vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"It has to do with humidity (or dew point) and is partly meant to be a scale to judge how hot it ""feels"".  When you have high humidity, the sweat from your body will not evaporate as efficiently.  The evaporation is necessary to remove heat from your body, so without it you feel hotter.  With 100% relative humidity, the air is fully saturated and NONE of your sweat will evaporate."
In order to short a stock, you have to borrow the number of shares that you're shorting from someone else who holds the shares, so that you can deliver the shares you're shorting if it becomes necessary to do so (usually; there's also naked short selling, where you don't have to do this, but it's banned in a number of jurisdictions including the US). If a stock has poor liquidity, or is in high demand for shorting, then it may well be impossible to find anyone from whom it can be borrowed, which is what has happened in this instance.
"This is a poor example really. It's not necessary to measure inequality from the position of a janitor. It's more illustrative to measure it from the educated middle class, who have also fallen sharply in household wealth relative to the 1%. This trend is more surprising and disturbing as it runs counter to the great 20th century trend of a rising middle class.  If you want to understand inequality just look at the rate of investment and the relative rate of return achieved by the 1%  Not only is the wealth of the 1% increasing, it is increasing at a faster rate.   Needless to say that difference compounds over time.  Until we have an extended period of the wealthy losing money at a faster rate than the less wealthy, inequality will rise. And also needless to say, that scenario is forever and always unacceptable to the 1%  It's easy to talk about solutions to inequality right up until someone asks ""How are we going to make the wealthy less wealthy in a relative sense?""  At which point you realize there are no serious efforts being made against inequality."
In the case of a warehouse, you'd think they would want air conditioning anyway to keep the products at a reasonable temperature.  But certainly there's no reason you can't keep it cool enough in a warehouse for people to work safely.  It doesn't have to be a perfect 72 degrees, but a heat index over 100 is obviously wrong if it can be avoided.  If restaurants can do the same for their kitchens, they certainly should.  There's no reason human beings should have to work in such conditions unless it's absolutely necessary.
It could be that your friend is being scammed into recruiting you as another victim. So it is vaguely possible that this isn't malicious on their part. However, it is a scam if they are asking for your credit card info without a completely clear and good reason it's necessary. Which they have failed to do. That is reason enough to assume it's a scam, illegal, or both. Run. And seriously consider whether these are really people you can trust on anything, never mind money. At best they're gullible.
"While the question is very localized, I'll answer about the general principle. My main question is with how far away it is (over 1000 miles), how do I quantify the travel expenses? Generally, ""necessary and ordinary"" expenses are deductible. This is true for business and also true for rentals. But what is necessary and what is ordinary? Is it ordinary that a landlord will manage the property 1000 miles away by himself on a daily basis? Is it ordinary for people to drive 1000 miles every week? I'd say ""no"" to both. I'd say it would be cheaper for you to hire a local property manager, thus the travel expense would not be necessary. I would say it would be cheaper to fly (although I don't know if its true to the specific situation of the OP, but as I said - its too localized to deal with) rather than drive from Texas to Colorado. If the OP thinks that driving a thousand miles is indeed ordinary and necessary he'll have to justify it to the IRS examiner, as I'm sure it will be examined. 2 trips to the property a year will be a nearly 100% write-off (2000 miles, hotels, etc). From what I understood (and that is what I've been told by my CPA), IRS generally allows 1 (one) trip per year per property. If there's an exceptional situation - be prepared to justify it. Also, keep all the receipts (like gas, hotel, etc.... If you claim mileage but in reality you took a flight - you'll get hit hard by the IRS when audited). Also while I'm up there am I allowed to mix business with pleasure? You cannot deduct personal (""pleasure"") expenses, at all. If the trip is mainly business, but you go out at the evening instead of staying at the hotel - that's fine. But if the trip is ""business"" trip where you spend a couple of hours at your property and then go around having fun for two days - the whole trip may be disallowed.
It is very necessary to get the fitting done properly because if not, the noise reduction is going to be a good as negligible. Replacing your single glazed window with the double one is going to make a massive difference. And when you are choosing the window, it is necessary to take care of the thickness of the glass and also the distance of the panes.
It's safe. You give people those numbers every time you write a check.  If a check is forged, and doesn't have your signature on it, the bank has to return the money to you; they get it back from the other bank, who takes whatever action it deems necessary against the forger. They've been doing this for a few hundred years, remember.
