instruction:
Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix 'Q:' followed by the answer prefix 'A:', and the follow-up question has a prefix 'FOLLOWUP_Q:'.
question:
CONTEXT: The plot by MI 6 and the CIA is to give Le Chiffre no choice but to turn himself in. They had no legal right to arrest him, lack of evidence and all. Once he lost the money, both organizations hoped the pressure by the real criminal contacts would force Chiffre to turn evidence over, instead of being killed. Both organizations are playing a long game in this. There was no expected immediate payout in the plan. If they arrest him, they would reveal their hand in the events and blow the operation. Additionally, Leiter was playing this by ear. The only reason the CIA could arrange this was because MI-6 decided it got too expensive and Bond was willing to work with them. It was a field decision that wasn't part of the actual CIA plan (Leiter was expected to win). <sep> Q: Why didn't Felix Leiter catch Le Chiffre after the game was done? A: Leiter was playing this by ear Q: What happened at the end of the game? A: e lost the money Q: Who did the CIA want? A: Le Chiffre <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did things proceed?
answer:
No

question:
CONTEXT: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell. You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell. In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up. In S4E5 "Travelers" at about the 26 minute mark, you see Shepard ask Larrin if she has more "of these," referring to either the weapon, or the power cell he removes from the depleted gun. They are both weaponless because the gun is out of power. The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though. Probably for the same reason they never show the SG teams loading ammo into magazines. :) <sep> Q: Why doesn't Ronon's gun run out of power? A: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell Q: How does he recharge this power cell gun? A: You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell Q: When does he do this exactly, I can't recall seeing him recharge it? A: In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up Q: Is this the only time he is seen recharging the gun? A: The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though Q: Do you have any other facts about the weapons in the show? A: hey never show the SG teams loading ammo into magazines. <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you give me any more facts?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun. You've mentioned lots of directors in your question who have done it and it's likely they all got a pretty good kick out of it. Think Hitchcock's many roles or Tarantino in Reservoir Dogs, or Pulp Fiction. There's also a tradition argument. Stan Lee, for example, has done it for so long now that it's expected and many fans get enjoyment out of spotting him in each of his roles. The same applies to Hitchcock. After the fun and tradition reasons, it's certainly plausible to suggest because they can. Many directors don't have the fame or recognition for a cameo role to be significant. But if someone like Tarantino, Scorcese or Peter Jackson does it, it's instantly recognisable given their fame. This can be compared to other, less famous, directors who wouldn't be recognised. Therefore, it certainly carries that making cameos gives them airtime and keeps them recognisable in the public eye. These are just a few of the reasons. I'm sure other arguments could be made, such as the fact it saves money (such as in the case of a longer role, e.g. Tarantino in Django), but it seems to be mostly about a mixture of fun and tradition. <sep> Q: Why do directors make cameo appearances in their movies? A: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun Q: What other reason would their be? A: There's also a tradition argument. Stan Lee, for example, has done it for so long now that it's expected and many fans get enjoyment out of spotting him in each of his roles Q: Is there another reason why? A: After the fun and tradition reasons, it's certainly plausible to suggest because they can <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do they like doing it?
answer:
Yes