vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"There are several areas of passive fraud by being unclear on what you are doing. When a citizen buys a house, the mortgage lender wants all the details as to how the buyer rounded up the money. That is so they can use their own formulas to assess the buyer's creditworthiness and the probability that the buyer will be able to keep up on payments, taxes and maintenance; or have they overextended themselves. The fraud is in the withholding of that info. By way of tricking them into making a favorable decision, when they might not have if they'd had all the facts. Then there's making this sound all lovey-dovey, good intentions, no strings attached, no expectations. You're lying to yourself. What you've actually done is put money between yourselves, because you have not laid down FAIR rules to cover every possibility. You're not willing to plan for failure because you don't want to admit failure is possible, which is vain. Once you leap into this bell jar, the uncertainty of ""what happens if..."" will intrude itself into everyone's thoughts, slowly corroding your relationship. It's a recipe for disaster. That uncertainty puts her in a very uncomfortable position. She has to labor to make sure the issue doesn't explode, so she's tiptoeing around you to avoid fights. Every fight, she'll wonder if you'll play the breakup card and threaten to demand the money back. The money will literally come between you. This is what money does. Thinking otherwise is a young person's mistake of inexperience. Don't take my word on it, contact Suze Orman and see what she says. Your lender is also not going to like those poorly defined lovers' promises, because they've seen it all before, and don't want to yet again foreclose on a house that fighting lovers trashed. (it's like, superhero battles are awesome unless you own the building they trashed.)
"Came here for this, sort of. Punters were great, but after the punter era, there was a feature called ""warn"". Each user had a warning percentage.  As your warning level increased, you were increasingly rate limited. If you received a message from someone, and warned them, IIRC their warning level would rise by 10%, and you could warn at 10% up to 3 times (presuming you got at least 3 messages from that user).  Thing was, even if the target never sent you a message, you could warn a user. I guess if their profile offended you, was the use, and it would still raise your warning level by 5%.  So at that time all you needed was 20 user names and you could effectively sign any other user offline by rate limiting them to oblivion. I was going to say rate limiting them to AOHell, but that would have been confusing, because AOHell was a punter!"
"So frustrating and it seems the higher you go up the org chart the worse the disrespect is.  I was doing some IT consulting for an Architecture and Engineering firm once.  While in a meeting with the COO and CFO, I suggested collecting information from the Engineering staff.  The CFO responded, ""Don't bother - engineers are great with numbers until you put dollar signs in front of them and then they turn into idiots.""  I was absolutely shocked that he would have so little respect for the technical professionals that generate the intellectual property of his business.  Meanwhile, he's signing every invoice I handed them without even reading them! I should have charged them more! ;-)I"
"[When your ""strategy"" is basically firing everyone not willing to ""bend the knee"" and those that defy you, you turn their job into a office nightmare while belittling them publicly, you're gonna find out nobody wants to work for you.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/6klpz8/updated_list_of_resignationsfirings_of_key/)  Edit: words"
"The dirty secret of finance is that a lot of front office work is also boring. Get used to it. The moments when money pours magically from the phone and gushes unstoppably from your Bloomberg are brief and fleeting, and are punctuated by long months when you do little but scrub data, build models and systems, foster client relationships with people you don't especially like, and spend god-knows-how-long in mind-numbing internal meetings. You want to stab yourself now? Just wait.  ""My department generates nothing because it's all compliance."" &lt;- Don't be this guy, it's not a commendable or mature attitude. Compliance and back office are not sexy areas, but without them guess what? Your trades won't settle and you'll end up in prison. They frequently work longer hours than front office, always get paid less than front office, and they've been told by better guys than you that they are nothing but a cost base. They also have long memories and a vindictive sense of retribution, especially for condescending front office twats who look down on them..."
This shifting is costs is made even worse by the fact that the worst breaches are coming from companies that most consumers don't have a choice about dealing with. Therefore, there isn't even a market incentive to encourage companies to behave better. If a bank or credit card had no fraud protection, or showed the level of incompetence Equifax has shown, people would move their accounts. However most of Equifax's victims didn't really have a say about whether Equifax had their data.
