a major issue: unlike SolarCity  the company wouldn't be shifting a massive amount of debt to  Tesla 's balance sheet  but it would be shifting monumental risk. Space is dauntingly expensive when everything is going right but ruinously costly when things go wrong. That's why governments  for the most part  have been the only ones aiming for large-scale goals in the final frontier.  Tesla-SpaceX  would expose  Tesla  to colossal losses at a time when  it 's already posting record negative earnings.
On the positive side   Tesla  would have access to  SpaceX 's goodwill with investors and  the company 's cash  around $1 billion. Nevertheless   Tesla  balance sheet would become almost incomprehensible  as auto  energy  and aerospace analysts all struggle to figure out what the diverse conglomerate — with a theoretical $70-billion market cap — is worth. It's already a challenge to independently value the car  energy  and solar businesses (the default position is to kick solar and energy down the road and rightly ascribe almost all of  Tesla 's value to cars).
If  Tesla  gains from a SpaceX merger   it  could be the deal of the decade. SpaceX investors would potentially receive a much fatter payout (if they think  Tesla  has tremendous long-terms prospects)  and Musk would be able to neatly avoid the pressure to handle two rounds of quarterly financial reporting and a whole new batch of prognosticators and short-sellers.
On the other hand  merging with SpaceX could yield almost zero synergies — the car business and the aerospace industry might look similar but they're actually radically different — and add so much risk and volatility to  Tesla  already risky and volatile business that  Tesla  shares could get hammered and  the company  would see  its  access to capital reduced at precisely the wrong time.
If I were betting  I'd say that  Tesla  and SpaceX actually will merge  perhaps against some heavy SpaceX investors complaints.  Tesla  got away with  it  on SolarCity  Musk detests being the CEO of a public company  and SpaceX is really his baby. And  Tesla  stock has become a super currency  opening up all manner of financial options.
Finally  the long stock-market rally that we've experienced in the aftermath of the financial crisis can last forever.  Tesla  got in early and has benefitted enormously. SpaceX might not be so lucky. The biggest risk to  the company  might be that despite its triumphs  it would be out there by itself nad subject to market forces that have nothing to do with its mission.
A merger with  Tesla  would save Musk from having to pull a SolarCity  Part Deux  and ride to rescue if SpaceX gets in trouble.
Get the latest  Tesla  stock price here.

Answer:
yes