vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It appears that you have bought into the Communist lie.  Milton Friedman lats it all out so well. No transaction ever occurs unless both sides in the transaction benefit.  Let's say you are out for a walk. While walking you feel hungry. You find two quarters ($0.50) in your pocket. You enter the nearest convenience store and look for a snack cake to buy. You find a Twinky selling for 40 cents. You pay for the Twinky and leave the store while eating it. You also leave with a dime in your pocket.  To you the Twinky is worth 50 cents as you would have paid what you had to obtain one. So made 10 cents profit on the deal. The shopkeeper sold his merchandise for 40 cents but it only cost him 25 cents to obtain the Twinky. He made 15 cents profit on the deal.  You wanted the snack more than you wanted the money. The shopkeeper wanted the money more than the snack. You both got what you valued more. You both profited by the transaction.  That is why Capitalism works. Value (worth)  is in the eye of the beholder.  Remember: no transaction occurs unless both sides profit.  Edit: once again I ask: if you give me a negative vote please explain with a comment.
&gt; Ever considered that I'm not even American? So basing my arguments on your constitution wouldn't make sense to me.  Okay, my bad.  My assumption was wrong.  But now you are left with no support to your claims about what a social contract can be.  &gt; Capitalism is barter. You don't neither need government enforcement nor centralized currencies...  If that is true, how do you explain that capitalism didn't start until the 16th century, after private property and currencies were already established?  &gt; Capitalism does not require maintenance...  I never said it did.  I said when someone can work because of government services it makes sense part of that person's income should go to maintain/improve those services.  &gt; Are you seriously going to base your arguments on a game...  My argument was that a capitalist system without wealth redistribution is unstable.  Monopoly is a simple illustration as to why.  I consider my argument unchallenged if your only criticism is my choice of example.
Under US law, if you clearly have more than half of a torn bill it is worth its full value; the smaller piece is worth nothing... except that having both halves makes the banking system much happier, since it prevents some particularly stupid counterfeiting attempts. So this proposal wouldn't be cheat-proof unless the cut is close enough to the middle to make determining 51% difficult. And I'd like to see you try to explain to a bank how so many bills were cut in half... (This is more normally an issue when money has been damaged unintentionally, of course.)
Your doctor may also have free samples available. You could call, explain your situtation and ask to see if they have any free samples.
DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO THAT!!!  What could happen if you lie is that they ask for pay stubs before you get an offer letter.  If you don't have paystubs to back up what you claim to of made you have likely just lost your job.  If they keep you anyway they will be watching you like a hawk because you have proven on the front end that you can't be trusted.  I just went through this very same thing a few months ago and here is how I handled it.  These numbers are made up so not to reveal my real salary, of course.  I was making $2/hr and underpaid at my then company and wanted to make $10 from the new guys.  I knew they wouldn't pay me $10 so I was hoping to make $6.  They also wouldn't pay me $6 put they offered me $5.  $5 was $3 more than I was making before so I gladly took it.    I have a salary I can live with for a few years and I'm in a position to grow with the new company.  Be honest and negotiate.  Be prepared to explain why you think you are worth the money you say you are.  Be reasonable about the situation and don't get greedy.  You are doing good by them showing interest in retaining you in the first place.  Play your cards correctly and professionally and you will do well.  Whatever you do don't lie about anything.  Good luck!!!
When you take the tourist to buy tickets, show them where and which one to buy. I didn't like how my tuk Tuk driver just sat there and pointed to where I had to go.  Explain to tourist what the price ranges are for a tour guide. I wouldn't recommend a specific tour guide because we all hate being coerced into paying people services, we will think you are all one big business.l and we don't like that!   Tripadvisor and business cards is a great idea.
If you're trying to teach them the value of money and quantifying the dollar difference between prices, one very effective way to do this is by using bar charts. For instance, if a toy is $5, and movie they really want to see is $10, and a vacation they want to go on costs $2000, it can be a useful tool to help explain how the relative costs work.
The market doesn't know or care why you bought.  What you are asking is effectively 'this share went down in price after I bought. Is there anything I can do?'. Consider what you are asking for - if there were anything you could do, then no one would ever make a loss. How do you suppose that would work?
I will ask again since you are an expert in economy:  &gt; Explain me why Bezos, a retail and technology guru would waste his time on WaPo, and old-fashion media? Is it to make money? Yes or no?  Yes, you reduce your tax bill if your profits go down due to a losing business. It's not debatable.