That used to be the case with pursuing a PhD, but now many US institutions prefer you stay with them after the MS and get a PhD through them as well.  If you think of it like a job, during an MS the instituion is basically funding your training, and their hope is that they can benefit from the research you produce as a PhD candidate.  So it is difficult to find funding for a MS alone, but if you apply as a PhD candidate from the beginning they will fund you through the entire process.  There is no contractual obligation, you can leave after you receive the MS regardless.
"The success rate is terrible.  At the same time, what are the success rate for any business endeavor?  Isn't it something like 80% of startups fail in the first 5 years?  That's not far off for the success of traders.  Just like all the success cliches say, it comes down to how bad you want it.  What will you sacrifice to be a successful trader?  How much will you work to be a successful trader?  Will you accept the pain and failure it takes to be a trader?  Who cares if ""soandso"" can do it?  If you want it, you should be saying, ""I will do it because I say so"".  Only you know if you're willing to take the risk.  At the same time, you're a college student, what's the worst that will happen if it doesn't work out?  Check out /r/getmotivated..."
Any investment advice that is not targeted to your situation should be avoided.
Is this true? Yes. Do student loan companies provide predatory lending practices? It appears some do. Does anyone force a student or family to sign the dotted line on their student loans entrapping them in many tough financial years? No. People want to blame others for their problems far too often. How about cash flowing a cheap community college? How about applying for HUNDREDS (yes I said multiple hundreds) of scholarships? How about saving from the age you're able to work until college? How about not picking the most expensive out of state education just because you saw them playing a sports game on ESPN? This system is a mess, I don't disagree there. I think all of this reverts back to the signers of these loans. Plus when people are in massive student loan debt they don't fully commit to getting out of it and working every job possible.
"I always wondered that back in the days of the Microsoft antitrust rulings.  This is just more of the same, ""Quit being so damned successful, Americans - I fine you a kajillion credits for, um, a rule we just made up!""   I sincerely look forward to the fireworks on the day that some company actually *does* say ""No thanks - You need us more than we need you; would you like us to leave, now?"".  Sadly, this probably won't be that day (even though it's overwhelmingly true... But hey, they could always use Bing!)."
The bullshit out of your mouth is absolutely ridiculous.   It's all about a higher risk from a drug addicted loser. Sure there's other shit, but the risk of injury and lawsuits goes way up and no business should deal with it.   Drug users are less reliable too.
"I am a realtor. When I am approached directly by a buyer, it's their choice to bring their own agent, come unrepresented, or buy through us via disclosed dual agency. With no buyer agent, my office and I get the full commission. The seller has already agreed to a fixed percent of the sale price. How does it benefit me to agree to this?  Update From all the comments below, I'll add this. The Realtor site (country-wide) states  ""A real estate professional can also agree to rebate a portion of   his/her commission to a consumer.  However, note that some states do   have laws prohibiting the payments of rebates to unlicensed   individuals, and so this would not be legal in those jurisdictions."" So far, so good. My own state, Massachusetts, says Inducements or rebates to the seller or buyer are permissible given   that the seller or buyer in the transaction is a principal and is not   required to be licensed as a broker. Brokers are, by definition,   agents for either the seller or buyer. Consequently, using inducements   to attract listings or giving incentives such as rebates for those who   purchase a listed property do not violate the prohibition on sharing   valuable consideration with those who are brokering without the   benefit of a license. The sellers and buyers in purchase and sale   transactions are not acting for anyone else and, therefore, are not   brokering. Indeed, it is their broker who acts on their behalf. Thus, in my state, what OP asks for is legal, and a matter of whether or not either broker wishes to participate. If another member wishes to research NY laws, that would be great."
The opposite of a hedge is nothing.  Because if you don't want to hedge you bets, you don't, therefore you merely have the original bet. The opposite state of being hedged, is being unhedged.
