vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The problem is ""what would have been"" without regulations.   A good cause and effect is the Durbin amendment to DFA - they randomly regulated interchange debit card transactions (win for Walmart, loss for banks) so it no longer makes sense to offer free checking to poor people. WMT wins, banking loses, poor people lose.  The other issue is maxing out regulations actually makes the system more frail as it promotes consolidation in the sector.  Consultants love it - tons of free, easy, no thought work."
The assertion that Bolivians' palettes are somehow more sophisticated than dumb Americans' is silly.  I don't think anybody actually thinks McDonalds makes good food.  It's quick, cheap, and something associated with America, which despite what a lot of people seem to believe, is not a hated evil empire.  Local franchises are also a simple and relatively inexpensive method for entrepreneurs to earn a decent wage and foster economic growth in otherwise under-performing sectors.  McDonalds might have priced themselves out of the market in this case.  Or maybe fast food just isn't part of the local culture.  I've lived places where people thought the concept of going to a take out place and picking up food was just crazy weird.  You either sit down for a big fancy meal at a restaurant or whip something up at home.  What is this go out and pay for something substandard but quick?  That model works well in the US where it seems people are always on the go in different directions and might not have time to cook.  McDonalds seems to be good enough for our culture on the go and for a lot of countries around the world.  Personally, I just don't like it, but I will eat a Wendy's triple with bacon once in a while.
They will just break the company up into subsidiaries.     A smaller company will run the mail room, another will run the computer repair, yet another will run the sales team and so on an so forth. There will be one small executive company that runs all those companies and siphons all the revenue from all of the subsidiaries. Using your scheme they can make you a 30% owner of a subsidiary that services another subsidiary and makes no money at all and in fact is a money loser and stock options will mean nothing.  Major motion pictures do something similar: each movie is its own entity/company, lets call it BigExpensiveMovie397 Co., that is only around for a single movie. BigExpensiveMovie397 then hires other companies to do the work: catering, set building, production and everything else that makes a movie.  And here is the fun part: if BigExpensiveMove397 is a hit, then it will pay a lot of licensing fees to yet other corporations that allowed it the use of its characters, story and anything else they can think of.  Those licensing fees tend to *always* be more that whatever profit BigExpensiveMove397 makes. And that is how movies like LOTR is a money loser...no matter how much money it makes.  Which is why the convinced Congress to ban using actual money with HSX...   There is no way to beat such accounting. The only choice is not to take jobs like that. But since we are competing with the World and a good annual salary is $6K a year....we have a long way to go down to hit equilibrium.
I disagree strongly with chasing expenses. Don't chase pennies until your are comfortable with an allocation that makes sense to you. Focus on building a diversified portfolio. Look at all of the funds, and put them in a portfolio in a tool like Google finance. Screen out funds with 1-3 stars. Search around on this site for questions about portfolios -- there's good advice there. If you're still not comfortable, look for a fee-based advisor.
I do wonder if part of this is a phenomenon I've seen numerous times in the US:   Woman gets pregnant, barely shows up to work for the next 5 months until birth, camps out on FMLA for three months before simply ignoring any communications from the company for the next several months. Finally, a good 6-8 months after the birth she notifies the company she won't be working anymore. Meanwhile, she's been getting insurance benefits the entire time and HR is too afraid of a lawsuit to cut her loose.   Her position has either been unfilled the entire time (requiring her coworkers to cover her share of the work at expense of their own lives), or if the manager is more prescient than most, has already been backfilled, but is still in a blocking pattern preventing other hires but at least not making coworkers' lives miserable.
That doesn't really matter. It's already figured out in the percentage. Japan makes more money but also has more debt.  What does matter is that Japan has a high probability of being damaged by natural disasters and losing hundreds of billions of infrastructure and goods. Not only that but as long as global temps rise the chance of major disaster rises with it. Greece is comparatively well insulated compared to Japan. If you were to say which nation looks better at a 100+ year projection you have to consider these things. The Tsunami that hit Japan was not large by geological standards and that means Japan has a reasonable probability of near total destructing in the coming centuries. Certainly not a good place to make a long term bet on.
Banks are audited, for obvious reasons. Their software is carefully audited and protected, also for obvious reasons. A branch manager can't normally bypass those without getting caught quite quickly. He might be able to issue himself a loan -- but it will have to be a loan that at least appears to conform to the bank's standards, and he'll have to pay it off just like any other loan.
"futility of your beliefs... what are you, a supervillian? Don't write like that, it makes what you say sound ridiculous. It's not my ""dogma"" that makes me not want to discuss this issue with you, its that people with a libertarian mindset tend to have a zealous ideology that makes it impossible to talk to them about anything without them going into full on proselytize mode and say shit like, ""If you keep your head buried in the sand, you won't see the ocean creeping up to drown you."" No, Sir, I am aware of your set of beliefs and I don't agree with them. The end."
