input: OPTIONS:
- China ended up participating.
- China did not participate.
- It didn't take place.
- not enough information Now, answer this question: U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Saturday slammed China's militarization of disputed South China Sea islands, insisting that weapons systems recently deployed in the area were meant to intimidate and coerce Beijing's neighbors. The comments came during a speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual Asian defense forum in Singapore. In the speech, Mattis laid out the broader U.S. strategy for a "free and open" Indo-Pacific region. "China's policy in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the openness our strategy promotes. It calls into question China's broader goals," Mattis said. Specifically, the Pentagon chief mentioned China's deployment of anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, electronic jammers, and the landing of a bomber aircraft at the Paracel Islands off the coast of Vietnam. "Despite China's claim to the contrary, the placement of these weapon systems is tied directly to military use for the purposes of intimidation and coercion," Mattis added. Though much of the world is focused on an upcoming summit between North Korea and the United States, this year's Shangri-La Dialogue has focused primarily on the region's long-term future and how to deal with a more assertive China. Beijing has begun projecting power beyond its borders, most notably through the construction and militarization of islands in disputed areas of the South China Sea. China claims nearly the entire South China Sea, despite overlapping claims by countries including Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan. Last week, the United States disinvited China from the Rim of the Pacific exercise (RIMPAC), a major international maritime exercise to be held later this year, citing Beijing's behavior in the South China Sea. Mattis on Saturday referred to that disinvitation as an "initial response" to China, but he did not outline any additional steps that might be taken. "The U.S. will continue to pursue a constructive, results-oriented relationship with China, cooperating when possible and competing vigorously where... Question: What likely happened at RIMPAC later in the year? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: China did not participate.

Companies, communities, families, clubs, and other clumps of humans all have some inherent social dynamics. At a simple level there are leaders and followers, but in reality the lines are rarely as clear as that. Many leaders, with a common example being some founders, have tremendous vision and imagination, but lack the skills to translate that vision into actionable work. Many followers need structure to their efforts, but are dynamic and creative in the execution. Thus, the social dynamic in organizations needs a little more nuance. This is where traditional management hierarchies break down in companies. You may have your SVPs, then your VPs, then your Senior Directors, then your Directors, and so on, but in reality most successful companies don't observe those hierarchies stringently. In many organizations a junior-level employee who has been there for a while can have as much influence and value, if not more, than a brand new SVP. As such, the dream is that we build organizations with crisp reporting lines but in which all employees feel they have the ability to bring their creativity and ideas to logically influence the scope, work, and culture of the organization. Sadly, this is where many organizations run into trouble. It seems to be the same 'ol story time after time: as the organization grows, the divide between the senior leadership and the folks on the ground widens. Water cooler conversations and bar-side grumblings fuel the fire and resentment, frustrations, and resume-editing often sets in. So much of this is avoidable though. Of course, there will always be frustration in any organization: this is part and parcel of people working together. Nothing will be perfect, and it shouldn't befrustration and conflict can often lead to organizations re-pivoting and taking a new approach. I believe though, that there are a lot of relatively simple things we can do to make organizations feel more engaging. Question: The junior level employee feel more influential than: === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- The Founder
- The Senior Vice President
- The new employee

Answer: The Senior Vice President

So, there I was. Hanging out in my swimsuit, hair drawn back, just minding my own business and relaxing in the delicious, luxurious Scandinave Spa, a stone's throw from Whistler town centre. The husband and I had split up for the afternoon he had decided to traverse the peaks of Whistler and Blackcomb on the peak2peak gondola, and I'd chosen a slightly less terrifying mountain vista to enjoy. It was just one of those days where we'd decided happily to do two different things, and meet up afterwards for a spot of dinner. Cascading down the hillside, the Scandinave Spa's rustic installations nestle on the edge of the Lost Lake Park spruce and cedar forest and promises to both relax and invigorate you, and provide an escape from daily stress. With several levels of hot and icy plunge pools, sauna and steam rooms, everyone wanders from indoor to outdoor relaxation spots from sun-soaked spot to waterfall spout back massages. Bliss. It's also a place where silence is "essential to the experience. By embracing silence one finds inner stillness, leading to complete relaxation." To be honest, most people who couldn't be quiet i.e. me just talked in hushed tones, but it made for a super chilled few hours. Until I was sitting in one of the steam rooms (does that make the title clickbait? Sorry using the title 'steam room with Lady Gaga' made it sound as though we were chickens cooking in a slowcooker) and a very, very slim blonde lady slipped in. Queen Gaga herself. I've got to be honest, sticking to the 'no eye contact with other people who are chillaxing' rule, I didn't pay very much attention to what was going on, but after 25 minutes or so of basting relaxing, I stretched languidly my bones like toffee and wandered out to the next room, and looking up from the drinks table, had to blink several times as she followed me out. Trying to play cool, I tried keep a poker face (after all, she was there to relax and recuperate in the middle of a big Canadian tour, she didn't need a random Kiwi gawking at her)... Question: How long was the author probably in the presence of Lady Gaga? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- probably about an hour or two
- probably 5 minutes
- not enough information
- probably 4 hours or so

Answer:
probably about an hour or two