About 15 years ago I met Stuart 'Aq' Langridge when he walked into the new Wolverhampton Linux Users Group I had just started with his trademark bombastic personality and humor. Ever since those first interactions we have become really close friends. Today Stuart turns 40 and I just wanted to share a few words about how remarkable a human being he is. Many of you who have listened to Stuart on Bad Voltage, seen him speak, worked with him, or socialized with him will know him for his larger than life personality. He is funny, warm, and passionate about his family, friends, and technology. He is opinionated, and many of you will know him for the amusing, insightful, and tremendously articulate way in which he expresses his views. He is remarkably talented and has an incredible level of insight and perspective. He is not just a brilliant programmer and software architect, but he has a deft knowledge and understanding of people, how they work together, and the driving forces behind human interaction. What I have always admired is that while bombastic in his views, he is always open to fresh ideas and new perspectives. For him life is a journey and new ways of looking at the road are truly thrilling for him. As I have grown as a person in my career, with my family, and particularly when moving to America, he has always supported yet challenged me. He is one of those rare friends that can enthusiastically validate great steps forward yet, with the same enthusiasm, illustrate mistakes too. I love the fact that we have a relationship that can be so open and honest, yet underlined with respect. It is his personality, understanding, humor, thoughtfulness, care, and mentorship that will always make him one of my favorite people in the world. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: What even were they at Options: A. group of programmers B. linux users group C. convention for technology D. not enough information
B

I really struggle to feel bad for people who actively choose to be miserable and manipulative. I'm dorky and like to use little proverbs all the time. One of my favorites is this: "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." At the end of the day, if someone has a problem, they can never resolve it if they don't truly wish to. You can give someone all the resources in the world, but you can't force them to utilize them. When I was 16, I dated a horrible guy. He was abusive verbally, emotionally, and sexually. He was an incredibly troubled young man and refused to seek help for his severe mental health issues. I eventually came to understand that he reveled in his misery. It was his identity. He acted like he wanted a cure and I'd set him up with resources, but he refused every single one. He may have struggled with serious mental illnesses, but being miserable perversely made him happy and he loved to use his struggles to justify his inexcusable behavior. He wanted to drag as many people into his fiery pit of anguish as possible. I later suffered from severe depression myself, and I never once used it as an excuse to hurt other people. My ex wasn't struggling with his mental health in terms of deliberating and carefully harming others. He was simply exhibiting a personality trait, one he chose to cultivate and it wasn't my problem. I ended up cutting him off completely in spite of all the threats. I will never feel bad for the awful plight he refuses to help himself out of. I have no patience for that type of person. Know what we call them? Toxic. Poison. A waste of time. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: How long did she date the abusive boyfriend? Options: A. A few weeks B. A couple of years C. Until years later D. not enough information
B

Q: As part of my job, I regularly travel and over the last couple of years or so, I've been traveling pretty often. I've had the privilege to travel pretty widely across the US and abroad and I fully know how fortunate I am to have this opportunity. While sometimes exhausting, it's a perk for me to get to go to some pretty cool places, meet a variety of people, and see and do some amazing things. I've also broadened my personal travel, largely due to the overall comfort level I've developed with travel in general, thanks to my job. Like lots of other people, I post pics to social media here and there of my travels and I'm sure it can look quite glamorous at times. Being totally honest, sometimes it is. 🙂 I've been to some exceptional restaurants where I have enjoyed some spectacular meals. I've embraced the notion of trying all sorts of new foods and most of it has been delicious. I've picked up phrases and bits in all sorts of other languages (jack of all trades, master of none), learned things about various cultures, and best of all, I have had many incredible experiences and seen many iconic/historic/inspiring things. Like the Colosseum and other antiquities in Rome, the Parthenon and the Acropolis in Athens, the Eiffel Tower and so much more in Paris, the beaches where we stormed the shore on D-Day in WWII, the Empire State Building, the wonders of Yellowstone National Park, the beaches of Hawaii, Big Ben and Windsor Palace in England, the Liberty Bell, the Golden Gate Bridge, and Anne Frank's house in Amsterdam. As incredible as those experiences and sights have been, the process of getting to and from these places is anything but glamorous. Whoever said "getting there is half the fun" never had to fly smushed up in an economy seat for 9+ hours. For me, being there (or being back home) is 100% of the fun. Getting there and back is just a necessary evil until we invent a better form of travel. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: The writer thinks that others on social media: Options: A. would not like to do the same work B. admire his work C. not enough information D. do not appreciate his work
A: B

SEOUL The U.S. has indicated it is prepared to open the North Korean economy to significant private investment, if a nuclear deal can be reached. But even if economic restrictions were lifted, the restrictive and repressive state would likely still present a challenging environment for foreign investment. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Sunday that if North Korean leader Kim Jong Un complies with what President Donald Trump has demanded, the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea, the United States would offer foreign investment "in spades" to build up the country's infrastructure and develop its economy. "This will be Americans coming in, private sector Americans, not the U.S. taxpayer, private sector Americans coming in to help build out the energy grid. They need enormous amounts of electricity in North Korea; to work with them to develop infrastructure, all the things that the North Korean people need, the capacity for American agriculture to support North Korea, so they can eat meat and have healthy lives," said Pompeo during an interview on the Fox News Sunday program. The Secretary of State recently returned from a trip to Pyongyang, where he meet with the North Korean leader to prepare for the upcoming Trump-Kim summit that will be held in Singapore on June 12. North Korea also released three American prisoners to Pompeo as a humanitarian gesture in advance of the summit. The Trump administration is increasingly optimistic it can work out an agreement to dismantle the North's nuclear program, its advanced ballistic missile arsenal, and chemical weapons capabilities, so as to no longer threaten the U.S. or it is allies. During the recent North-South summit, Kim committed to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and indicated that he seeks an end to the severe U.S.-led sanctions banning 90 percent of North Korean trade that were imposed for his country's repeated nuclear and missile tests. "They obviously want to make concessions, a lot of... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: What was the Secretary of state wearing during his visit to Pyongyang? Options: A. khakis B. a suit C. sneakers D. not enough information
B