"You need to understand how various entities make their money. Once you know that, you can determine whether their interests are aligned with yours. For example, a full-service broker makes money when you buy and sell stocks. They therefore have in interest in you doing lots of buying, and selling, not in making you money. Or, no-fee financial advisors make their money through commissions on what they sell you, which means their interests are served by selling you those investments with high commissions, not the investments that would serve you best. Financial media makes their money through attracting viewers/readers and selling advertising. That is their business, and they are not in the business of giving good advice. There are lots of good investments - index funds are a great example - that don't get much attention because there isn't any money in them.  In fact, the majority of ""wall street"" is not aligned with your interests, so be skeptical of the financial industry in general.  There are ""for fee"" financial advisors who you pay directly; their interests are fairly well aligned with yours. There is a fair amount of good information at The Motley Fool"
Im still dealing with a $1,000 laptop i bought from them that stopped working after 6 months. They replaced the mobo and now it BSODs every five mimutes. I have four service orders, three phone calls, and a web chat related to it, and they want me to file a lemon law document for a replacement. Which has to be done at the store i bought it from, with a copy of the service record that the store manager is responsible for obtaining. Because thats gonna happen.
&gt;I believe he was recommended by one of the investors.  Reddest of flags.   &gt;the person who invested the most (I believe they own 40%) has his wife doing the taxes and paperwork  I stand corrected.  &gt;I think it was my friend who knew this manager and hired him due to a past relationship they had.  That's a little better, but still not great.   &gt;For more insight, my friend actually owns another 2 bars that are quite successful, but it seems he's completely not invested in this one despite owning 30%.  I'd talk to that friend, and keep nipping on his heels about it, rather than us. We're too far removed to get a good view of the situation.
"I use ""Money Manager Ex"" which is a Windows application I use on PC to log my transactions and for simple statistic. They have two versions, simple standlone application and self-hosted web app."
It's a fact that all vehicles when voyaging will in conclusion advance toward getting to be junk cars. On occasion vehicle early are pounded, or experience manager engine brothers, and end up as a protect auto in an auto commemoration stop. A gathering is on compelled finances and having some mechanical farthest point could greatly get from taking up a project vehicle. Others, who may have a vitality in bringing back an auto, can find broaden vehicles at an auto yard. They can offer you best money for Cars Company.
What do you base that on?   It does appear to be in a bubble, but what makes you think it will pop in a year or two? What if people keep getting more and more scared of the current instability and keep pumping their money into gold?
What I think or don't think makes no difference, what you are proposing would be a huge change for the world. It might have unforeseen negative effects because the way things often happens is that a new development makes it possible to do the job *completely* by machines, and here you are proposing to keep the remaining 10 people as virtual *prisoners* in a job where they would just sit there all day doing nothing, staring at the wall, but collecting a paycheck.  Wouldn't they be happier at another job doing some high level task for which there was no computer replacement, yet, some form of pure mathematics?
100% this. I have two BW3's in the area. One closed down and reopened in a new plaza. The one that closed was absolutely horrendous. Incorrect orders, raw wings, hair in food, etc. The other one was/is really good. I think the one that closed had to move due to it's poor reputation. Everyone would go out of the way to go to the one on the other side of town.   Also, I went to one in St. Clairsville OH. Fucking horrible. Gross, worst service, and I got a raw chicken sandwich. All the manager could tell me was he would throw it back on the grill... Are you serious?
&gt; if you went somewhat into debt, say $30k, for a major with good job prospects and a high salary, it will probably be a good decision. Which is exactly what I did, and it worked out very well for me.  There is still the opportunity cost I mentioned though. The average person makes $30K out of high school, so that is more than a million dollars in opportunity costs if you go to school for four years instead of going to work. Far more than that if you can earn more than $30K, which there is a good chance you can if you have the talent to get into college.  Additionally, if a career has good job prospects and high salaries, employers aren't really going to be concerned about your education save where the law mandates it (you cannot be a doctor without the education by law, for instance). It is the lack of capable workers that drives the salaries up and it is that same lack of capable workers that force employers to consider just about anyone.  There may be an argument to be made that an education can help as a signal in jobs where competition of fierce, but that same competition will drive the market rate of the job way down, which doesn't exactly seem like a win to me.  That's awesome that it worked out for you, I'm just not sure it should be considered a safe or even good investment. While the returns can be there in some cases, it seems like the stakes are pretty high.