Realization is, literally, when something is made real. For example, let's say that you own some stock.  You bought the stock for $1000, and after many years the stock is worth $10,000.  Your investment has gained $9,000.  However, you don't actually have this $10,000; you just own stock that is supposedly worth $10,000 on paper.  Tomorrow, the value of the stock could plummet and only be worth $8,000.  But if you sell your stock today and obtain this $10,000, the gain has now become real.  You have realized a $9,000 gain. In investing, realization of a gain or loss occurs when an asset that you own has been sold for more or less than what you purchased it for.  Before the asset is sold, you only have a theoretical gain or loss based on what you might receive if you sold the asset today.  And tomorrow, that theoretical gain or loss could change.
"I think the best way to handle her fears is to explain the income and expenses of the household overall, then explain the savings and investment strategies, retirement projections, and then finally explain a concrete number for allowable monthly or annual discretionary expenses (including charity, entertainment, vacations, etc.).  You may have delicate relationship reasons for not doing this, but if you want a reasonable discussion, I would leave it this way. Please do not open with the question ""how much do you think we make"" or anything similar because that comes off as a trick or a quiz.  It sounds very condescending and highlights how much more you know about finances than she does.  It also highlights subconsciously how little mental control she has over the finances, which is likely to make her feel greater anxiety. You should emphasize how secure things are and explain why all the savings and investments you're using are conservatively likely to keep her financially secure.  This sets the ground for her to be comfortable with the fact that she now has money, in contrast to perhaps a less financially secure personal history. After that, charitable expenses come out of the expense budget, same as vacations, recreation, etc.  If it does not implicate financial security, then it's not dangerous to spend on charity. The alternate approach is to avoid the big financial talk and just propose a few small contributions this year. Then increase it every year incrementally. That may be easier to swallow once there's a psychological track record of donating without incident. Please go into the discussion remembering three things: But above all, please do not open up with a quiz.  Have a simple discussion with her.  Give her time to consider the expenses budget relative to the savings budget as a proportion of income.  And then allow for the fact that she may place a strong premium on savings and a strong discount on charity."
"Nobody is claiming that there has been no warming. However, it is not a subject of controversy that the ""pause"" has gone on for 17 years, in contradiction to all the climate models. The most ardent alarmists (except for you) aren't denying that--they are trying to explain it in various ways.   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/04/rss-reaches-santers-17-years/"
"So I'm in Australia and we have our very own housing price/credit bubble right now (which is finally deflating) and I'll try explain it as I understand. I welcome anyone to chime in and correct me. The problem we faced (still face to a large degree) is the idea of rising asset prices and how this fuels a feedback loop into increasing personal debt, all based on the false assumption that house prices always go up. Now before I continue, house prices *do* always go up in the long run, but so does the cost of everything and we call that inflation, adjusting for this effect usually reveals that house prices are cyclical in the long term and never really 'grow'. So that aside we in Australia recently saw a long period of increasing house prices (as did the USA and Europe, and more recently China), the thing about house price is it is your 'equity', I'll try and explain: (all figures are made up to provide a simple example) if you borrow $200,000 to buy a house that costs $250,000 you owe the bank 80% of the equity (what your home is 'worth', and notionally this is value that you own) in your home and the bank will be happy, remembering that they make money on your interest payments, not your principal repayments. If your house then increases in value to $300,000 but you still owe $200,000 then you now owe only 66% of your equity. The bank sees you as a lower risk and encourages you to borrow more to get back up to that sweet spot they had before of 80% - this is a nice tradeoff between risk and reward for the bank. You, the consumer, have just been mailed a new credit card with a 50k limit (hypothetical) and theres a new iMac being released next week, and you really did want to trade in your 5yr old car (see where this is going yet?). Not only is this type of spending given a mighty boost but consumers feel like this house thing has done them very well and suddenly they have the ability to borrow lots more money, why not get a second house and do it all over again?
It is fine to think about options you may have when X to Y years down the road you move out of the condo. The reason you move may be kids, or job opportunities,  or a shorter commute, or wanting to move back to Germany. The thing is that nobody can tell you what the investment situation may be when you move out of the unit. You may want to sell, you may need to sell; but the market may say no way to sell and get back what you owe - so you have to become a landlord. Or the prices could go through the roof, and selling makes the most sense. In those ten years the local market could crater because the water system is full of lead (see Flint Michigan), or the biggest industry moves. Other bad things could be overbuilding so that there are too many condos on the market. On the good side the neighborhood could become the place that young people graduating college in the mid 2020s want to live. Of course you can't ask them because they are currently in 6th grade. Decide what make sense for you now. What is the likelihood that you will have to move in 2-3 years. What about 3-7 years.  I would only start evaluating the investment part if I had lived there awhile and now had to plan what to do when we are ready to move out a year or two from then.
