Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: SINGAPORE In an agreement signed Tuesday in Singapore, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un "reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," while U.S. President Donald Trump "committed to provide security guarantees" to North Korea. The document also calls for the two countries to jointly work on efforts to build a lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula, to establish new U.S.-North Korea relations and to recover the remains of prisoners of war and military members missing in action. The two sides also promised to hold follow-up negotiations. "We're going to denuke North Korea," Trump told VOA contributor Greta Van Susteren. He also said neither side issued ultimatums and that the agreement Tuesday was the result of months of negotiations. "You know that could have ended in a war, that could have ended with many millions of people you know North Korea very well, Seoul has 28 million people, that could have ended with millions of people dead but we ended with a deal," he said. Trump also told VOA that U.S. troops stationed in South Korea will remain in place, but announced one concession long-sought by North Korea. "We are going to get out of the war games that cost so much money," he said. Trump said at later news conference that existing U.S. sanctions will remain in place until North Korean nuclear weapons "are no longer a factor." As for verification, Trump said he and Kim discussed the issue and that monitoring denuclearization efforts would be achieved "by having a lot of people there." He also predicted Kim would begin work right away to "live up to" the agreement. Asked if the talks included specifics on the size of North Korea's nuclear arsenal, Trump said "what they have is substantial." On human rights, Trump said Tuesday's meetings only very briefly touched on the topic, but that the two sides would discuss it more in the future. When asked about thousands of people imprisoned in labor camps, Trump said he thinks he has helped them because things... Question: How long did it probably take for the denuclearization document between the US and North Korea to be drafted? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- about a decade
- not enough information
- about five hours
- several months
Answer: several months

input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Recently the news broke that Microsoft are acquiring GitHub. Effusive opinions flowed from all directions: some saw the acquisition as a sensible fit for Microsoft to better support developers, and some saw it as a tyrant getting their grubby fingers on open source's ecosystem. I am thrilled for Microsoft and GitHub for many reasons, and there will be a bright future ahead because of it, but I have been thinking more about the reaction some of the critics have had to this, and why. I find it fascinating that there still seems to be a deep-seated discomfort in some about Microsoft and their involvement in open source. I understand that this is for historical reasons, and many moons ago Microsoft were definitely on the offensive against open source. I too was critical of Microsoft and their approach back in those days. I may have even said 'M$' instead of 'MS' (ugh.) Things have changed though. Satya Nadella, their CEO, has had a profound impact on the company: they are a significant investor and participant in open source across a multitude of open source projects, they hire many open source developers, run their own open source projects (e.g. VSCode), and actively sponsor and support many open source conferences, events, and initiatives. I know many people who work at Microsoft and they love the company and their work there. These are not microserfs: they are people like you and me. Things have changed, and I have literally never drunk Kool-aid; this or any other type. Are they perfect? No, but they don't claim to be. But is the Microsoft of today a radically different company to the Microsoft of the late nineties. No doubt. Still though, this cynicism exists in some. Some see them as a trojan horse and ask if we can really trust them? A little while ago I had a discussion with someone who was grumbling about Microsoft. After poking around his opinion, what shook out was that his real issue was not with Microsoft's open source work (he was supportive of this), but it was with the fact that they still produce... Question: How was Microsoft different now compared to the old days? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- because they support open source now
- because they have taken over the software world
- not enough information
- because they don't charge money for software now
output: because they support open source now

Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: So, I worked with a friend of mine who was a playwright to put together a play to take to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. It was a three person show, and one of the roles was written specifically for me. Many of the lines were written after we improvised the scenes in my living room as she wrote the piece. Took it to Scotland, where it was quite well received. A year or so later, it was being produced in New York in a much more prestigious setting. I auditioned, was called back a couple times, and got to the play the role again. Fantastic! THEN, it was produced by an even larger theatre. Different producer, different casting director, etc. I went to the open call for it, and the casting director treated me really poorly. It was odd. She looked at my resume and said, "It says you have already played this role." I said, "Yes, I was fortunate enough to workshop it and originate the role." She looked at me like I was lying. I mean, shuttled me out the door like I was a crazy woman. Needless to say, I was not called back. And that was okay(I mean, of course I wanted to do the show with this group of people, but hey, we can't always get what we want). Fast forward to opening night: my playwright friend invites me to see the show. The actress playing "my" role was fantastic, but they had to change lines in the script that indicated what she looked like, because she was of Hawaiian descent. Again, no big dealand she was great! What was strange was meeting the director that evening. My friend introduced me as the originator of the role, and the director asked me why I hadn't auditionedOverall, it wasn't a harsh rejection or a terrible story, it was just weird to have been treated like a liar when I was not lying Question: What did the actor do for a living after getting rejected for the play with the even larger theatre? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- became a doctor
- became a waitress
- not enough information
- continued acting

A:
not enough information