Lottery tickets where I live are often for charity. The charity does good things with your money. So you can buy a ticket and feel good whether you win or not, so that makes it an investment in your own well-being. For some of us, who maybe buy a lottery ticket once a year, it's the fun you are paying for. You know you are not really going to win, but you spend a few hours being excited waiting for the draw. Cheaper than the cinema.  And you never know, you might win after all... The odds may be ridiculous, but somebody's going to get it...
Right, and the other five senior VP's are going to say something entirely different.   Meanwhile the poor IT manager feels like he is being kicked in the teeth and everyone but him gets a voice in spending his budget.
"From Investopedia:  ""Beating the market"" is a difficult phrase to analyze. It can be used   to refer to two different situations: 1) An investor, portfolio manager, fund or other investment specialist   produces a better return than the market average. The market average   can be calculated in many ways, but usually a benchmark - such as the   S&P 500 or the Dow Jones Industrial Average index - is a good   representation of the market average. If your returns exceed the   percentage return of the chosen benchmark, you have beaten the market   - congrats! (To learn more, read Benchmark Your Returns With Indexes.) 2) A company's earnings, sales or some other valuation metric is   superior to that of other companies in its industry. Matching the market, I would presume will be generating returns equivalent to the index you are comparing your portfolio with. If for a sector/industry then it would be the returns generated by the sector/industry. As an index is more or less a juxtaposition of the market as a whole, people tend to use an index."
What you say makes sense in terms of getting a math degree.  At the very least, get a minor in math (split the difference).  A lot of people get a degree in applied math or operations research/applied math and later go on to careers in finance.  It's less theory and a little more practical application.
&gt; The essential reason for this is that rising premiums in silver plans would trigger an increase in tax credits for low-income individuals whose premium-paying responsibilities are limited by the ACA.  So if I'm understanding this correctly, a reduction in subsidies for silver plan recipients would result in higher premiums overall, which would result in low-income individuals losing enough income to qualify for other tax benefit programs that would cancel out these higher premiums.   If that is the case, what an odd take on that scenario. It's finding the one silver lining in a very, very bad situation. The case described would push a lot of people off the cliff of self-sufficiency, and the headline makes that sound like a good thing?
That makes sense. So yeah it basically sounds like a speculative bubble based on limited supply and high demand, but without any significant change to the market itself.  What's kind of neat is that bitcoin seems to be closer to a commodity than a currency
My fifth property was a tax foreclosure of a guy with 2 kids whose wife had left him and whose friend had stolen the money to repay the property taxes. He was basically on the bones of his butt and was staring down the barrel of being homeless with two kids. The property was in great condition in a reasonable part of town. The property cost me $4K. I signed up the previous owner in a land contract to buy his house back for $US30K. Payments over 10 years at 7% came out to around $US333 per month. I made him an offer whereby if he acted as my property manager, i would forgo the land contract payments and pay him a percentage of the rents in exchange for his services. I would also pay for any work he did on the properties. He jumped at it. Seven years later, we're still working together and he keeps the properties humming. Right now the AUD is around 80c US and looks like falling to around 65c by June 2015. Rental income in Aussie $$ is around $2750 every month. This month (Jan 2015) I have transferred my property manager's house back to him with a quit claim deed and sold the remaining houses for $US100K After taxes and commission I expect to receive in the vicinity of AUD$120K Which is pretty good for a $AUD53K investment. I've also received around $30K in rent a year. I'm of the belief I should be buying when everybody else is selling and selling when everybody else is buying. I'm on the look-out for my next positive cash flow investment and I'm thinking maybe an emerging market smashed by the oil shock. I wish you all happiness and success in your investment. Take care. VR
Seriously. I was there last week, and could not get help from anyone at the sporting goods department.  All the people assigned were missing. It took me several tries to get the department manager to come over.  Once the manager arrived, all of a sudden all the workers showed up out of thin air.  Of course, I was annoyed by the time it them to finally help me.  Maybe this was an isolated case, but it sure didn't feel like they cared about my business.
"You have to be firm. Refuse to work excessive overtime. This is why I switched to consulting. 16 hour days suck, but if you're billing for 16 hours, it makes it more bearable.   I've recently switched to the ""I only care about money"" mode of thinking, and switched to hourly pay after being salaried for almost 10 years. And it's not that it's the only thing that matters, but a lot of the rest of this stuff falls into place. It really simplifies things. You don't work for free. Your time is seen as a commodity. You are given goals and targets. You're not dragged into unnecessary meetings. Your opinion is respected. If you have to work saturday, you're sure as hell billing for it. If I take off at 2pm because I want to watch a hockey game, I just stop billing at 2 and there isn't this ""I'm not getting my money's worth!"" feeling from the manager."