I work at a FOREX broker, and can tell you that what you want to do is NOT possible. If someone is telling you it is, they're lying. You could (in theory) make money from the SWAP (the interest you speak of is called SWAP) if you go both short and long on the same currency, but there are various reasons why this never works. Furthermore, I don't know of any brokers that are paying positive SWAP (the interest you speak of is called SWAP) on any currency right now.
"You make several good points.  I'll start with Black-Scholes; the arbitrage argument in Black-Scholes is between the option and a hypothetical and unobserved portfolio with identical cash flows (the replicating portfolio).  We then value the replicating portfolio via an equilibrium model.  When you use BS, there isn't necessarily *any* observed security whose is guaranteed not imply some arbitrage opportunity, because BS makes no reference to observed prices.  A no-arbitrage modification might look like this: ""I observe the prices (and implied volatilities) of some options, and use the implied volatilities to price another option (maybe with a different strike).  Doing so ensures that there is no arbitrage between my price and the market prices implied by my model.""  Realistically, the problem arbitrage-free models are addressing is that our models and assumptions are wrong, even though they're reasonable approximations a lot of the time.  A no-arbitrage model removes some set of obvious deficiencies, but at the cost of not being able to explain why things are priced as they are.  So, for instance, Vasicek won't reproduce the observed term structure, and Hull-White fixes this, but Hull-White doesn't explain where the term structure comes from (i.e., what the term structure *should* be)."
Wow this is a perfect example of the apathy of customers.  This scandal is literally about their auto loans, and that's what the article is about.  How are you ever going to know if something is affecting you if you won't even read the damn article about a company YOU DO BUSINESS WITH?  Seriously this couldn't prove the point of the comment you're replying to more.  It's stupid consumers like you that allow these companies to get away with this shit.
"Yes, but that's not what I'm getting at.  Your story made sense up to the ""enterprising person"" part.  The notes represented obligations secured by apples (or rights to future apples).  Regardless of the secondary note trading, at the end of the day, one could approach issuer of the note, the apple farmer, and redeem (or attempt to redeem) the note for the underlying apples.  The enterprising person's notes are different.  The holder of the new notes cannot approach the priest and demand anything.  The story doesn't explain this critical transition, which is probably the most important part.  You suggest the problem in your response above when you say ""it's just no longer pegged specifically to one grower's apples.""  The new notes aren't ""pegged"" to anything.  That's a huge but unexplained shift, a shift I called a ""gap in the internal logic of this story.""  [Edit: In other words, with the apple notes, there was an option.  One could trade the apple notes with others or get apples.  With the new notes, there is no option.  You must trade the notes.  There is no underlying good or service to redeem.]"
Unfortunately, this is a customer service issue. The bank has a set of term and conditions (Ts and Cs) which you received with the card or when you applied. It included your limit, and what happens when you go over, likely, a penalty for going over the limit. At the very least, they expect you to pay the overage or you'll see an over-limit charge next cycle too.  In the future, I'd suggest checking your account on line to monitor your balance. Some accounts offer an alert email, mine will let me set an alert for when my balance goes over $xxx, which is helpful, as I can send in an early payment to bring that balance down.  It still never hurts to ask. They might waive fees if any, if this is your first time. You can still try calling them, explain the odd timing, and see if you can get a temporary increase in credit line.  In the end, you need to review your finances. Carrying balances month to month at 12-18% is no way to have a successful financial future. It's one of the first things to getting your situation under control. After that, a small savings account, an emergency fund, is the next step. One month of charges should never put you in this bad situation.
If inflation is at 2% per annum, in a year you would need £102 to buy equivalent goods to what you could buy today.  So if you keep your money in a drawer the buying power of your £100 in a year will be only 100/102 = 98.039% of what it is currently.
"&gt; Yes it does and I know it very very well.   Are YOU Trump? Jesus Christ, you're seriously trying to argue with me over HOW FUCKING TAXES WORK??? Care to explain what ""Prime the pump"" means next, since I'm sure you think you invented it?  What kind of idiot goes into an economics subreddit and bullshits about how taxes work, as if everyone here doesn't know you're full of shit? It's clear that you're just a trolling fucking moron at this point. Jesus, man. You really should learn to just shut your fucking mouth if you don't know what you're talking about. You could not be coming off more stupid right now, man."