The point im trying to make is that VaR is useless as a risk metric and it should not be a necessary part of any risk management arsenal as it does little to answer the question that losses will be limited to X K% of the time and it instils a sense of false security.
Climate scientists urgently need to explain why global warming has declined in recent years.  I have a scientific background but this is not necessary to understand the relevance of this point.  The nature of climate science means that the reverse should be true.  Man has not reduced the overall amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Therefore the climate should have continued to warm. This is simple logic.  What is worse for climate scientists is that the historical data suggests that climate is cyclical with much warmer periods apparent in pre-industrial times.  The inconvenience of this has led to climate scientists concentrating on the period from 1980 onwards. The basis for this is that much more detailed information is available. Unfortunately the data for this period is showing the climate cooling rather than rising.  Man is doing tremendous damage to the planetary environment in terms of pollution and fossil fuels are limited. These are worrying facts.but have nothing to do with climate science.  To believe in climate change is akin to believing in the tooth fairy. To be a non-believer is akin to being the little boy in the story of the emperor with no clothes.  Climate scientists are starting to run scared. They have a theory but no evidence or even worse they have evidence that shows them to be wrong.  They have built up a whole industry based on a fallacy. Now they are willing to tell any lie necessary to perpetuate it.  This is not science.
This isn't including revenue for SP3, it's probably including operating expenses for production of SP3, and Microsoft also overproduced SP1. It's not a terrible loss and probably looks worse than it is. Xbox division lost far more too, but it's a necessary cost to break into new markets and work towards their vision.   I'm not a fanboy by any means, but I think Microsoft have hit the money with the *idea* of the Surface Pro, and Apple are going to be playing catch up, which is going to look dire. Especially if iWatch is their upcoming innovation.
A long straddle using equity would be more akin to buying a triple leveraged ETF and an inverse triple leveraged ETF, only because one side will approach zero while the other can theoretically increase to infinity, in a short time span before time decay hits in. The reason your analogy fails is because the delta is 1.0 on both sides of your trade. At the money options, a necessary requirement for a straddle, have a delta of .5 There is an options strategy that uses in the money calls and puts with a delta closer to 1.0 to create an in the money strangle. I'm not sure if it is more similar to your strategy, an analogous options strategy would be better than yours as it would not share the potential for a margin call.
"again, you feel compelled to add terminology that you don't seem to understand.  There is no chicanery necessary to ""bet"" against a company.  It's called shorting.  Our you buy a sell option (a ""put"").  These have been around for ever.  Individuals can do it if they desire.    Market manipulation is another matter and certainly does happen.    Thus far, there does not appear to be any evidence that FB's stock price was manipulated downward, it was just over-priced to begin with."
Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale."
No money is stolen. They don't show you the hold for whatever reason (not so good a bank?), but the money is still yours. You just cannot use it, but it is still on your account. These holds usually go away after a week. In certain cases (like a security deposit) it may take up to 30 days. You can request from the merchant to cancel the hold if it is no longer necessary. They'll have to be proactive on that, and some merchants wouldn't want the hassle. It is however a known issue. When I was working in the banking industry, we would routinely receive these hold cancellation requests from merchants (hotels and car rentals).
People look at this problem the wrong way. The real issue for all phone manufacturers is that hardware is outpacing software. Phones have reached a point where incremental increases are no longer necessary and the low end hardware will do. iPhone4s V iPhone5, it's fairly pointless to switch.
"It makes far more sense to require that every public employee has a hotel room with a cheaper ""courtyard view"" than require them to fly coach.  If someone decides their vacation is okay to waste one day recovering, it still might be necessary to have them fly business so they can actually sleep on the red eye (and shower at the lounge) before their meetings."
"It wasn't my statement, but I will take a stab at this. The human brain is a fantastic pattern recognizer. In fact, I would say that it is the very best that we are currently aware of. Having seen the trajectory of a thrown ball a few times, your brain can predict with startling accuracy where your hand needs to be in order to intercept it...or how to move to get out of its way, should it be a larger ball. Your brain isn't doing the math necessary to actually calculate the trajectory, just estimating based on past experience. The same thing happens with ever decision your brain makes. It estimates probability whenever it can in situations ranging from location prediction to what your significant other's reaction will be to you staying out late again. Note that these things can be actually calculated via trajectory calculation or bayesian statistics respectively, but your brain doesn't have time for such things, so it approximates them instead and is startlingly good at it in most cases. For a list of ways that your brain is less good at these things, see ""List of Cognitive Biases"" on Wikipedia."