"Get everything in writing. That includes ownership %, money in, money out, who is allowed to use the place, how much they need to pay the other partners, who pays for repairs, whether to provide 'friends and family' discounts, who is allowed to sell, what happens if someone dies, how is the mortgage set up, what to do if one of you becomes delinquent, etc. etc. etc. Money and friends don't mix. And that's mostly because people have different ideas in their head about what 'fair' means. Anything you don't have in writing, if it comes up in a disagreement, could cause a friendship-ending fight. Even if you are able to agree on every term and condition under the sun, there's still a problem - what if 5 years from now, someone decides that a certain clause isn't fair? Imagine one of you needs to move into the condo because your primary residence was pulled out from under you. They crash at the condo because they have no where else to go. You try to demand payment, but they lost their job. The agreement might say ""you must pay the partnership if you use the condo personally, at the standard monthly rate * # of days"". But what is the penalty clause - is everything under penalty of eviction, and forced sale of the condo and distribution of profits? Following through on such a penalty means the friendship would be over. You would feel guilty about doing it, and also about not doing it [at the same time, your other partner loses their job, and can't make 1/3rd of the mortgage payments anymore! They need the rent or the bank will foreclose on their house!] etc etc etc Even things like maintenance - are the 3 of you going to do it yourselves? Labour distributed how? Will anyone get a management fee? What about a referral fee for a new renter? Once you've thought of all possible circumstances and rules, and drafted it in writing, go talk to a lawyer, and maybe an accountant. There will be many things you won't have considered yet, and paying a few grand today will save you money and friends in the future."
That may be true but on the flip side any monkey can increase security simply by preventing people from doing things. The people who are worth paying for are the ones that enable people who actually contribute to the core business to work as efficiently as possible without setting up roadblocks that provide incentive for bypass.
It sounds cold, but the law has to hold people to their agreements. There are exceptions for unconscionable terms, but I don't think this gets close to that level. This is certainly audacious, but not quite shocking to the conscience. Maybe there's an argument to be made regarding whether a reasonably prudent person in the party's position would have known what they were agreeing to under the circumstances (depending upon how the provision was presented), but without a lot more information we can't say whether that angle has a snowball's chance in hell.  You should read the terms governing every important agreement you enter into. It sounds like a huge burden, but for any major undertaking you really do need to grit your teeth and trawl through the whole thing. If you don't like what you find, ask for a second look from a lawyer to confirm your suspicions, or just walk away.   Bank service agreements, loan/mortgage applications, major venue reservations, and employment contracts (ESPECIALLY employment contracts!) all deserve that much time. Typically the terms you might not like are address circumstances that, as a practical matter, don't really concern you, but you might be surprised at how often you find deal-breakers like this crawling around in the woodwork.
If you don't have a long credit history, and because you don't have a long income history, and because you are putting <10% down on the condo [20% is often a good % to strive for, and paying less than that can often imply you will need mandatory mortgage insurance, depending on jurisdiction] the bank is a little more uncertain about your likelihood to pay. Banks don't like uncertainty, and they can deal with that uncertainty in two ways: (1) They can charge you a higher interest rate; OR (2) They can refuse you the loan. Now just because one bank refuses you a loan, doesn't mean all will - but being refused by one bank is probably a good indication that many / most institutions would refuse you, because they all use very similar analytical tools to determine your 'risk level'. If you are refused a loan, you can try again at another institution, or you can wait, save a larger down payment, and build your credit history by faithfully paying your credit card every month, paying your utilities, and making your car and rent payments on time. This will give the banks more comfort that you will have the ability to pay your mortgage every month, and a larger down payment will give them comfort that if the housing market dips, you won't owe more than the house is worth. My parting shot is this: If you are new in your career with no income history, be very careful about buying a property immediately, even if you get approved. A good rule of thumb is to only buy a property when you plan on living there for at least 5 years, or else you are likely to lose money overall, after factoring closing costs and maintenance fees. If you are refused a loan, that's probably a good sign that you aren't financially ready yet, but even if a bank approves you for a loan, you might not be ready yet either.
"Often the counter-party has obligations with respect to timelines as well -- if your buying a house, the seller probably is too, and may have a time-sensitive obligation to close on the deal. I'm that scenario, carrying the second mortgage may be enough to make that deal fall through or result in some other negative impact. Note that ""pre-approval"" means very little, banks can and do pass on deals, even if the buyer has a good payment history. That's especially true when the economy is not so hot -- bankers in 2011 are worried about not losing money... In 2006, they were worried about not making enough!"
"&gt; You must understand that the major difference between borrowing from an individual and borrowing from a financial institution is that  in both cases you make exactly the same pledges and have exactly the same obligations.  Yes, I got that.    &gt; The bank expects a certain percentage of its borrowers to default  Its insurance also expects that a certain percentage of banks will be robbed.  Which in your universe makes bankrobbing kinda okay I guess.    &gt; Your bank doesn't ""trust"" you any further than it could throw you.   The bank does trust in pacta sunt servanda and the rule of the law.  Otherwise it would never do any business with anyone.    And no offense, but after your arguments here, I personally wouldn't lend you lunch money."
