Question: With regular money now coming in from the Guardian column, my regular contributions to other publications and the modest subscription revenue from The Friday Thing, I had been living something of the high life since arriving in London. I had started hanging out with the great and the good of the dot com world: attending launch parties for new sites, going to parties to celebrate them staying in business for a whole year, eating their lunches, drinking their booze and learning their secrets while they tried to convince me to write about them in my column. Many of these online entrepreneurs had become my friends and I'd managed to find myself a new girlfriend - Maggie, a Welsh journalist who was a restaurant reviewer for a food and drink website. This was a brilliant blag: it meant we could eat at some of London's best restaurants and never pay a penny. Life was wonderful: The Friday Thing and the Guardian column meant that my plan to use the Internet to become hugely famous and successful was firmly on track, I'd made lots of new friends, and, on top of all that, I was getting laid and eating gourmet food for free. Even Sam Lewis was jealous, and he was rich. Meanwhile, the people I was writing about were not having such an easy time of it. 2003 was a really strange time to be covering the 'new media' industry - mainly because no one was really sure for how long there would be an industry left to cover. The dot com boom of 1999 seemed like a millennium ago: a period in history as crazy as the tulip craze or the South Sea Bubble look to us now. The first signs of trouble for the industry had come in 2000. As the century turned, so had the market and - to use the parlance of analysts - the boom had turned out to be a bubble. And then the bubble had burst. Question: Why did he think the entrepreneurs tried to convince him to write about them? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- They invited him to launch parties.
- not enough information
- They invited him to parties to celebrate them staying in business for a whole year.
- They told him their secrets of business.
Answer: They invited him to launch parties.

input with options: Think outside the box, whilst inside the box (studio): As this studio is about working with constraints, I thought i'd google 'constraints in filmmaking' and see what comes up. One of the first links was to a journal article by Heidi Philipsen entitled 'Constraints in Film Making Processes Offer an Exercise to the Imagination'. Interestingly enough the first sentence of her article states: "I would like filmmakers interested in thinking "outside the box" to recognize that they can benefit from being placed "inside a box." I wonder if Paul had contemplated this whilst choosing the name for this studio. Throughout her article Philipsen challenges the notion that creativity is an intangible innate quality, existing within the mind of one source, but rather creativity arises from a multitude of sources. Alike all things shared she suggests that creativity is easier to enhance by changing environmental conditions, rather than encouraging people to 'think more creatively'. Perceiving creativity in this way allows you to see it as an organisationally influenced phenomenon, rather than a psychological and individual phenomenon. Which enables you to have more control over creativity and to encourage creativity once being aware of how it can be environmentally enhanced. As Csikzentmihalyi (1996) states "a genuinely creative accomplishment is almost never the result of a sudden insight, a lightbulb flashing on in the dark, but comes after years of hard work". Constraints, as Philipsen suggests is one such way to manipulate the environment to enhance creativity. Students who attended The Film School in Denmark, who were forced into working with constraints for their projects eventually considered constraints to be both useful and inspirational. Such constraints included: making a scene with a specific theme, within a specific deadline and with other specific conditions concerning the use of camera, sound, actors etc. Students stated that these constraints ultimately made them feel secure, inspired and focused and... Question: What did John eat? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- something savory
- something sweet
- something sour
- not enough information
output: something sweet

Q: "Hey, guy." "No, this is Ray." He smiled, leaned back in his chair. It was, of course, Pete. Pete was the night shift guy at Crossroads Detox across town. Ray called it the Jesus Shop because it was wholly supported by a contingent of local churches who saw addicts as a potential ministry. Apparently Jesus saved--not only from sin and hell, but also from Dark Eyed Jim Beam. Pete was a relatively innocuous born again fundie who volunteered his time two or three nights a week. When he was not saving the world, his Clark Kent was actually a steady CPA job with the local H&R Block. He'd been pulling shifts for about six months, knew nothing about drugs beyond that bad people used them to escape their problems and that they were tools of Satan, and he always needed Ray's advice about one thing or another. This arrangement was not problematic as Pete had long ago given up trying to convert him. Pete was also the only guy in the city who was, as Ray figured it, making less money than he was at such an hour. In return for Ray's magnanimity, Pete had done Ray's taxes for free last year. They had never actually met, though Ray had faxed him the tax forms and Pete had faxed back a photo of his two pre-teen daughters and his geriatric Lab. "What's the problem?" Ray asked. "I have a recalcitrant." That's what he called them, the drunk and definitely disorderly. Pete's vocabulary did not include the word shithead either in its singular or plural. "Pete, they're all like that. Alcohol is bad medicine. That's why places like ours are in business. To make them calcitrant." "I know that." Pete sounded a little annoyed. There was some commotion in the background, a knocking on doors. Question: Who did Ray's taxes? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- Crark
- Pete
- Jim
- not enough information

A: Pete

Q: Hummyou don't categorize best as either fun or interesting so maybe I have one of each! Interesting one; while Clinton was still in office he was at a fund raising dinner at a restaurant I managed. I met his personal valet from the white house mess, Oscar, and he casually said, if you are ever in DC. To which I replied, I sure can be! My husband and I made the trip a month or so later, we met up with Oscar for dinner on our first night there. We had just started planning all we wanted to see as it was our first visit there. We had no idea that Oscar would invite us for not one but two private tours of the White House. We saw the oval office, the situation room, the rose garden, the mess, the press room and the OEOB. We even heard Buddy bark! It was a trip I knew I'd never be able to repeat and was very grateful to have had the chance to take. For the fun oneMy friend was turning 50 and she wanted a theme destination celebration. 18 of us went to Belize. She went all out. Two private villas that you could only access by boat, all the swag you can imagine. And plenty of booze. That alone is already a super special vacation but for me it had even more meaning. I'd never been invited to a group event like this before nor had I been to spring break, which this very much turned into. I know many people have plenty of over the top stories. And I've had some even more amazing trips than this. But those two had just enough special twists to make them really stand out. Thanks for asking. I too am a Disney fan! Question: Who is the narrator writing to? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- An old friend
- A stranger
- A pen pal
- not enough information

A:
not enough information