instruction:
Given a document, find the main entity about whom the author is writing. Write the full name if mentioned in the text. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
question:
"This is a game changer " says  Thomas Garrison  an archaeologist at Ithaca College who is one of the leaders of the project . It changes "the base level at which we do Maya archaeology."
The data reveals that the area was three or four times more densely populated than originally thought. "I mean  we're talking about millions of people  conservatively " says  Garrison . "Probably more than 10 million people."
The researchers fired LiDAR technology  short for "Light Detection and Ranging " down at the dense forest from an airplane. This research was organized by the PACUNAM LiDAR Initiative  and  Garrison  says the area's size is "more than double any other survey that's been done with this technology."
"As it flies the laser pulses hundreds of thousands of times per second "  Garrison  adds. "And every time one of those lasers hits a point of resistance it stops and sends back a measurement to the plane."
toggle caption PACUNAM/Thomas Garrison
LiDAR allows scientists to accomplish years or even decades worth of mapping in a single afternoon. For example   Garrison  says  he  was part of a team that worked for some eight years to map less than a square mile at a site called El Zotz. The plane using LiDAR took data for 67 square miles in a matter of hours.
"It's very humbling " says  Garrison . "For those of us that spent our lives mapping and slogging around this area ... you just sort of have to bow before the LiDAR and accept the fact that it's better than you are."
The team surveyed 10 separate areas. It took months to process the data. As the picture became clearer   Garrison  said  he  would sent emails to  his  colleagues expressing surprise at the magnitude.
 He  recalls seeing an initial image of one area in northern Guatemala. "I saw this image and I said  the whole area is covered in Maya settlement. You won't believe it "  he  adds. "And then once we got the actual data and saw the whole scope of it. We said  'Wow  we're going to be able to really do something with this.'"
answer:
Thomas Garrison


question:
Lately  weâve been seeing a boom in TV dystopias. Two of the most successful premieres in the past few years have been HBOâs Westworld and Huluâs The Handmaidâs Tale: the former a solemn  plodding update of Michael Crichtonâs 1973 film  in which subjugated androids revolt and take over a theme park; the latter a stylish and compelling adaptation of Margaret Atwoodâs 1985 novel  in which the United States becomes a patriarchal theocracy. Other recent examples include Amazonâs The Man in the High Castle (based on Philip K. Dickâs 1962 novel about an alternate reality in which the Axis powers have won World War II)  HBOâs The Leftovers (about a world in which 2 percent of the population has mysteriously disappeared)  and Netflixâs new Altered Carbon (a cyberpunk gorefest based on a 2002 novel by Richard K. Morgan). Stretching the criteria a bit  one could perhaps include the long-running zombie odyssey The Walking Dead and its spin-off  Fear the Walking Dead  and sitcoms that play with dystopic elements  like The Good Place and The Last Man on Earth.
The success of Black Mirror is the proximate cause for the existence of  Philip K. Dickâs  Electric Dreams  also produced by Channel 4 and available here on Amazon. Dick  of course  is one of the past masters of the dystopia genre: His 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was the basis for the seminal Ridley Scott film Blade Runner  and his work has been mined by Hollywood countless times ever since.  Electric Dreams  adapts 10 of  Dickâs  short stories  including âThe Hood Makerâ (which imagines a class war between telepaths and normal citizens  who resent their mindsâ being invaded) and âThe Father Thingâ (in which a childâs father is replaced by a sinister alien doppelgÃ¤nger).
 Electric Dreams  is slickly made and intermittently effective  but despite some half-hearted attempts to reimagine or update the material (the boy in âThe Father Thing â upon uncovering the alien conspiracy  posts a video on the Internet with the hashtag â#RESISTâ)  it doesnât really feel of our moment. Part of the problem is that Dickâs work has been adapted for film so many times already that itâs hard to watch a given episode of Electric Dreams  however well executed  and not compare it unfavorably  if unfairly  with Blade Runner  or Paul Verhoevenâs Total Recall  or Steven Spielberg âs  Minority Report.  Dickâs  sensibility is idiosyncratic and sui generis  but at this point it feels more like a piece of intellectual property than the amphetamine-fueled gnostic vision it once was. Is anybody âs  mind really blown by the is-our-world-real-or-just-a-simulation conundrum posed by âReal Life â for example  after weâve seen not only Total Recall but The Matrix and Westworld and a hundred other iterations of it?
The problem  however  isnât just overfamiliarity. Dystopias draw their power from an analysis of the present  and  Dick âs once-radical vision of the future is now as far in the past as H.G. Wellsâs was for  Dick  when  he  began writing. This is what Black Mirror  for all its flaws  has over Electric Dreams: The series feels like itâs about things that Brooker is genuinely worried about  not a dutiful tribute to what someone was worried about in the 1960s; itâs the future as seen from the 21st century  not the 20th. This problem is endemic to many of the recent dystopian shows. The fact that Westworld is based on a movie from 1973  and The Handmaidâs Tale on a novel from 1985  doesnât invalidate their value as entertainments or as cultural commentaries. But it does introduce concerns alien to the dystopiaâs imperative to take the worst of the present day and amplify it.
answer:
Philip K. Dick


