vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The must have gotten scared from this because they approached the local court and agreed to pay $60 per week. We have currently received about 10 payments so it will be a long time before we get all our money back. As I said the longer you leave it the worse it can get. You should also look at improving your criteria for selecting new tenants. I have given an answer to this question How to choose a good tenant as a private landlord? Hopefully it can give you some ideas of what to ask for when searching for your next tenant. Update due update in Question Six weeks behind in rent is quite a bit to be behind. If the landlord had been asking the tenant to pay the late rent during this period and the tenant had been giving excuses why the rent was late and saying they would pay it by a certain time but never did - it is a big sign that they will tell you lies. If this is the first time they have been late in paying rent and now they are back up to date with the rent, you might want to give them one more chance. If this is a pattern that happens regularly it is better to get them out, as it will happen again, you will get in an argument with them and then they might stop paying rent altogether. You can usually gain a better perspective of the tenants from their action rather than their words - that is why ascertaining their past rental history is so important when finding a new tenant.
What you haven't mentioned is the purchase risk.  You say that she will buy but then say you will be on the loan. If you are on the loan, essentially you will be purchasing a rental property and renting to your mother.  So that is the analysis you need to consider. You need to be financially able to take on this purchase and be willing to be a landlord. The ten year timeline looks good on paper. This may not be realistic, especially with an aging parent.  What if after 4 years, she can't stay in that condo?  What renting buys is flexibility. If she needs money for any reason, it is not tied up in an asset and unavailable. She is able it move if necessary. If she won't need the money, she should buy in cash. That, by far, gives her the best deal.
In theory, yes.    In practice, long ways off.   It is hard [for a robot] to put clothes on a hanger and sort them. It is hard for a robot to take shoes out of a box.  It is hard to pick and sort Kiwifruit, grapes, and strawberries.  While it is hard for a robot, these jobs are necessary and extremely easy for a zero skilled and zero educated human to perform.  You can't even teach a monkey to do these jobs because they will become violent within a few minutes of performance. At this point only a human has the temperament and innate abilities to do mindless work that requires dexterity.     In reality, I agree. .   The US government should be offering Grand Challenge rewards for fruit picking machines and gardening. But that would put a million poor immigrants/people out of work that would otherwise cause serious political upheaval.
"Who the fuck cares about exhausting? Sorry dude that is not the criteria.  You examples are bulshit and non responsive to my points. But one more time to humor you. Nope your janitor who did not study to get a degree so he cannot get your ex's job. While your ex can get the janitor job if she wanted to. So nope one is going to get paid better.  Brain surgery will put your gf at upper middle class/ lower upper class.  Btw saying ""but to argue cleaning kids vomit and shit off the bathroom floor takes less skill and should be paid less ...Yeah no."" Is not a valid argument. It is your opinion and by this point in the conversation, it is no longer necessary to repeat yourself. In fact​, you can repeat it till you are blue in the face and it will still remain your unsubstantiated opinion. Not only is the fact that cleaning puke requires less skill one of the reasons why janitors get paid less but to boot the fact that it requires less skill means that more people can do the job and basic supply-demand inevitable leads to lower price which in this case is lower salary.  The fact is that there will always be a lower class, it being the part below the middle class. And it takes skills to pull oneself out (or luck to be born rich which I do agree is unfortunate). If you have no skills or chose to work a job that does not require skill, you will be in the lower class.   So now, besides a basic English class, you seem to need a basic logic class. I'd suggest looking that stuff up online or if you need the more structured environment, your local community college."
You're missing the cost-of-carry aspect: The cost of carry or carrying charge is the cost of storing a physical commodity, such as grain or metals, over a period of time. The carrying charge includes insurance, storage and interest on the invested funds as well as other incidental costs. In interest rate futures markets, it refers to the differential between the yield on a cash instrument and the cost of the funds necessary to buy the instrument. So in a nutshell, you'd have to store the gold (safely), invest your money now, i.e. you're missing out on interests the money could have earned until the futures delivery date.  Well and on top of that you need to get the gold shipped to London or wherever the agreed delivery place is. Edit: Forgot to mention that of course there are arbitrageurs that make sure the futures and spot market prices don't diverge. So the idea isn't that bad as I might have made it sound but being in the arbitrage business myself I should disclaim that profits are small and arbitraging is highly automated, so before you spot a $1 profit somewhere between any two contracts, you can be quite sure it's been taken by an arbitrageur already.