The portfolio manager at Value Research Online does this very nicely. It tracks the underlying holdings of each fund, yielding correct calculations for funds that invest across the board. Take a look at the screenshot from my account:  If you have direct equity holdings (e.g., not through a mutual fund), that too gets integrated. Per stock details are also visible.
Detroit is a joke.  They're pissing money away left and right, the city managers refuse to take any kind of cuts or change anything that they are doing.  It needs an emergency manager to come in there and clean things up.
Well, this whole project started because that supplier mentioned they can send their invoices electronically (EDI Electronic Data Interchange).   When a brilliant manager heard about it, they jumped on the idea... even though it's 2 invoices per month.
That's only the market rate if there is nobody else willing to do the job for less.  Look at how things go in 3rd world countries - the elite simply hire bodyguards and armored vehicles/helicopters to transport themselves around.  You would have to prove somehow that your bodyguard services are worth 1/2 their net worth, and that nobody could do as good of a job for less than that.  The rich communities become walled compounds with private mercenaries keeping the riff raff out.  In these countries, there's any number of willing young men to earn in a month what most of the country makes in a year to take up arms against their fellow citizens in defense of the elite.  Security just becomes another minor expense to keeping up a household.
nope, wouldn't. it's probably true. it would be a stereotype. like saying black people like chicken. is it racism if 98% of my black employees eat chicken every day or talk about how much they love chicken?   it's like saying Italian employees are lazy, if I hire 1,000 people and 50% are italian and they're generally always slower than the other 50% how is this racism?   if I don't want to hire women between 20-28 because I'd very likely end up having to pay for 12+ month for an employee that isn't at work, is it sexism not to hire?   women tend to gossip, that isn't sexism that is a fact. you know it, I know it, your girlfriend knows it, but because it's a public discussion point it is now sexist.   I can just say out of my experience the probability that a women brings a bad vibe into the office caused by drama or gossip is incredible higher than a man. am I sexist now? I don't think so, I'd still hire women, I just focus more on specific character features than in the past. similar as googles HR would focus on problem solving skills.  I say this out loud because it might be sexist in the public eye but everybody knows it's true in the majority of cases.  I have female employees and I value them as much as my male employees. doesn't mean I can randomly hire people.
&gt; We're talking about low paying jobs.. and if there's more applicants than jobs than why are staffing companies HUGE right now?  Yeah I'm talking about low paying also. Staffing companies are huge because you can try before you buy. Understand? Your argument just fell apart. Just because there is correlation, it doesn't mean they are related. ***We have tons of illegals and even more unemployed people***   &gt; . Because can't fill the jobs like they want. There's absolutely a ton of demand for low paying workers all around.  Lets see some proof because there is no shortage in most of the country unless you're talking about the ones on farms possibly. We have an extremely high unemployment rate.  &gt;  Places can't keep or find people even to stay for a month.   Maybe thats because they are drug addicted losers or shitty workers. Ever thought of that? That doesn't mean there is a shortage of employees, there is a shortage of good ones  &gt; Anyone that's ever applied knows these places also end up having tons of overtime because they don't have enough help  Wrong, zero evidence and its clearly wrong. No one wants to give these people benefits so they often don't even hire them as full time in any medium-large size company   &gt; Your idea is to take all three of illegals , felons and potheads out of jobs yet somehow still filll these jobs that staffing companies have been trying to fill.  In LA, we have no shortage and it applies to tons of places. Throw the illegals out, they don't belong here.  Felons, someone can hire them, I won't.  Potheads, someone will hire them too, but I won't hire someone that comes to work high, lacks motivation, and is not happy. I want employees that want to work and want to grow. With those type of employees, not only do businesses grow and become more successful, but those employees can get promoted and do better in life. I want my employees to do well in life because to me, the good ones are family.
&gt;corporate profits are down   [That's not true.](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html)  &gt;my problem with that statement is that if companies just pay their employees more it will 'create' demand  People having more money won't spend that money?  Especially people who are currently living paycheck to paycheck?  How do you reach this conclusion?  &gt;If companies pay their employees more for the same amount of output it will just drive up the cost of goods leaving us with the same shitty demand.   Also, how do you figure this?
I disagree.  Employee pay has always been a budgetary line item to large business owners.  That's just the way it is.  Much of the reason for the decrease in the percent of revenue going to employees is because companies, nowadays, don't need to hire as many people.  Technology has reduced the number of employees most industries require while still maintaining or boosting productivity.  I think a more fair way of looking at these figures would be to look at the sum of both employee pay and capital expenses as a percent of revenue.
It's pure BS. I guarantee that any of the H1-B visa people they hire will be paid less than an American. How many good programmers has Microsoft lost to other companies due to their wacky HR policies?   http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/03/the-terrible-management-technique-that-cost-microsoft-its-creativity/