It was a made-for-TV moment that all presidents would relish, but it seemed especially significant for the man who turned a reality TV career into a successful bid for the presidency. Donald Trump triumphantly greeted the three Americans released by North Korea in the early morning darkness at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington early Thursday, an image one can expect to see over and over again come the 2020 U.S. presidential election campaign. "It was a very important thing to all of us to be able to get these three great people out," Trump told reporters on the tarmac. He then went on to speculate that live television coverage of the arrival "probably broke the all-time in history television rating for 3 o'clock in the morning." It was a moment the president gladly seized given that his White House has been buffeted by a chaotic mix of policy and personal drama in recent days. The prospect of a potentially historic breakthrough on North Korea could move a number of other unwelcome distractions to the side, including the ongoing Russia investigation, the growing legal difficulties for Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, and the soap opera that the Stormy Daniels story has become. Daniels is the adult film actress who claims she once had an affair with Trump. He denies the claim. Trump also announced Thursday on Twitter that he will meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on June 12 in Singapore. A new CNN poll found that 77 percent of those surveyed support Trump meeting the North Korean leader, and 53 percent approve of his handling of the North Korea issue generally. Those numbers are in keeping with a general trend of late that has seen the president's poll ratings improving, perhaps in part because of the strong economy. The meeting between Kim Jong Un and President Trump would likely take: - Only one hour. - not enough information - Only 30 minutes. - At least one day.
At least one day.

(Question)
My dearest Lily, Forgive me. I would be with you now, rather than closeted in my study, but I do not wish you or our children to witness my demise. I love you. I tell you now, so that you will know that my last thought was of you. I have placed my affairs in order -- do not fear, my love, you will be well provided for -- all that is required of my remaining time is to explain the events which have led to my death. Though the scene will seem so similar to my elder brother's death, I would not wish you to think I had taken my own life in the manner in which Edmund took his. When Dr V came to see me some weeks ago, he brought with him the bottle of strychnine that now sits empty upon my desk. He was in high spirits, because his latest alchemical experiment had been a success, and brought the strychnine in order to demonstrate the efficacy of his elixir. In truth, his very presence could be considered proof, since he had been dead earlier that morning, but, as I had not witnessed his revival, he wished me to see the results first hand. At his request, I summoned the chambermaid, while he prepared a syringe of strychnine. I thought he would ask her to procure a hen or some such thing for use in his demonstration however, when she arrived, Dr V-- plunged the syringe into her arm with no warning. I leapt from my chair, but before I could do more than cross the room, the strychnine took effect with results that horrified me. Even though I had complete confidence in Dr V's elixir, I could not restrain a cry of dismay as the chambermaid's head tilted back in a sudden convulsion. Her lips tightened, giving her the appearance of laughter and she dropped to her knees, clawing at her throat. Her back arched, pitching her over so that she lay with only her head and heels touching the carpet. what happens after the elixir is taken - not enough information - the person ingesting it does, only to revive later - the person becomes invisible - the person fades away
(Answer)
not enough information

Ques: The U.S. has long had the unenviable distinction of holding the world's largest prison population, in part because of tough-on-crime policies enacted in the 1990s. But sentencing reforms passed in recent years appear to have made a dent, leading to declines in the population over the past eight years. A criminal justice reform organization reported Friday that in 2017, the U.S. prison population dropped below 1.5 million for the first time in more than a decade. The decline, according to the Washington-based Vera Institute for Justice, was driven by a sharp decrease in the number of inmates in federal prisons and decreases in several states with large prison populations. Total U.S. prison population dropped to 1,486,000 last year, a decline of nearly 16,000. The number of federal prisoners fell to 183,000, and the number of inmates in state prisons declined to 1.3 million, according to the report. (The overall figure does not include the more than 600,000 defendants held in local, state and federal jails.) The decline extended an eight-year downward trend in U.S. prison population that has been driven by federal and state sentencing reforms enacted over the past decade. But the Vera institute cautioned that it was unclear whether the trend would continue. "Whether criminal justice reform can continue to fuel this sustained decline in the prison population remains to be seen," said Jacob Kang-Brown, senior research associate at Vera. "We must continue to do the hard work, as advocates and agents of change, to ensure that all our communities feel the relief of decarceration." The report came as President Donald Trump called on Congress to pass legislation to help former inmates reintegrate into society and avoid going back to prison, as many do. "We want former inmates to find a path to success so they can support their families and support their communities," Trump said at a White House summit on prison reform attended by two state governors and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, who is spearheading... When did the prison population decline nearly 16,000? - before Trump called on Congress to pass legislation - not enough information - before sentencing reforms were passed - after sentencing reforms were passed
Ans: after sentencing reforms were passed

Question: Years back, following a transition inside a large company where many people got fired and moved around, the decision was made to give the remaining people more work. Now, let me pause here, when I say, "more work" did not mean more of the existing work they already did. "More work" did not mean work of what they already knew, or signed up for when they were hired. More work meant incorporating a completely different role. For me, I'm a programmer. And "management" decided they wanted programmers to also do BA work. Now, mind you, nowhere on my employment contract does it state I'd have to take a BA role. And nowhere on my employment contract did it state taking a BA role would also require me doing all of my programming work. So, after being pushed a few times to attend BA meetings, I got fed up. So I pulled my manager into a meeting and explained this to him. I said, you have two choices: I do two roles, BA and programmer, and I get a new salary to account for the role. When he asked how much, I said, take my salary and multiply by 1.6. Option 2, I go back to programming, and you never pull me into a meeting again on BA work. It's not what you hired me for, and it's not what you pay me for. When my boss replied, "Our company is not in the position to pay for two roles", I told him, then it sounds like Option 2. And by the way, I don't ever want to have this discussion again. If you want Superman performance, you cannot pay Clark Kent wages. 1 year passed and I was never bothered again about BA roles. Takeaways: Middle managers are one step above one-celled organisms. They can, and will try to get you to do non-role work, with no intention of ever paying you more. They key is to cut it off at the pass. What sort of industry is company in? - Consulting - Marketing - Financial - not enough information
Answer:
not enough information