question:
A report with the New York Times today is saying that there was more to the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr.  several members of the Trump campaign team  and a Kremlin-connected attorney   Natalia V. Veselnitskaya   was more calculated than originally reported.
But interviews and records show that in the months before the meeting   Ms. Veselnitskaya  had discussed the allegations with one of Russiaâs most powerful officials  the prosecutor general  Yuri Y. Chaika. And the memo  she  brought with  her  closely followed a document that Mr. Chaikaâs office had given to an American congressman two months earlier  incorporating some paragraphs verbatim. The coordination between the Trump Tower visitor and the Russian prosecutor general undercuts Ms. Veselnitskayaâs account that  she  was a purely independent actor when  she  sat down with Donald Trump Jr.  Jared Kushner  the presidentâs son-in-law  and Paul J. Manafort  then the Trump campaign chairman. It also suggests that emails from an intermediary to the younger Mr. Trump promising that  Ms. Veselnitskaya  would arrive with information from Russian prosecutors were rooted at least partly in fact â not mere âpuffery â as the presidentâs son later said.
The memo that  Ms. Veselnitskaya  brought to the Trump Tower meeting alleged that Ziff Brothers Investments  an American firm  had illegally purchased shares in a Russian company and evaded tens of millions of dollars of Russian taxes. The company was the financial vehicle of three billionaire brothers  two of them major donors to Democratic candidates including Mrs. Clinton. By implication   Ms. Veselnitskaya   said  those political contributions were tainted by âstolenâ money. Kremlin officials viewed the charges as extremely significant. The Ziff brothers had invested in funds managed by William F. Browder  an American-born financier and fierce Kremlin foe. Mr. Browder was the driving force behind a 2012 law passed by Congress imposing sanctions on Russian officials for human rights abuses. The law  known as the Magnitsky Act  froze Western bank accounts of officials on the sanctions list â including Mr. Chaikaâs deputy â and banned them from entering the United States. It was named after Sergei L.Magnitsky  a tax lawyer who had worked for Mr. Browder and who died in a Moscow jail after exposing a massive fraud scheme involving Russian officials.
As a former prosecutor for the Moscow regional government   Veselnitskaya  has traveled to the U.S. quite a bit  in order to lobby against the Magnitsky Act.
While investigating Mr. Browder and his investors   Ms. Veselnitskaya  unearthed what  she  considered evidence of a financial and tax fraud scheme. In October 2015   she  took  her  findings about Mr. Browder and the Ziff brothers directly to Mr. Chaika  Russiaâs top prosecutor and a man whom  she  has said  she  knows personally. Mr. Chaika was highly pleased with  her  report  according to a former colleague of  Ms. Veselnitskaya  who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of repercussions. In April 2016   Ms. Veselnitskaya  teamed with Mr. Chaikaâs office to pass the accusations to an American congressional delegation visiting Moscow. An official with the Russian prosecutor generalâs office gave a memo detailing the charges â stamped âconfidentialââ to Representative Dana Rohrabacher  a California Republican who is considered to be one of the most pro-Russia lawmakers in Congress and who heads a subcommittee that helps oversee U.S. policy toward Russia.
 Ms. Veselnitskaya  handed a nearly identical memo to Representative French Hill  Republican of Arkansas.  She  has said  she  also met with Mr. Rohrabacher then  although he said that he does not recall the encounter. The next month  Mr. Chaikaâs office described the alleged scheme on prosecutor generalâs website.
The documents brought by  Veselnitskaya  resembled the same documents given to Rohrabacher  with some of the wording exact.
Russian elites have been known to mount independent initiatives to curry favor with the Kremlin. But a number of well-known Russian analysts called it inconceivable that  Ms. Veselnitskaya  would have bypassed  her  own government to deliver what are now unmistakably official allegations to an American presidential campaign. Said Gleb O. Pavlovsky  the president of the Fund for Effective Politics  a Moscow research institute: âShe had guidance.â
answer:

Natalia V. Veselnitskaya