It really depends on the tasks and how things are going.  Well allocated work probably takes less than 40 hours a week most of the time, but might take a lot more than that sometimes.  It really depends.  Being in a really small company leaves little room for maneuvering, and then there is ambition.  Do you really want to dominate your industry?  Then there is the kind of work.  Truly creative work might be so intense that it tops out around 20 hours a week and everything above that is chaff.  That was what I meant by not fitting neatly into standard arrangements.  It also has a lot to do what else there is in your life competing.  It might be necessary to leave earlier than most to make time for afternoon activities or time with children.  Defining desirable intervals outside work may be the most important part of knowing what work hours make sense.  Ultimately it is necessary to understand that balancing work and life is complicated and may have no good answers.  Sometimes work may be life and other times it may compete vigorously with good living.  Simply saying anything over a standard 40 hour work week is too much might be a good place to draw the line, or that might be a way of avoiding really thinking through where you want to be since that arrangement is only going to be idea for a subset of people.  Maybe for some 45 is the breaking point and for others 35 is right or maybe just winging it and leaving after a certain number of things are done is right.  This emphasis on time drops away completely under Results Only Work Environment (ROWE) arrangements, but that leads directly to legal issues because we treat time as sacred no mater how much is spent at the desk or water cooler.
"It is a scam. Not only will it get your personal information, which could allow him to impersonate you (like, using your identity as the generous lender on a future scam), in order to fulfill the loan, a ""small payment"" for some documents will be needed. And next another for a certificate necessary for lending, and so on. Their goal is to get your money, not lending you any. Aganju hit the nail: how would such person ensure that you will pay back, when he knows absolutely nothing about you? That would have been the #1 priority for someone that decided to invest using such unbelievable schema."
"If the free market can fix a particular problem it's this one.  For years the baby boomers have been extolling the virtues of the free market to solve any problem.  After all the free market is the most efficient way of meeting infinite demand with scarce resources...or so I'm told - supply and demand...etc.  The problem the C suite is now realizing is this:  Once the baby boomers leave, that ""shortage"" will drive up prices/wages for those with the necessary skills.  It always happens when there is a labor shortage (revisit the .com boom of the late 90's).  Mahogany row will try like hell to avoid this, but it will happen.  Look for the business executives to pressure government to increase H-1B visas claiming that there are no workers with the necessary skills to be found here, so we must import workers.  Educating and training people takes time, and when your timeline based in quarterly earnings reports, you simply don't have time to educate and retrain.  So long as unemployment is high we should not be importing workers for ANY reason.  If executives see their talent pool retiring they need to open their wallets and pay market price for their replacements."
"First of all, I have to recognize up front that my ""spending personality"" is frugal. I don't recreational shop, and I save a lot of my total income. Building a budget and sticking to it is difficult, especially for people who are closer to living paycheck to paycheck than I. Theoretically, it should be easy to stick to a budget by overestimating expenses, but for many people planning to spend more than necessary isn't a luxury available. That said, I have a system that works for me, maybe it can work for you. This system lets me see how much I have to spend, and close to optimally arranges assets. As you can see, this system relies on some pretty strong upfront planning and adherence to the plan. And what you might not realize is that you can deviate from the plan in two ways: by spending variations and by timing variations. Credit should really help with a lot of the timing variations; it takes a series of expenses and translates them into one lump payment every month.  As for spending variations, like spending 20 dollars for lunch when you only budgeted 5, it turns out this technique helps a lot. Some academic work suggests that spending with plastic is more likely to blow your budget than cash, unless you make detailed plans. But it sounds like your main problem is knowing whether you can afford to splurge. And the future minimum balance of your checking account can be your splurge number."
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, but in general its pretty simple: She goes to the UK bank and requests a wire transfer, providing your details as a recipient. You then go to your bank, fill the necessary forms for the money-laundaring regulations, you probably also need to pay the taxes on the money to the IRS, and then you have it. If you have 1 million dollars (or is it pounds?), I'm sure you can afford spending several hundreds for a tax attorney to make sure your liabilities are reduced to minimum.