"While the question is highly subjective as you noted, putting extra money will of course save you interest payments, it depends on how much ""enjoyment"" is worth now. I would suggest you to not be overly aggressive as you might dig yourself a ditch, your minimum monthly payments might get adjust upwards if some of these loans are student loans as it might seem you have a higher degree of disposable income to play with. Be aggressive in paying them off but not to aggressive, I also think the interest is tax deductible. What it really comes down to is, how much more interest do you want to pay them for enjoyment now, 50 months is not long its just north of 4 years. I'd say if you think you can put 800 extra towards them, don't. Instead if it were me I would put an extra 400 towards the highest until its paid and then take the 400 plus the monthly minimum and add that to the next highest and keep the other 400 for a rainy day, you will still get paid off quick but will leave yourself some scratch if necessary."
It is true that operation profit comes from gross profit however it is possible for a company to have negative net profit yet have postive cash flow , it has to do with the accounting practice A possible example is that a company has extremely high depreciation expense of fixed asset hence net profit will be negative but cash flow will be positive. Assuming the fixed asset has been fully paid for in earlier years
Nothing is wrong and it should be profitable - but it sounds too good to be true. The devil is in the details and you have not described how you found those stocks. For example, you may have scanned the 500 stocks in the S&P 500, and you may have found a few that exhibit that pattern over a given time window. But it doesn't mean that they will continue to do so. In other words they may just be random outliers. This is generically called overfitting. A more robust test would be to use a period, say 2000-2005 to find those stocks and check over a future period, say 2006-2014 if the strategy you describe is profitable. My guess is that it won't.
If I'm not mistaken, using dairy cattle to buy more dairy cattle is already common practice in Kansas.  Why it is not widespread is more because the banks concerned don't have the necessary expertise to value / monitor / resell these assets when necessary. They are tricky to deal with because they grow / breed / die, unlike your house.
The answer depends on the specific instrument to which you are referring. It is possible to make straight bets that are cash-settled and in which the underlying commodity or instrument will never be bought or sold.  It is also possible to have such a contract be settled in the underlying (if the cash value is appropriate, then the cash settlement can be used to purchase the underlying directly, if necessary).  Physical delivery was predominant until the last few decades.  Most traders, as opposed to hedgers or strategics, are going to prefer cash-settled contracts as opposed to physical delivery. It is possible to make trades with a brokerage firm such that the firm pays if the trader wins the bet.  The firm will typically find parties on the other side to even out this bet and leave itself neutral as to the outcome (plus a small premium it charges each side for the cost of making the market).  The cost charged to one contracting party should be set by the dealer in relation to prices being charged to parties making the opposite, matching bet (in this way, brokers are following market price, while traders are setting it). Financially, options and contracts can be settled for cash or for the underlying, and they can be made directly with the opposite bettor or with a neutral dealer.
What is more practical for Finance, R or Python? I understand committing time to Python will mean I have a language that is versatile and useable across multiple areas of a business, and will give me skill that is alternative to finance, but is it a bit impractical if I don't ever see myself needing to develop software and would rather focus on data analysis which R is great for?  Edit: Also, I have done introductory R programming in university (It was a 1 semester course so not extensive). So it would be less time committed.
We need to be careful what we are talking about here. Inflation on a economy-level scale at an expected rate will not change consumer habits because the price increase is manageable. You have to realize that prices are not increasing in isolation: wages will have to rise along too.  High inflation that is expected will increase consumption of durable goods, as people attempt to 'get rid of their money' before the price changes on them. A good example of this was post-WWI germany, where hyperinflation was so bad that offices began to pay their employees twice daily, so they could adjust their wages, and so that their employees could go out during lunch and after work to buy something with the money before the price changed on them. Unexpected inflation may cause a temporary dip in spending until wages adjust, however consumers still need to buy, so they will likely push for higher wages, leading to consumption to stay about level. There is another effect to inflation as well: People who have savings will have their savings eroded over time if the economy is inflationary. To preserve their wealth, they will invest it. In a deflationary environment, money will increase in value simply by being hoarded, so they will be less willing to invest it. Deflation also increases the cost of interest on a loan, while inflation decreases it. So the overall effect is for an increase in spending under inflation, and a decrease under deflation. The person you have quoted is quite wrong. Price increases in a particular sector will cause consumer spending to decrease but this is a bad example, as it is not inflation, but rather a supply/demand problem of a particular consumer good. They are applying a micro-economic model (price increases of a single good) to a macroeconomic problem (price increases in the entire economy) when price increases at a global scale have the opposite effects. A good theoretical test of this is: what would happen if everyone in the US suddenly had twice as much money? (Ignoring international trade, of course). The answer: prices will double, and nothing else will change. The reason is, people will have more money to spend, but will require more money for their services, so in the end it all cancels out.
