The dumbest thing that actually worked? I joined Tinder. Reason I say it was the dumbest is because I still acknowledge that it's not my kind of dating scene even though I ended up meeting the love of my life through the app. Other than that? Nothing was wrong or dumb. I have done nothing much because the man I am currently dating sent me a superlike after I was on the app for less than 12 hours. I joined, created profile, went through possible matches, and then went to bed. I didn't have enough time to do something dumb. Now my boyfriend on the other hand was on the app for 45 months prior to me joining and him finding me. His story is that he had been in there long enough to end up matching with some bots (robots that somehow end up joining or hacking the app. I have not a clue how) that he would have conversations with to test if they were legitimate people. He would also match with different people who would either immediately block him because he came as weird or he would block them because they came off as weird. When he found me, what he saw in my profile was that I was local, I was a legitimate person because I knew someone that he knew through Facebook, and I had multiple pictures of myself that looked genuine. I also had a description where I stated my intention for using the app which was that I was looking for a serious relationship. What he did after I connected with him was talk to me and then test me as the conversation progressed. How did he test me? He told a corny joke which I laughed to. If I hadn't have found his joke funny, he probably wouldn't have asked me out on a date. I hope that answers your question. I know it wasn't very. eventful. Question: What is the boyfriend's name? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- Johnathon
- Jonas
- Joseph
- not enough information

Answer: not enough information

Problem: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Windows
- Satya Nadella
- Microsoft
Q: Recently the news broke that Microsoft are acquiring GitHub. Effusive opinions flowed from all directions: some saw the acquisition as a sensible fit for Microsoft to better support developers, and some saw it as a tyrant getting their grubby fingers on open source's ecosystem. I am thrilled for Microsoft and GitHub for many reasons, and there will be a bright future ahead because of it, but I have been thinking more about the reaction some of the critics have had to this, and why. I find it fascinating that there still seems to be a deep-seated discomfort in some about Microsoft and their involvement in open source. I understand that this is for historical reasons, and many moons ago Microsoft were definitely on the offensive against open source. I too was critical of Microsoft and their approach back in those days. I may have even said 'M$' instead of 'MS' (ugh.) Things have changed though. Satya Nadella, their CEO, has had a profound impact on the company: they are a significant investor and participant in open source across a multitude of open source projects, they hire many open source developers, run their own open source projects (e.g. VSCode), and actively sponsor and support many open source conferences, events, and initiatives. I know many people who work at Microsoft and they love the company and their work there. These are not microserfs: they are people like you and me. Things have changed, and I have literally never drunk Kool-aid; this or any other type. Are they perfect? No, but they don't claim to be. But is the Microsoft of today a radically different company to the Microsoft of the late nineties. No doubt. Still though, this cynicism exists in some. Some see them as a trojan horse and ask if we can really trust them? A little while ago I had a discussion with someone who was grumbling about Microsoft. After poking around his opinion, what shook out was that his real issue was not with Microsoft's open source work (he was supportive of this), but it was with the fact that they still produce... Question: Who is probably thought of as the Trojan horse? === The answer to the above question is
Answer: not enough information

input with options: President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un made history with their summit meeting in Singapore. But beyond the handshakes, casual strolls and shared asides, many analysts and experts are already wondering what exactly the enduring substance of the summit will be and whether it could boost Trump's political rating at home. For Trump, the great political disrupter, it was the most significant foreign policy move of his presidency. It comes at a time when he looks to turn around his often weak polls and bolster his political standing at home in advance of midterm congressional elections in November, where Democrats are poised to make gains. From the images of their historic first handshake to signing an agreement on denuclearization, Trump and Kim took the first steps toward writing a new chapter in relations between their two countries. "People are going to be very impressed, people are going to be very happy, and we are going to take care of a very big and very dangerous problem for the world," Trump said sitting alongside Kim after both men signed the joint agreement. It was Trump's biggest moment on the world stage, and an opportunity he was eager to seize. "We got along really well.We had a great chemistry.You understand how I feel about chemistry.It is very important," Trump told VOA contributor Greta Van Susteren immediately after the summit. "I mean, I know people where there is no chemistry. We had it right from the beginning. We talked about that and I think great things are going to happen for North Korea." It was the first ever meeting between a U.S. president and a North Korean leader. The two men signed an agreement that committed both countries to work toward the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, but the details remain vague. The United States offered unspecified security guarantees and a halt to military exercises with South Korea. Trump also said he raised the issue of human rights with Kim, but added that most of the meeting focused on the nuclear issue. Question: What did Trump think people are going to be about this denuclearization of North Korea agreement? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- think human rights were the focus of this meeting.
- convinced Democrats are poised to make gains.
- very impressed and happy
output:
not enough information