It is barely possible that this is Citi's fault, but it sounds more like it is on the Costco end.   The way that this is supposed to work is that they preauthorize your card for the necessary amount.  That reserves the payment, removing the money from your credit line.  On delivery, they are supposed to capture the preauthorization.  That causes the money to transfer to them.  Until that point, they've reserved your payment but not actually received it.  If you cancel, then they don't have to pay processing fees.   The capture should allow for a larger sale so as to provide for tips, upsells, and unanticipated taxes and fees.   In this case, instead of capturing the preauthorization, they seem to have simply generated a new transaction.  Citi could be doing something wrong and processing the capture incorrectly.  Or Costco could be doing a purchase when they should be doing a capture.  From outside, we can't really say.   The thirty days would seem to be how long Costco can schedule in advance.  So the preauthorization can last that long for them.   Costco should also have the ability to cancel a preauthorization.  However, they may not know how to trigger that.  With smaller merchants, they usually have an interface where they can view preauthorizations and capture or cancel them.  Costco may have those messages sent automatically from their system.   Note that a common use for this pattern is with things like gasoline or delivery purchases.  If this has been Citi/Costco both times, I'd try ordering a pizza or some other delivery food and see if they do it correctly.  If it was Citi both times and a different merchant the other time, then it's probably a Citi problem rather than a merchant problem.
"Its really, really good of you to admit your short comings with a desire to improve them.  It takes courage.  Keep in mind that most of us that answer questions here are really ""good at money"" so we have a hard time relating.  Would you want people that are bad with money answering questions on a personal finance site?   While it is intimidating you will need a budget.  A budget is simply a plan for how to spend your money.  Your budget, based on your new pay frequency, will likely also need some cash flow planning as a single paycheck is unlikely to cover your largest expenses.  For example your rent/mortgage might be less than a single paycheck so you will have to save money from the previous paycheck to have enough money to pay it.   Your best bet is to have a friend or relative that is good with money help you setup a budget.  Do you have one?  If not you might inquire about a church or organization that offers Financial Peace University.  The teachers of the class often help people setup a budget and might be willing to do so for you.  You could also take the class which will improve your money management skills.  For $100 you'll have a lifetime pass to the class.  If it helps you avoid three late charges/bounce checks then the class is well worth it. Now as far as spending too much money.  I would recommend cash, but you have to do it the right way.  Here is the process that you have to follow to be successful with cash: Doing cash will give you a more concrete example of what spending means.  It won't work if you continue to hit the ATM ""for just $20 more"".  It will take you a bit to get used to it, but you will be surprised how quickly you improve at managing money."
Probably not, but they would have to remove old stock from the state after the one year grace period and they may have to entertain suits against them, which would probably end in settlements. In 2016 alone there was over 30 million [paid out in settlements.](https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/prop65/2016-summary-settlements.pdf?)   I have read there is somewhat of a cottage industry for those who seek out prop 65 violations just for the purpose of suing the manufacturer. Then there is the cost associated with the maintenance of complying with the ever changing regulations.   I'm sure there is more to it but I can see where a company would not want to label there products as cancer causing if it was not necessary. People might also be more hesitant to purchase a product for there household if it's labeled as cancer causing.   Additionally, the US has its own hazard communication standards that require manufacturers to label any IARC know carcinogens as such.   Edit: Plus Monsanto probably thinks it can do what it wants
"You have a large number of possible choices to make, and a lot of it does depend upon what interests you when you are older. The first thing to note is the difference between ISAs and pension-contribution schemes tax wise, which is of course the taxation point. When you contribute to your pensions scheme, it is done before taxation, which is why when you draw from your pension scheme you have to pay income tax. Conversely, your ISA is something you contribute to after you have already paid income tax - so besides the 10% tax on dividends if you hold any assets which may them, it is tax free when you draw on it regardless of how much you have accrued over the years.  Now, when it comes to the question ""what is the best way to save"", the answer is almost certainly going to be filling your pension to the point where you're going to retire just on the edge of the limit, and then putting the rest into ISAs. This way you will not be paying the higher rates of tax associated with breaking the lifetime limit, but also get maximum contributions into your various schemes. There is an exception to this of course, which is the return on investment. If you do not have access to a SIPP (Self Invested Personal Pension), you may be able to receive a far higher return on investment when using a Stocks & Shares ISA, in which case the fact that you have to pay taxes prior to funding it may not make a significant difference. The other issue you have, as others have mentioned is rent.  While now you may be enjoying London, it is in my opinion quite likely that will change when you get older, London has a very high-cost of living, even compared to the home counties, and many of its benefits are not relevant to someone who is retired. When you retire, it is quite possible that you will see it fit to take a large sum out of your various savings, and purchase a house, which means that regardless of how much you are drawing out you will be able to have somewhere to live. Renting is fine when you are working, but when you have a certain amount of (admittedly growing) funds that have to last you indefinitely, who knows if it will last you."