Ironically, J. Paul Getty never saw the Getty Villa. He died two years after his museum opened to the public in January 1974 in a new building modeled on an ancient Roman luxury home. It was not until after Getty's death in June 1976 that he returned from his estate in England to his "ranch" on the Pacific Coast: he is buried there at the edge of the property on a private plot overlooking the ocean, alongside his eldest and youngest sons, George and Timothy, both of whom predeceased him. Following a renovation and reinstallation of the galleries, the Getty Villa opens a new chapter in its history. Although Getty never set eyes on his creation, the story of how he built the Villa and assembled his collection pervades the galleries even today. A suite of revamped roomsGalleries 105 to 108share this history. Featuring ancient works of art Getty bought himself along with archival documents, the new displays place the objects in their cultural contexts and shed light on Getty's personal relationship to his museum and final resting place. From a Ranch House to an Ancient Villa Getty bought the 64-acre ranchonce part of the Rancho Boca de Santa Monica, an early-nineteenth-century 6,656-acre Mexican land grantjust after the end of World War II, intending it as a weekend retreat where his fifth wife Theodora ("Teddy") could ride horses and he could display his growing art collection. He knew the area well, for he already owned a small house on the beach in nearby Santa Monica, just steps from the sprawling complex his friend and rival collector William Randolph Hearst had built for the actress Marion Davies. (The Davies estate is now the Annenberg Community Beach House, while Getty's beach house has been replaced by a large modern condo complex, 270 Palisades Beach Road.) Question: How long after J. Paul Getty died did it probably take to have him returned to the Pacific Coast from England to be buried? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- a few days
- a few months
- a few years
- not enough information

Answer: a few days

Problem: OPTIONS:
- they want to buy it
- they tell you not to sell it
- they give you recommendations
- not enough information
Q: Today, I want to share why I think you should interview real estate agents before hiring one. Why You Should Interview Real Estate Agents Truth be told, I have only purchased one house and I'm in the process of selling it. My husband and I thought long and hard about whether we would try to sell our property on our own or hire someone to represent us. In the end, we chose the latter. If you have ever shared with friends or family that you're looking for a home or thinking of selling your own, most everyone says something along the lines of, "Oh! I know a realtor I can recommend!" Many of you may know a real estate agent personally as well. I still think it makes sense to interview any prospective agents because they are being paid by you. When you hire someone to do work on your home, you get estimates and gather information about how and when the work will be done. When you are looking for babysitters, you meet them and see how they'll interact with your child. When you're an employer, you interview any potential employees. Don't Take The Easy Route with Previous Agents and Friends Just because a friend is a realtor, doesn't mean they'll be the best real estate agent for you. Just because a friend recommends their realtor to you, doesn't mean you have to hire him/her. It's business and nobody should take it personally. Interviewing real estate agents just makes sense. Oftentimes, people don't. Why not just use the realtor that sold you the house you're currently in? Well, you can. But do you know how that realtor handles business when they are the listing agent versus the buyer's agent? Do you know if they'll want to pursue the option to be a dual agent (and double their commission)? Why not interview them while interviewing others? It won't hurt. Question: What often happens after you tell friends and family that you're selling your home? === The answer to the above question is
Answer: they give you recommendations

input with options: I am currently waiting for peer reviews of two books I've worked on: one sole-authored, one co-authored. We don't talk much about the experience of waiting for reviews, and it's not something that appears to have been researched. Yet it's something everyone doing academic work has to go through and it may be bad for our mental health. I'm finding it particularly difficult at the moment because a lot rides on these reviews. The sole-authored book, which is on a contentious topic, has already had one set of reviews. Reviewer 1 was utterly damning, saying "I couldn't find anything to praise". Luckily, Reviewers 2 and 3 were more measured, offering both praise and constructive criticism, and their input helped me to revise and strengthen the typescript. However, in the process, my editor and I realised that we needed further reviews from people with a particular kind of specialist knowledge. My editor approached around ten potential reviewers, but only one agreed to do the job. So I'm gibbering what if that person agrees with Reviewer 1? The co-authored book is in a contentious format. My co-authors and I decided that I would be the person to liaise with publishers, as I have form in this process. The last time I liaised with academic publishers for a co-authored book was in the early 2000s, and I'd forgotten how heavily responsible it makes me feel. Fortunately, I've found a publisher that is interested and has sent the book out for reviews, to two professional academics and two students. This is great and terrifying but at least there are four reviewers. Even so, what if they all think it's rubbish? In many ways I love the peer review system. I welcome feedback on my writing, and I'm not at all averse to constructive criticism. I am by no means arrogant enough to think I can write a good book without input from others. Yet peer review, as a process, is fraught with uncertainty. Comments may not be constructive, or may not come at all. They may be positive, or negative, or in between, or a mixture. Question: The narrator believes that === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Most reviewers are not fair
- The peer review system is unfair
- The peer review system is great
- not enough information
output:
The peer review system is unfair