input: Text: PhD A: OK, we're going. PhD D: Damn. Professor C: And uh Hans - uh, Hans - Guenter will be here, um, I think by next <unk>disfmarker<unk> next Tuesday or so. PhD B: Oh, OK. PhD D: Mm - hmm. Professor C: So he's <unk>disfmarker<unk> he's going to be here for about three weeks, PhD B: Oh! That's nice. PhD A: Just for a visit? Professor C: and, uh <unk>disfmarker<unk> Uh, we 'll see. PhD A: Huh. Professor C: We might <unk>disfmarker<unk> might end up with some longer collaboration or something. PhD A: Cool. Professor C: So he's gonna look in on everything we're doing PhD D: Mm - hmm. Professor C: and give us his <unk>disfmarker<unk> his thoughts. And so it 'll be another <unk>disfmarker<unk> another good person looking at things. PhD B: Oh. Hmm. Grad E: Th - that's his spectral subtraction group? Professor C: Yeah, Grad E: Is that right? Professor C: yeah. Grad E: Oh, OK. So I guess I should probably talk to him a bit too? Professor C: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, he 'll be around for three weeks. He's, uh, um, very, very, easygoing, easy to talk to, and, uh, very interested in everything. PhD A: Really nice guy. Professor C: Yeah, yeah. PhD B: Yeah, we met him in Amsterdam. Professor C: Yeah, yeah, he's been here before. PhD B: Oh, OK. Professor C: I mean,
  Question: Why did the professor not like latency?
  Answer:
output: The professor wanted to make sure that the team does not end up in a bind. If they later had to cut latency, it would create a problem. This was his preferred conservative approach.