Problem: OPTIONS:
- Facebook Users
- FCC
- not enough information
- FB Exec
Q: Facebook has a long track record and sordid history of abusing their users' trust and privacy, including the most recent and egregious cases currently making headlines with Cambridge Analytica as well as election meddling in the US and Britain. As if that wasn't enough, it then came to light that they have also been tracking and storing users' phone call and text message data, including "who contacted whom, what time, and how long the conversation was." This is nothing new, as we can see from this 2012 "study" in which they deliberately manipulated news feeds to influence users' emotional state. And again with their settlement with the FCC back in 2011 (that they likely violated with their recent offenses) over deceiving consumers by telling them their information was private, but then repeatedly sharing it and making it public. And then there's The Ugly Memo, in which a FB exec justifies growth at any cost in the name of connecting people, even if that results literally in people dying: We talk about the good and the bad of our work often. I want to talk about the ugly. We connect people. That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. And still we connect people. The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good. And up until this most recent Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook was negotiating with various healthcare organizations to share patients' health data with FB so they could match it up to your social circle to allegedly provide better health care. Um yeah right. Each time this stuff happens, they issue an apology (or a justification for their behavior) and promise they will take steps to better inform users and protect their privacy, but it's clear that this is just lip service at this point. Question: Whose trust and privacy was abused? === The answer to the above question is
Answer: Facebook Users

Problem:OPTIONS:
- after the war
- not enough information
- before the war
- before he enlisted in the armed forces

My father lost something valuable to him that didn't resurface for years after his death. My dad was a World War II veteran and an officer. All officers were issued the classic Ray Ban sunglasses with the wraparound wire rims. He wore them almost all the time for the next thirty years after the War, then one day in the 1970's, he misplaced them. He was heartbroken, crestfallen, that he lost something he cherished from his military servicethe symbolic military issue Bausch & Lombs coveted by every officer who served. I wanted so badly to be my dad's Hero. I overturned every piece of furniture in the house, rifled every dresser drawer, every nook and crannie, underneath beds, the garage, the yard, you name it. I was on a Mission. I wanted to walk up to him and say, beaming, Here Dad! I found your sunglasses! But alas, after several weeks, no success. I was crushed by my own failure. He passed away, and his possessions were divided among our family. Fast forward to a few years ago. My Cocker Spaniel was sniffing around in the bathroom, and a box fell out of the bathroom closet with a crash. I went to investigate and chide the dogwhen the first thing I saw on the bathroom floor next to the overturned box was the yellowed leather case, and his wire rim sunglasses. I picked it up, held it in my hand, and I, a grown man, immediately burst into tears, sobbing. Suddenly, I was nineteen again. My wife asked what was the matter, and I told her the whole story. I figured after his passing, his sunglasseswhich evidently were in the house the whole timewere probably tossed into one of many anonymous cardboard boxes, and I happened to be the one who carried off the box containing them. So here Dad! I found your sunglasses! I love you! Am I still your hero? Question: When did his father misplace his Ray Ban sunglasses? === The answer to the above question is
****
A: after the war

input: OPTIONS:
- Not accurate because they take much less than the recommended amount
- not enough information
- Not accurate because they take much more than the recommended amount
- Very accurate since they are the ones that consume that amount Now, answer this question: Few athletes would disagree that more muscle is an advantage in their sport. And protein is the perfect source of amino acid building blocks needed for new muscle growth and repair. Taken together, strength training and sufficient protein will stimulate new muscle protein synthesis. Note that the keyword here is sufficient, because this is where protein supplement marketers like to extend to "the more the better". So how much protein do sportspeople need? Consensus position statements such as those produced by the American College of Sports Medicine give the range of 1.2 grams to 1.7 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. But the top end of that range is for elite endurance athletes, power sportspeople and those in the early stages of a strength training phase. The "recreational athlete", which describes the majority of active sportspeople, should aim for the bottom end of the range. So how do those protein requirement numbers stack up against a regular diet? Protein intake and body weights collected in the 2011-2012 Australian Health Survey, as an example, show the average Australian male already eats 1.2 grams and the average female 1.1 grams of protein per kilogram body weight. And this is for mostly sedentary people who are not following any special "high protein" training diet. Sportspeople do have higher energy needs. But by simply eating a greater volume of food with a focus on higher protein content, it's very feasible for an athlete to get their protein requirements from food alone. This has been backed up by research; numerous dietary surveys show the normal diet of strength-based athletes provides around two grams of protein per kilogram body weight per day. And that's before using any protein powders. But protein supplements can't be dismissed altogether. There are circumstances where supplementation is an appropriate and convenient option for athletes, such as when travelling, or during an intense training schedule. Question: How accurate do top athletes probably think the recommended amount of protein is? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output:
Very accurate since they are the ones that consume that amount