I have known, and admired, Julia Busuttil Nishimura, for many years now and always felt connected through our love of Italian food, Tuscany (Julia lived in Florence and in Orbetello, just 10 minutes away from where we lived in Porto Ercole while I was writing Acquacotta) and Japan. So I have been eagerly awaiting her debut cookbook, Ostro: The Pleasure that Comes From Slowing Down and Cooking with Simple Ingredients, and it is a beauty it is full of food I want to make and eat. It's also a joy to look at, as it is presented so beautifully with photographs of Julia (and often her darling little boy Haruki) at home and tables full with food that look Caravaggesque. I have already made her everyday banana loaf, several times, after years of searching for my ideal everyday cake, it is now my go-to banana loaf. I tested her ricciarelli (soft almond cookies from Siena) and pork braised in milk (a classic Italian dish that I have always loved) when she was writing the book and I have long-known her absolutely wonderful, incredibly moist lemon olive oil cake (which is also divine with blood oranges). I absolutely love her homemade approach to everything, including all the wonderful handmade pasta like trofie and orecchiette (look at those beautiful dishes below), but also things like classic tiramisu homemade savoiardi, homemade mascarpone (yes and yes, I absolutely believe that for the freshest, most delicious mascarpone, it needs to be homemade especially if you live outside of Italy). Yes, these are all things you can also buy in a packet, but Julia's point is, it is a pleasure to make these things by hand, and the ingredients are so simple water, flour, cream, eggs, you probably have them all in your house already. She is a woman after my own heart. Her book inspires you to give it a go. According to the above context, answer the following question. After they learned the recipe, they kept

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- learning about food
- cooking
- watching food

Answer: learning about food

Problem: OPTIONS:
- Saturday
- Wednesday
- not enough information
- Thursday
Q: U.S. President Donald Trump says he may veto a $1.3 trillion spending bill because it does not offer protections for young undocumented immigrants who arrived as children and does not fully fund the border wall. In a Twitter post Friday morning, Trump said he is considering a veto of the omnibus spending bill based on "the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded." Previously, White House officials said Trump would sign the spending package, a move that would head off a potential government shutdown due to a lack of funding. The measure funds the federal government through September 30. If Trump does not sign the legislation into law, the federal government will shut down at 12:01 a.m. Saturday. The Senate passed the bill by a 65-32 vote early Friday morning after the House of Representatives approved the measure Thursday. Lawmakers had just hours to read the nearly 2,200-page bill released Wednesday night. With midterm elections looming in November, the bill likely marks the final time Capitol Hill considers major legislation this year. The measure fulfills Trump's vow to boost military funding but provides funding for limited parts of his immigration agenda. The bill includes a 2.4 percent pay raise for military personnel. After extensive negotiations between Republicans and Democrats, the bill also provides $1.6 billion for physical barriers and 150 kilometers of a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, short of the $25 billion Trump requested for the project he repeatedly touted on the campaign trail while pledging Mexico would pick up the cost. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi touted the agreement in a letter to her Democratic colleagues, saying negotiators "fought for and achieved drastic reductions to the Trump/GOP plan," including much less funding for the wall than Trump requested and a limit on the number of immigrants that can be... According to the above context, answer the following question. When did the House of Representatives approve the new bill?
Answer: Thursday

Problem:OPTIONS:
- will be vetoed by Trump
- is unlikely to become law
- will pass the full Senate
- not enough information

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill Thursday that would protect from arbitrary dismissal the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. The measure, backed by 10 Democrats and four Republicans, would codify Justice Department regulations that the special counsel can only be fired by the attorney general or a designee for "misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause." The proposal would give the special counsel 10 days to challenge a dismissal in court. If a court determines the firing was not for "good cause," the special counsel would be reinstated. The measure would also require the Justice Department to notify Congress when a special counsel is appointed and to report the findings of an investigation. While marking a strong show of support for Special Counsel Robert Mueller who is under frequent attack by President Donald Trump and some Republicans, the bill is unlikely to become law in the face of Republican opposition. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week that Trump will not fire Mueller and that there was no need to bring the measure to the Senate floor for a vote. House Speaker Paul Ryan has also opposed the idea. The legislation was introduced by four Senators earlier this month after Trump's sharp criticism of an FBI raid on his personal lawyer's home and office rekindled fears that Trump may fire Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who supervises Mueller. Mueller is heading the federal investigation into Russia's electoral interference and possible collusion with the Trump presidential campaign. Trump has said there was no collusion and repeatedly denounced the probe as a "witch hunt." Despite his harsh criticism of the Special Counsel and the Justice Department, Trump has dismissed reports that he's privately talked about firing Mueller. He told the cable show Fox and Friends on Thursday that he'll "try and stay away" from the Justice Department, but "at some point, I... According to the above context, answer the following question. After passing the Senate Judiciary Committee, the legislation probably
****
A: is unlikely to become law

input with options: My then-teenage daughter and I went to a new restaurant. It was empty apart from the manager. We were told to find ourselves a table, so we sat in an attractive area sort of like a small stage. No waitress came by for 10 minutes, so we decided to visit the restroom; there was just one, with one toilet. But a woman rushed in ahead of us, carrying a bundle of clothes. Several minutes later, when she reappeared, we realized this was our waitressarriving late and pushing us customers out of the way so she could change. OK We each used the restroom and returned to our table. But it was not our table anymore. Along came the manager to explain she needed to set aside the stage-like area for a very special group. My daughter and I had already been debating whether to stay or leave. We stayed only because we were very hungry and worried that we'd have to start waiting all over again if we tried a different place. We were led to our new table: a lonely little table in the hall leading to the toilet. I was ready to get out of there, pronto, but my daughter spotted her favorite meal on the menu. But after another 15 minutes, with the lone waitress not appearing, we both shook our heads and got up Oh, here's the waitress! We ordered. Fifteen minutes later, no food. We got up again and exited past the stage-like area, which was just as empty as it had been when we were ejected. The very special people had not arrivedso (had we been served) we could have enjoyed our meal right there. We did find food elsewhere. The first place closed in less than a month. Good riddance! According to the above context, answer the following question. after the story, how does the dad feel?
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- relieved
- sad
- regret
output:
relieved