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:'.

[Q]: CONTEXT: Ricin is extremely toxic. It has an LD50 (the lethal dose for 50% of people exposed) of 3040mg per kilogram when ingested (its much much more dangerous when introduced to the body in other ways). Guessing Lydia's weight at around 50kg (110 lbs) would lead one to think the LD50 would be no more than 2g of ricin. It has a military-developed antidote, which has had only limited trials in humans. Ricin is a chemical subject to the Chemical Weapons Convention, in the same schedule as nerve agents Sarin and VX. (All this information gleaned from Wikipedia) Walt also only told her when she'd already begun to experience symptoms, so less likely to recover even if treated. Even if she sought attention and gave them this information it seems unlikely that she would recover. Even if she's not been given a lethal dose, survivors of ricin often suffer from long term organ damage, so she would have a pretty miserable and presumably shortened life even if she does survive. I think Walt probably weighed her slim improved chances of survival, against the pleasure of knowing that she was aware who had done this to her. I considered an answer like @Keen's too perhaps she would not go to a hospital in fear of the attention, but I think this is less likely, even the risk averse would put fear of death above prison. <sep> Q: What is ricin? A: Ricin is a chemical subject to the Chemical Weapons Convention, in the same schedule as nerve agents Sarin and VX Q: Could Lydia get medical help and survive a ricin poisoning? A: Even if she sought attention and gave them this information it seems unlikely that she would recover Q: Did Walter want Lydia to survive? A: I think Walt probably weighed her slim improved chances of survival, against the pleasure of knowing that she was aware who had done this to her <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who'se phone did Walter use to call Lydia?
[A]: No

[Q]: CONTEXT: They got help from someone John Connor / T-3000 This guy is from future and he might have brought a skynet chip with him else helped creating a one with the name Genisys. As skynet himself sent him in past, so he must have secured his existence too. <sep> Q: How does Skynet get created in Terminator Genisys?
[A]: Yes

[Q]: 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]:
Yes