I think all taxes are theft, no matter who they come from.  Again, you haven't really substantiated any claim about your financial situation. Did you know I'm a black belt in Karate and was trained by Shaolin Warriors in the mountains ? I also am a billionaire single bachelor living on an island I bought in the Pacific Ocean.  I also love how you think bringing in the type of business you are supposedly a part of and taxes makes it any more legit. I majored in finance, you don't need to explain to me what an S-Corp is.  Additionally, I'm sure someone of your financial stature would have enough time to go on Reddit.  But fine, let's have this argument.  What does the private sector do better than the government.  Healthcare Roads/Utilities/Other Construction Security/Police Retail Technology/IT Finance/Banking Law/Contract Arbitration Automotive This list could go on forever.  Literally take your pick and we can begin  And yes, even people who advocate only higher taxes for the rich will end up with higher taxes for me (I.e. Bernie Sanders)
Sure, you don't agree, don't know why don't agree, can't explain why you don't agree... because you like to disagree for the purpose of disagreeing.  What don't you disagree with?  Susan is no good?  got her job in a corrupt way?  her degrees show she was not born interested in security (except for fat pay checks)?  people with IT degrees are more a match, suitable and qualified for security jobs, especially when they have specific on-hand experience?  HR does not care about employees?  real experts have to fight HR and terrible management... and usually lose because of this whole corrupt setup?
These two indicators can give you further early warning that the stock may be about to reverse from its current trend, so you can tighten your stop loss even if the ROC is still above zero. Here is an example chart to explain: GEM.AX 3 Year Weekly Chart Basically if the price closes below the trend line it may be time to close out the position or at the very least tighten up your trailing stop loss to 5%. If the price breaks below an established uptrend line it may well be the end of the uptrend. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs and higher lows. As GEM has broken below the uptrend line and has maid a lower low, all that is needed to confirm the uptrend is over is a lower high. But months before the price broke below the uptrend line, the MACD momentum indicator was showing bearish divergence between it and the price. In early September 2014 the price made a higher high but the MACD made a lower high. This is called a bearish divergence and is an early warning signal that the momentum in the uptrend is weakening and the trend could be reversing soon. Notice I said could and not would. In this situation I would reduce my trailing stop to 10% and keep a watchful eye on this stock over the coming months. There are many other indicators that could be used as signals or as early warnings, but I thought I would talk about some of my favourites and ones I use on a daily and weekly basis. If you were to employ any of these techniques into your investing or trading it may take a little while to learn about them properly and to implement them into your trading plan, but once you have done that you would only need to spend 1 to 2 hours per week managing your portfolio if trading long-term or about 1 hour per nigh (after market close) if trading more medium term.
"Between ""fresh out of college"" and ""I have no debts, and a support system in place which because of which I can take higher risks."" I would put every penny I could afford in the riskiest investment platform I was willing to.  Holding onto money in a bank account is likely to cost you %1-%2 a year depending on what interest rates are and what inflation looks like. Money invested in a market could loose it all for you or you could become an overnight millionaire. Loosing it all would suck but you are young you will bounce back. Losing it slowly to inflation is just silly when you are young.  If there is something you know you have to do in the next few years start to save for it but otherwise use the fact that you are young and have a safety net to try to make money."
"Just sign the form. The bank I worked for gave a .25% discount on auto deduct. Either you misheard that part or the person who sold you on the loan was new/ didn't explain it properly. It's an ""optional form"" but it does change your rate.    Edit:  you're not being pushed around. Someone got in trouble and is trying to cover their butt by getting it back quickly."
There are tax strategies you could take advantage of if you own the property. Find local real estate investors that like 'buy and hold'. Additional strategy is to buy a property and sell it with owner financing (you use a Residential Mortgage Loan Officer to facilitate.) What is great is you can get a great % real return on your money without being a landlord.
How is Floyd bad with money? I'm going to need you to explain that if you're going to make statements like this... This is a guy who owns several businesses, brands, and has an investment portfolio that would make anyone's mouth water. He's incredibly good at making money, so even though he's extravagant and flaunts his money, that doesn't mean he's making bad financial decisions... he can afford to spend it, so why the fuck shouldn't he?  You just hate him cuz he's a dick that makes life look easy as fuck... get over yourself