"I know many people who would recommend joining a credit union. They're typically local and are not-for-profit entities (not non-profit like a charity). The ""customers"" are actually members who cooperatively provide financial services to the other members. Oftentimes if there's a surplus of profits at the end of the year, they divvy them up to the members based on how many accounts they have, what their balances are, loans, etc."
The catch is in the Premium amount you pay. In a pure term insurance, there is no survival benefit. You get paid only for the event, i.e. when you die during the policy term, the sum assured is paid to your nominee. The money back on the other hand, charges a huge premium, typically 5X more than the pure term, part of it is for the risk cover. The balance is then invested in safe instruments and at the end if you survive you would get that money. Typical calculations would show that if you had yourself invested the difference in premium even in CD's you would get much more money back. The reason this product is available in the market is more of people cannot part with money when they don't get anything back. To these vast majority, it looks like insurance company is taking all their money and doesn't give them back if they survive. Hence to make it seem better to these vast majority, there is money back. Hence people all over the world buy these policy much more than a pure term policy.
I wouldn't like to say either way what you should do, not being an financial advisor or lawyer, but I did find an interesting article on nytimes.com: Walk Away From Your Mortgage!  that you might also find helpful to frame your decision. It has some interesting information on defaults, it says this: Mortgage holders do sign a promissory note, which is a promise to pay. But the contract explicitly details the penalty for nonpayment — surrender of the property. The borrower isn’t escaping the consequences; he is suffering them. In some states, lenders also have recourse to the borrowers’ unmortgaged assets, like their car and savings accounts. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond found that defaults are lower in such states, apparently because lenders threaten the borrowers with judgments against their assets. But actual lawsuits are rare. And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis.
"From some background reading I'm doing, it sounds like the union has people by the proverbial balls anyway. Even in an ""agency shop"", where union membership is optional, non members must pay for the collective bargaining done by the union, and ""union shop"" just means that the employer can hire anybody, but they must join the union in order to be employed. All of those seem to indicate that every worker in the represented class must accept the terms of the collective bargaining. [reference](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_America_v._Beck#Background)  Part of the reason that I'm curious is that, once I've decided that I'm done being an engineer, I think it might be fun to teach, but every time I hear about union negotiations, it makes me think that operating in that system would be lame. Going from a world where merit is the primary differentiator to a world where years in the system count for more would kinda suck."
&gt; there is a very strong relationship between the amounts written on the checks and the worth of that product or service to the person with the pen  ...and the *ability to pay* of the person with the pen. Someone who generates a lot of value for lower- and middle-class customers could easily make less money than someone who generates a little bit of value for upper-class customers.
They would get caught on other crimes, and then rat you out for immunity.  Happened to a lot of people in history.    And your friends are probably unavailable for crime for the same reason you would trust them:  They have values.  For doing crime you would need a definite antisocial streak, and that would imply you would be more likely to betray partners.    Come to think of it, finding trustworthy accomplices would be really difficult unless you have already good connections to the underworld.  People not used to criminal activities probably would do mistakes, or face psychological tension.  And it's not like you could make a craigslist classified and make applicants go through an assessment centre.  If you have close friends who would all be willing to go for it, maybe, but then parting ways might raise suspicion..
"Auto loans are secured agains the car.  ""Signature"" loans, from a bank that knows and trusts you, are typically unsecured. Unsecured loans other than informal ones or these are fairly rare. Most lenders don't want to take the additional risk, or balance that risk with a high enough interest rate to make the unsecured loan unattractive."
"What are you talking about?????  I think you got lost in the conversation.   My shit IS done.  The point that was being made is that not everyone has the freedom to quit their jobs when they would like and it can be for all kinds of reasons, many reasons.  The suggestion that one could just save up their ""nut"" and quit are the words of someone young who has never had obligations beyond themselves.  It's a naive suggestion.  I was talking about a situation I was in two years ago.  And I found another job, which had health insurance and left the crap place where I was working.  Quit barking at me, Foolio."