Well an empty fridge is a waste of 100% of the cooling.  If you are cooling nothing then all of the energy to cool it is wasted.  Air is not very conductive of Heat.  Its why double paned glass is more effiecent than single pane the air provides an isulation barrier.   So in a fridge you want to quickly bring the temperature of items placed inside down to a storage temperature. (Around 34F 1c)  Having a fridge full of already cold items will allow for a much quicker transfer of heat out of the item placed within.  And since the heat is dispersed out through a larger mass the amount of cooling required will be the same but because the mean temperature change over time is less the fridge will have to work harder for less time if the fridge is full.   But in the end the amount of energy required to cool a full freeser will be higher than an empty one as there is more heat to disapate.  But the cost of keeping it cold is spread out among many items.  So if you only have 1 orange per day in your fridge and it costs you 30 a month to run your fridge then your oranges have an additional 1 cost on them.  But if you use 20 things a day and it costs you 60 a month  it only costs you .1 extra per item.
Do yourself a favor: calculate the price of airfare, calculate how many points it takes to get a good flight, and calculate how many points you get per dollar spent. What you will find is that it is a ripoff. Leave the card at home and unlink it from your online purchasing accounts. You're welcome. If you really want to earn rewards, just put your necessary bills on that card. Over time it will accumulate, but do the math first so you can weigh the consequences.
"Right, there were technological differences between early societies and modern societies.  But there is no necessary connection between a voluntary society and violence - in fact, quite the opposite.  It is possible to have water and electricity production without coercion.  I'm not arguing we go back to those times/societies.  I'm only pointing out that it is entirely possible for a stable society to exist that functions along those lines.  Also, the technology you see today is not necessarily reliant on monopolists of force.  Humans discovered the ""recipe"" to create certain new tools, and we won't lose those recipes in the future, through different forms of governance.  Any argument in favor of government is effectively an argument in favor of monopoly."
"It's not a touch phone - but it has the trackpad instead of the trackball and it's got the QWERTY keyboard. The phone also runs on RIM's OS7 software.   It is VERY light and sleek. The old blackberry phones look like bricks next to it. I'm pretty sure the battery makes up 3/4 of the weight in the phone.   Along with the normal BB security - you can encrypt the memory card and device memory with a 250 character key randomly generated. You need to do both ""Device Password and Device Key"" to have the strongest encryption/security. The phone also has a firewall. You can set up VPN's with the phone if necessary too.   The App world is getting better - but if you have a blackberry your probably not looking for apps.   Basically, I'm pretty impressed with it and I have always loved Blackberry. I'll take it over the iphone or android any day!   Sprint has the Blackberry Curve 9350's. The other models are 9360 and 9370. Not sure who else carries the new phones."
Thanks for the writeup, it was a really informative read. I've been aware for a while now that Reagan and Reaganomics were in a large way the 'start' of most of the current problems in the economic and political landscape, but you filled in a few gaps that were really useful for me.  So I guess ultimately a lot of conservatives see it as a kind of necessary evil in order to bring about the success story that the current economy needs right now. Unfortunately, their strategy is totally wrong. That kind of makes sense with my observation that rather than supporting the cronyism and corruption, they turn a blind eye to it because they think it's necessary.  My view is not so much that labour and finance capital returns need to be balanced (although that is probably a great thing to aim for), but that creation of wealth/capital needs to be intrinsically linked with the creation of real value. The modern banking crisis was a great example of the ability to generate wealth while in fact destroying real value.
