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: Different question: Why shouldn't it be the case, i.e. have the same timespan per incarnation? Don't forget that all these three regenerations weren't triggered due to any natural/inherent reason (like dieing of old age). The ninth Doctor absorbed the vortex energy from Rose and the tenth Doctor absorbed the radiation from that completely weird and odd failsafe containment thingy. Neither of them regenerated by choice. Also keep in mind that timespans are hardly constant when comparing single episodes. While this is especially true for time travelling stuff, it's also true for pretty much any other TV series or movie (maybe except 24). For example, take episodes such as Rose or Aliens of London. The story happening in those essentially covers a day or two each. Compare this to episodes with far longer timespans, e.g. The Impossible Astronaut and the sequel: Those cover several months. Or, if you want it even more time bending: Blink happens on a single day for the audience as well as for the characters depicted in the present. However, for the Doctor (and Martha) obviously months pass.  <sep>  Q: Why did the 11th doctor live so long compared with his predecessors?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: It seems as though you answered your own questions, and that's the answer I was going to give: Caleb knew (or suspected) that Nathan had heard his conversations with Ava. If Caleb hadn't tried to get Nathan drunk that morning, Nathan would have known that Caleb ALREADY completed his plan, and he would have undone the computer code that Caleb altered.  <sep>  Q: Was Nathan listening in on his conversations with Ava? A: Nathan had heard his conversations with Ava  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What were the conversations about?
[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: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun  Q: What other reason would their be? A: 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  Q: Is there another reason why? A: After the fun and tradition reasons, it's certainly plausible to suggest because they can  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do they like doing it?
[A]:
Yes


