Q: Was it the things she told me or the situation I was in? I was working with someone who, basically, should never have been hired into the job, and then should not have been kept as long as she was. She was entirely inadequate for the role we performed. I was a new graduate and so lucky to get a job in my field, pretty much right out of university. We worked in a small office of three. The third was a sales rep and out visiting clients most of the time. She was, more or less, my superior, though the company made it clear that she was not someone to emulate yet gave me no one else to look to for advice or guidance. She would constantly say "this place will leave you to sink or swim" (amongst other phrases, all along these lines). That's probably the worst saying ever, though I can't really consider it ridiculous because, frankly, I absolutely see why she would say that (for example, I met my manager once during my interview and then the next time was about four months into being hired that should tell you the level of support given). But I cannot even explain to you the way this statement biased me against this company and the job I was doing. I was lost and truly believed that I couldn't do any better (because I was sinking and couldn't figure out how to swim on my own). Yes, you may have issues in whatever job your in but to tell a newbie that they have to figure it out on their own that's pretty ridiculous. If this is something you hear or think and asking others for help or finding a supportive environment is not an option try replacing it with "learn to fly on the way down". At the very least, you won't have such a negative frame of mind. What role did she have? - not enough information - Supervisor - Sales rep - Secretary.
A: Supervisor

Q: WHITE HOUSE President Donald Trump on Monday declared he has an "absolute right" to pardon himself and then also tweeted his assertion that the federal government investigation into ties between his 2016 election campaign and Russia is "totally unconstitutional." While Trump has frequently ignored established norms and challenged the understood limits of presidential powers, his latest comments are viewed by some legal scholars as unprecedented and testing constitutional boundaries. "I was shocked" by Trump's tweets, said Susan Low Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University. "No president has ever tried it," she told VOA News. "It's unlikely the president can pardon himself. I think the court would say no" and if he did give himself a pardon, "most congresses would impeach him." Bloch also notes when most people accept a pardon "it's an admission of guilt," thus it would be a bad idea for Trump to pursue such a course of action. The professor, who has testified before the Senate on whether a president can be indicted and tried while in office, says the special counsel is "absolutely constitutional." Another constitutional scholar, Keith Whittington at Princeton University, said, "I think it is important to note that the president's comments reference serious arguments that are being debated by legal scholars, but these are difficult and unusual constitutional questions that would ultimately be answered in the courts." According to Northwestern University Law Professor Andrew Koppelman, "Trump's position on pardons is consistent with the Constitution's text, but inconsistent with the overall structure. It means that the President could commit capital treason, or any other federal crime, and then immediately pardon himself. "It means that he could commit murder in the White House," Koppelman said. "It makes no sense within the Constitution as a whole." Asked by reporters Monday about Trump's comment on his ability to pardon himself, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders repeatedly replied: "The... What did Trump accomplish with his statement that he could pardon himself? - not enough information - He proved his innocence - He showed his knowledge of the Constitution - He proved his naysayers wrong
A: not enough information

Q: ROLAND NARROWED HIS EYES AND STARED UPWARD INTO THE DARKNESS, across the top of Mont Segur toward the Cathar fortress. Standing on a high walkway of planks behind the palisade of the crusaders' small wooden fort, he heard faraway voices and saw torches moving on the Cathar rampart. The two men on watch with him that night, a sergeant from Champagne and a young man-at-arms from Brittany, were talking in low tones about the women to be had far below, at the foot of the mountain. They seemed not to see the activity about the Cathar stronghold on the upper peak of the mountaintop opposite their own fort. But Roland, knowing Diane was in the besieged fortress, could not take his eyes from it. He knew he had to act soon. Each day the crusaders grew stronger and the Cathars weaker. Once the Cathar stronghold fell, the crusaders would slaughter all within, including Diane. The sergeant, chuckling, was offering his young companion a wineskin. The Breton never received it. From behind the Cathar wall came the sound of a huge thump, as if a giant's fist had pounded Mont Segur. Roland recognized the sound, and fought panic as he thrust his arms out, trying to push the other two men toward the ladder. But there was no time for them to climb down to safety. The thump was the counter-weight of a stone-caster, and the whistling noise that followed fast upon it was the rock it had thrown. A shape as big as a wine barrel blotted out the stars. The stone hit the parapet beside Roland, and the whole palisade shuddered. Roland caught a glimpse of the sergeant's horrified face and heard his scream as the boulder struck him, crushing him to the ground. How long did it likely take for the Sergeant to die? - He died after a few minutes - not enough information - He died a few days later - He died instantly
A: He died instantly

Q: "Teachers like to agree with each other, when we talk about learning. It's hard to change that, when the model we have wanted to make work has nonetheless been failing for 40 years." Professor Brian Boyd No area has remained up there in the contentiousness charts in Scotland as the notion of business and education working together to do something better for our young people. Most schools do not 'partner' with colleges or universities. Instead, they are production facilities for undergraduates and college entrants. Fewer are set up to systematically provide apprenticeship opportunities as well as learning. At NoTosh, we've been working on a few, nascent projects to change the attitudes of schools from being these production facilities into something more of a life support - what metrics of success might we use if schools judged their success on the results of their alumni, five, ten or twenty years down the line, much like universities do? City of Glasgow College have partnered with Newlands Junior College (NJC) to make the experience of a day in college more than what, in other circumstances, is too often perceived as a day off from school. The Junior College is called this, and not a school, for that very reason, to mark it out as a stepping stone between school and full-blown college. NoTosh helped last August to provoke the team around their thoughts of what 'unschool' might look like. The College was backed and founded by Jim McColl, one of Scotland's top business people. In the future, suggests, McColl, might be be possible to take funding of learning out of its pre-existing silos, particularly for this group of students, about 60 in every city at these ages, who just need a different approach to the traditional comprehensive approach? A crossover funding model that helps learning happen in both 'school' or Junior College and college or university might be interesting. In fact, some of the world's top universities are thinking of such models for their own students: Stanford's 2025 project talks about the... When is Stanford talking of a project called Open Loop? - in 2025 - now - not enough information - in 2020
A: now