There are a lot of issues:  1.  Healthcare is dominated by monopolies and oligopolies.  Giving decision making power to individual consumers isn't going to change that.  Breaking them up is necessary.  2.  Most pharmaceutical research is carried out with tax dollars.  Then it is handed over to individual corporations to charge whatever they want.  My wife was on a cancer drug.  It was developed by a professor at a University with a government grant.  The government paid for the testing, and when it was found to be effective, further testing was waved.  Unfortunately, a pharmaceutical company had already patented the compound, without having any idea what it could do, so they got it.  With no cost other than running a program that spit out compounds.  They then charged $14,000 per month for the drug.  3.  The consumer is at a serious disadvantage when it comes to knowledge in bargaining.  Indeed in many cases the patient is unconscious when the decisions are being made.
"I think the last sentence sums up what needs to be done: ""The answer is a rebooted capitalism for a new economic era, using the power of the state where it is necessary to fix market failures and to break up vested interests, but also recognising the unique power of entrepreneurs to produce abundance out of scarcity and dynamism out of stagnation.""  Capitalism is far from dead and is still by far the best economic policy available, it's just changing a bit specifically on a few minor points."
The actual payment for this loan (assuming it is a normal loan) can be found most easily with the PMT function in Excel: =PMT(rate,NPER,PV,FV)... =PMT(.003, 24, -10000, 0). That returns a monthly payment (of principal + interest) of 432.47. So you actually are over-calculating the payment by $14/month with your ballpark approach. However, you didn't actually have all the factors in the model to begin with, so that doesn't matter much. You are making it artificially easier because you have not thought about the impact of repaying principal. What I mean is this--in your question you indicate: I'm guessing the necessary profit is just the total interest on this loan = 0.30%($10000)(24) = $720 USD ? So I'll break even on this loan - if and only if - I make $720 from stocks over 24 months (so the rate of return is 720/(10000 + 720) = 6.716%). This sounds great-- all you need is a 6.716% total return across two years. But, assuming this is a normal loan and not an 'interest-only' loan, you have to get rid of your capital a little bit at a time to pay back the loan. In essence, you will pay back 1/3 of your principal the first year... and then you have to keep making the same Fixed interest + principal payments out of a smaller base of capital. So for the first few months you can cover the interest easily, but by the end you have to be making phenomenal returns to cover it. Here is how I would build a model for it (I actually did... and your breakeven is about 1.019% per month. At that outstanding 12.228% annual return you would be earning a whopping $4.) At least as far as the variables are concerned, you need to be considering: Your current capital balance (because month 1 you may have $10,000 but month 2 you have just 9,619 after paying back some principal).
"You can do either a 1099 or a W-2.  There is no limitations to the number of W-2s one can have in reporting taxes.  Problems occur, with the IRS, when one ""forgets"" to report income.  Even if one holds only one job at a time, people typically have more than one W-2 if they change jobs within the year. The W-2 is the simplest way to go and you may want to consider doing this if you do not intend to work this side business into significant income.   However, a 1099 gig is preferred by many in some situations.  For things like travel expenses, you will probably receive the income from these on a 1099, but you can deduct them from your income using a Schedule C.  Along these lines you may be able to deduct a wide variety of other things like travel to and from the client's location, equipment such as computers and office supplies, and maybe a portion of your home internet bill.  Also this opens up different retirement contributions schemes such as a simplified employee pension.   This does come with some drawbacks, however.  First your life is more complicated as things need to be documented to become actual business expenses.  You are much more likely to be audited by the IRS.  Your taxes become more complicated and it is probably necessary to employee a CPA to do them.  If you do this for primary full time work you will have to buy your own benefits.  Most telling you will have to pay both sides of social security taxes on most profits.  (Keep in mind that a good account can help you transfer profits to dividends which will allow you to be taxed at 15% and avoid social security taxes.) So it really comes down to what you see this side gig expanding into and your goals.  If you want to make this a real business, then go 1099, if you are just doing this for a fes months and a few thousand dollars, go W-2."
"BPI would have won this lawsuit. This was not a ""spurious lawsuit"". LFTB is a quality beef product that brings very lean, high protein beef to a market that allows more consumers in the US to be able to buy and consume beef at a price point their budget will allow.    ABC misled consumers by putting out a one-sided piece that was highly sensationalized to grab ratings.   I have seen LFTB before it is blended with more coarsely ground, higher fat trim which is whay is used to make hamburger. It is beef. Pure and simple."