question:You are an AI assistant. You will be given a task. You must generate a detailed and long answer. Entry into the world rankings on 27.06.1997 at position130 with 166points Say this using Spanish.

question:You are a helpful assistant, who always provide explanation. Think like you are answering to a five year old. What type of thing is the question "What Japanese manufacturer is known for both its pianos and its motorcycles ?" asking about? Available choices: A). description B). entity C). abbreviation D). human E). numeric F). location Answer:

question:You are an AI assistant. You will be given a task. You must generate a detailed and long answer. Write a multi-choice question for the following article: Article: Australian scientists say an organic compound used by Indian women to paint dots or bindi on their foreheads could hold the key to a breakthrough in cancer treatment. Rose Bengal was first used in the early 1900s as a dye for food, textiles and cosmetics. But now it is proving to be a useful weapon in the fight against skin cancer. Television advertisements constantly warn of the dangers of overexposure to the fierce sun. Among them is the possibility of the disease melanoma , a type of skin cancer. More than 1,200 Australians die every year from the disease. Initial trials of a solution of Rose Bengal injected into some melanoma cells have had a 75 percent success rate in controlling the disease. Professor John Thompson, the director of the Melanoma Unit at the University of Sydney, says this organic dye could become a powerful cancer-fighting treatment. "We believe it works by getting into the tumor cells and causing them to self-destruct. But the exact mechanism by which it works is not totally clear. It's not useful for people who have a primary melanoma. The treatment of primary melanoma is surgical excision ,"he said. "It's useful to inject tumors for people who have recurrences; when the primary treatment has failed and when recurrence in the area, or at more distant sites has occurred." About 90 percent of Australians who develop melanoma survive thanks to early diagnosis and treatment. If left untreated, however, the disease can be fatal. Convincing younger people in Australia about the dangers of overexposure to the sun is a battle campaigners are constantly waging. Veronica Manock, a 21-year-old student, had two major operations to remove a cancerous tumor from her leg. "I've had a lot of friends who just said 'I thought it was just, you know, I'll get a mole cut out and that's it', whereas I don't think people realize how much danger they're putting themselves into and how easy it is to stop something like this happening to you just from doing little things,"said Marock. Other researchers in... The answer to this question is:

question:You are an AI assistant. User will you give you a task. Your goal is to complete the task as faithfully as you can. While performing the task think step-by-step and justify your steps. Write a summary based on this article: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is riding high this week. But politics is a fickle business, Americans have short memories, and every race is different. On the latter point, as Sen. Marco Rubio (who was on top just a year ago) told CNN's Dana Bash, "I think we need to understand that some of these races don't apply to future races. Every race is different — it has a different set of factors — but I congratulate (Christie) on his win." Some will say this is a less-than-gracious congratulations. Maybe. But it's also true. There is a danger in winning, inasmuch as it fosters hubris and often reinforces the wrong lessons. Ken Cuccinelli, for example, won a series of down-ballot elections despite being outspent and having a penchant for micro-managing. He always won — until he didn't. When we win, we have a tendency to think it's because we did everything right. In this regard, winning a landslide election can be especially dangerous. Losers may have to re-evaluate things — but not winners. For this reason, winning can ironically reinforce bad habits and make a candidate less likely to engage in introspection, or even be open to constructive criticism. It must feel good to believe you've finally cracked the code. But this is a trap. As Cuccinelli just learned, what works in a state Senate race may not work in a governor's race. And as Christie may soon learn, what works in a governor's race may not work on a presidential race (just ask Rick Perry). For Christie right now, the champagne is still flowing, and laudatory notes and calls and columns are still coming in. So if you're Chris Christie, you probably think a couple things are true. You think that through the shear force of your personality, you can make people like you. And you probably believe that you can get away with being confrontational. You might even think this is a selling point. You think this because — so far — it's held true. So far, Christie's confrontational style has mostly come across as refreshing. (Perhaps we secretly enjoy getting to yell at people vicariously through him?) And in a primary contest where conservatives are looking for a fighter, this might actually help him. So many of us already conflate anger and passion with a conservative philosophy. Christie may also benefit from a style that is an obvious contrast to the cerebral and aloof Obama. On the other hand, as Jonathan Chait has noted, while attacking teachers or Obama might help in a primary, "It's another thing altogether if he gives this treatment to Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, or other fellow partisans." But let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that Christie makes it to the general election. Imagine a time after the press has turned on him (as they turned on John McCain and other Republican media darlings). What happens when MSNBC plays video of him yelling at someone for the millionth time, and after George Will or Charles Krauthammer writes the column about the danger of an angry man having his finger on the button? What happens when he tells a national political reporter that "it's none of your business"? How will that play in Peoria — under the intense glare of a presidential campaign? Not everyone thinks this is a problem. "Christie's confrontational personality can appeal to all sorts of electorates so long as he trains his anger in the right places," writes Josh Barro, who believes the "right places" include New Jersey teachers, because "Christie's ire toward groups that demand ever-higher taxes and spending is popular with the electorate." But as Scott Galupo points out, other interest groups Christie might encounter on the presidential trail won't make for such easy marks: Is Chris Christie going to yell at senior citizens about Medicare? Is he going to yell at beneficiaries of food stamps? Is he going to yell at families on Medicaid or CHIP? Is he going to yell at farmers about agribusiness subsidies? [The American Conservative] The problem isn't just that Christie's style won't always work on the presidential trail. It's that it might backfire ... horribly. It's understandable why his advisors might not want him to tinker with his natural demeanor. And you can imagine the "let Christie be Christie" headlines that would surely emerge were he to tone down his style and fall flat. But conservatives who have seen the media turn on Republicans once they become a viable threat to a Democrat like Hillary Clinton worry his behavior will gradually go from being portrayed as "colorful" or charming to erratic and dangerous. "If Christie yells at a teacher at a town hall in Iowa, that teacher is going to get a lot of time on television afterward — in a way that these people [who] get berated in New Jersey don't," says my liberal sparring partner Bill Scher. This is a good point. In recent years, we've seen "civilians" like Joe the Plumber and Sandra Fluke elevated to rock star status. One can easily imagine Christie telling some teacher in Davenport to 'Do your job!' But what happens when she goes on to become a cause célèbre? The media would then parade this "victim" around as an excuse to talk about Christie's "bullying" and Christie's "war on women." If I were Hillary, I would set a trap. Just send female supporters in to every Christie coffee, rally, or speech in New Hampshire or Iowa — and have them confront him on camera. What would he do? How long before he snaps at one of them? You can watch Bill Scher and I discuss this on Bloggingheads below: ||||| All signs point to Gov. Chris Christie cruising to reelection in New Jersey tonight. This is one of those times when personal bias is well nigh overwhelming: Christie—an authentic, half-Italian, New Jerseyan Bruce Springsteen uberfanatic, and a strong conservative by any reasonable standard—is about to rocket to the top tier of 2016 presidential contenders. Judging by a spate of recent posts and on-the-ground reports, Business Insider’s Josh Barro is an unabashed fan of Christie as well. He even brushes aside the one serious reservation I have about the governor: his proclivity for in-your-face confrontations—in a word, “bullying”: Christie’s confrontational personality can appeal to all sorts of electorates so long as he trains his anger in the right places. When Christie yelled at that teacher yesterday about how education spending levels will “never be enough” for New Jersey’s teachers’ unions, he was doing so in a state that spent 19,291 per pupil on K-12 education last year — more than any state except New York and Vermont and 74% more than the national average. … So long as Christie keeps training his anger in the right place, Christie will be O.K. What national liberal reporters don’t get is that “towards teachers” can be the right place, politically and substantively, to train that anger. This is true as far as it goes. Which I fear is not actually very far. Back in 2010, I wrote this at U.S. News: In the short term, the example of New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie is instructive. He has maintained popularity while aggressively pushing an agenda of fiscal austerity. How does he do it? Simple: In teachers unions and state-government employees, Christie has found a juicy, isolatable adversary. This works on the state level, where things like pensions and teacher benefits are significant sources of budget shortfalls—unlike on the national level, where middle-class entitlements are the big driver. The lesson is this: To the extent that “government” is a sectional entity—an interest group consisting of people who have not had to “sacrifice like the rest of us”—Republicans will find that cutting it is politically popular. To that extent that “government” is Grandma and Grandpa in Boca Raton, Republicans will need to tread carefully and—it’s possible to do both—honestly. Zoom in on “juicy, isolatable adversary.” At the presidential level, teachers aren’t going to cut it. Neither are employees of the federal government, whose salaries account for about 5 percent of total federal spending. Is Chris Christie going to yell at senior citizens about Medicare? Is he going to yell at beneficiaries of food stamps? Is he going to yell at families on Medicaid or CHIP? Is he going to yell at farmers about agribusiness subsidies? If Christie is a wise and disciplined campaigner, I find it hard to believe he’d do any of those things. And given his recent disparagement of the GOP’s “libertarian strain” in the context of the debate over the national security state, I can’t see Christie getting up in the grill of a Pentagon contractor, either. Teachers and public-sector employees who don’t want to pay as much for their healthcare as most of the rest of us do are the “right targets” when you’re arguing about state budgets. In fact, they are ridiculously easy targets. They are to Chris Christie what southern reactionaries are to Sacha Baron Cohen. But I ask Josh: who are the analogously easy marks when you’re talking about the federal budget, and do you honestly think it will do Chris Christie any good to get in their faces? ||||| Summary: