vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Except that a universal basic income is going to be necessary in the coming years, in all western countries. Period.   Failing to provide it, will result in the poor pulling the rich from their cars, and beating them to death. But the poor in the USA can get hand guns pretty easily, so there will probably be a lot of shootings, too.  Never underestimate the power of a class whose livelihoods have been stolen by corporations.  Plus, with 60% unemployment, *who is going to buy all the nice toys the corporations make?*
Completely agree. Wal-Mart has both the capital and the wherewithal to readjust incredibly quickly as they deem it necessary to do so. Couple those with the clout they have with manufacturers and it's fairly easy to see that a threat to Wal-Mart such as to see them 'losing all' to Amazon is more than a bit overly optimistic on an Amazon fanatic's part.  I like Amazon, and shop there regularly, arguably more than Wal-Mart.. ..but, I shop at both. There are certain things that Wal-Mart is just 'better' for.. ..for now. Things change, but Wal-Mart can easily afford to change with it if it feels so inclined. They aren't IBM vs Microsoft; stuck in a mindset and incapable of imagining a reality outside of that. Even with that analogy, IBM is still around.
We aren't really using YNAB much differently than we were using Mvelopes, but we have learned a few tricks that I think have contributed to our success. One of the things we do differently is that I don't obsess about the cash accounts too much. Cash accounts, for us, are the hardest to keep track of, because most of our cash transactions don't have a receipt: we are paying a friend or family member for something, or leaving a tip, or something like that which we forget about when it comes time to enter into the software. As a result, the cash account balances get off. I periodically enter a correcting transaction to get the balances right, and have a budget category specifically for this that we have to put money in for these unknown transactions. Fortunately for us, our cash spending is a small percent of our total spending (we usually pay with a credit card) so this bit of untracked spending isn't that big of a concern. With YNAB, the current month's budget is right in front of you as soon as you open up the app, which makes it easy to adjust your budget during the month, if necessary. With Mvelopes (at least how their app worked 4 years ago), the budget was somewhat hidden after you funded your budget categories, and it was a bit of a pain to move money around between categories. The ability to adjust your budget in the middle of the month is crucial; if you don't do that, you'll get frustrated the first time you find that you don't have enough money in a category for something you need. YNAB makes it very easy to move money around inside your budget. That having been said, you need to be aware that the current version of YNAB is not a desktop application but a web-based app. YNAB 4, the old desktop version which we have been using, is officially unsupported as of the end of 2016. However, I see that it is still available for sale, if you are interested in it, the YNAB4 help site is still up, and the mobile app you would need to work with it on your phone (called YNAB Classic) is still in the app store.
"Profitability is not magical. It's not a mystical thing that requires a 4 or 8 year degree in business to understand.  Twitter will never make money. You cannot make money with Social Media. All of the steps necessary to make social media profitable are the same steps which will drive your users to other platforms that remain free.  Twitter is already losing users to a new software called ""Mastodon"" which is not controlled by any single corporation, it's open source and anyone can operate their own federated server. It allows much larger 'posts' which enables people to have actual, valuable conversations on it, instead of brain-vomiting.  Twitter's largest mistake is probably their reluctance to abandon the 140 character limit 3 or 4 years ago when they should have. But it's too late now. It would take a miracle to save them.  Social Media as a marketplace is saturated. there's 4 or 5 sites you've heard of and 5000 you haven't and they're all free. How can anyone make money in that market? You can't.  And if all of the social media sites suddenly became subscription based, users would stop using them, they'd set up their own blogs using services like Wordpress.com or self-hosting them with software like WordPress.org or Ghost, and they'd use free open source software based on protocols like RSS or ATOM which have been around for a very long time to achieve the same sort of ""Friends and follower"" networks that Social Media giants want you to believe require their service.  Social Media has always been a bad business model, and it will always be a bad business model. Facebook has only found success because of their puppet companies and side-projects, the social media part of their business remains unprofitable."
level 1 is very challenging. The work itself is not confusing or anything, it is just a lot of volume of information to memorize, most of which is available within a few seconds on google, which is why I don't think it is really necessary to memorize that much data.
Hmm... I don't understand how big of an impact that would have in the long run. In the short-run, I can see it being an issue due to price-inflation.   But long-term, wouldn't the market adjust accordingly? If the prices are raised beyond the individual households' disposable income, people will simply find alternative products.   I guess it would be a terrible thing if they controlled something that is necessary to us. But if that happens, I imagine a revolution will start.   What incentives do the large companies have in doing this?
Don't get me started about the law.  I'm a lawyer and the business model is a mess.  You'll hear about massive unemployment with lawyers.  This is because lawyers are exempt from overtime.  Firms slave associates for 70-100 weeks for years.  No weekends, no holidays.  Most associates make less per hour than their secretaries.  Then they fire associates instead of making them partners and hire new associates desperate for a job.  I know lawyers are hated, but please have some sympathy for associates who work 10-12 hour days and get paid less per hour than the staff.  Happened to me.  There are two necessary reforms.  One is to allow ownership of law firms by non-lawyers.  This has happened in the UK.  If Costco or other companies could have law firms, it would kill the greedy partner aspect and make legal work accessible to many more people.  I'm 100% in favor.  I'll happily take a lower wage and serve more people.  Everyone should be able to afford a lawyer.  The other necessary reform is making *anyone* who isn't an owner entitled to 40 hour work weeks and overtime.  If you own your own business and want to put in 90 hours, fine.  But you should not be able to force an exempt employee to work 90 hours unless that employee is an owner.    Those are entirely fair and reasonable and would transform the profession into what it should be.  I've since started teaching.  It doesn't pay as well, but at least I don't have to ram down a Christmas dinner and then go into the office.  Or spend a Fourth of July on top of the parking structure to see a few fireworks before going back in to work more.
A bank is unlikely to provide a 'command line' interface because typical users consider a graphical interface easier to use than a command line interface. The extra effort in providing a command line interface for the remaining handful of people isn't worth it. It's the same reason that everything else in the world has a point and click interface. Command line-like features, such as easy repetition and keystroke shortcuts are also unlikely to implemented for the same reasons. They are hard to implement in a web interface, and most people aren't interested in them. Most people have only a few accounts and don't need to download multiple files on a frequent basis. They do typically provide link shortcuts to commonly used features. However all online banking works by implementing the HTTP protocol in some way. You should be able to deduce the HTTP transactions necessary to get the information you want, and implement your own 'command-line'style' interface, or any other interface you want. That won't be easy, especially since you will almost certainly have to implement the security protocols too, but it should be possible.
The most important thing to do when moving is to change your address with the post office. This will forward most mail for a year, and even automatically send change of address notices to many businesses that send mail to you. If you do this, and the IRS needs to send you something over the next year, you'll get it.  The IRS does have a procedure for changing your address, and you would want to do this if you are expecting something from the IRS and are unable to do a change of address with the post office for some reason. But if you do forward your mail and you aren't expecting a refund check, I don't think it is necessary. The IRS will get your new address when you file your return next year.
"&gt;(a) people who choose not to work, in which case they have no business receiving anything but basic food and shelter from society,  But currently they don't even receive that.  The actual effect of the lack of housing/food and basic-income programs is that the living wage, the minimum necessary wage necessary to make it *worth working*, is much higher than we need it to be if we really want to ""compete"".  &gt;The only reason unemployment is so bad today is because America is losing many jobs to technology and globalization and not finding ways to compete and our work force can't handle many of the new jobs anyways.   The systematic transfer of wealth from labor to capital nowadays plays no part?  Come on!"
&gt;Well, first off, the roads are more than just hobbies. They really do go places. A lot of the roads in my area would be unprofitable, and people live down those roads. What happens when a company decides that road is too expensive to maintain but decides to keep ownership? The people have to move?  Yes, if people want to live out somewhere that is inefficient, other people who do not choose to live there shouldn't have to subsidize them. I say this having grown up 17 miles from the nearest town in a completely rural environment.  &gt;It doesn't have to, but it's unrealistic to expect that they won't take a profit from it. but do you really think that if a company has a monopoly, they're going to charge you the bare minimum they can? If you have no choice but to pay tolls or for driving passes for certain cities, and you can only get them from a single company, what motivation does that company have to keep them affordable and readily available? They're going to do like any company would and find that point of maximum profitability between cost of permit and number of permits.  Is this not a similar situation we currently have with electricity, trash, and various other pieces of our infrastructure? People are not being gouged because there is some level of regulation, which is necessary for a functional society. I'm not necessarily advocating a completely free market as monopolies are dangerous, I just think the government's role is to big.  &gt;Then there's the whole reality that you will STILL pay for roads you don't use. If one company owns multiple roads, they're going to charge you enough money to expand roads, to fix up other dilapidated roads, etc. More profitable roads will be used to offset less profitable roads, etc. Basically, if there's a new neighborhood, and they build a road to it... if you've been paying that company, they're using your money to build that road.  Not really. I'm paying to use a certain stretch of road right now. What the company chooses to do with that money is their issue.
Because we don't let people with any kind of chronic disorder into the military, especially one that requires constant medication.  So no asthma, diabetes, etc.   It's an unacceptable risk if that person is cut off from the supply lines or captured and unable to get medication.   In the army you might be expected to survive in the field for extended durations.  It's a good idea to exclude people for the sake of combat readiness.    That's why we have an army in the first place.  To be combat ready.   But again, I'm sure you would circlejerk about how evil a decision it is, because you no longer think critically about things and you have fully internalized the propaganda.  To the point where you don't even think it's necessary to justify or explain it, you seem to think that it speaks for itself.
e.g. page 32: http://www.econ.puc-rio.br/pdf/seminario/2003/manacorda.pdf &gt;&gt;Taking together the evidence so far presented, it appears that the data are consistent with a model where the returns from child labor do not accrue to the parents. Parents redistribute entirely these returns to their children in the form of lower labor supply and higher schooling (plus possibly increased consumption). 47 Laws against child labor therefore will generally do more harm than good. &gt;What's the solution here? The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. &gt;This is typical anti-union propaganda, and it's funny you pull it out since it ignores your own ideology. What interest would a union have in destroying the very industry it needs to exist? Answer: none. A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. &gt;I have no idea how one could come to this conclusion. I can only assume it stems from the same old idea that employers are always paying out the most that they can afford. Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. &gt;I happen to have first-hand knowledge that it's false however - when my workplace unionized recently, one of around a dozen locations nationally and the only one to organize, the company responded by increasing wages and benefits to all locations. Have any locations closed? No. Has anyone been laid off? No. Is the company still mad profitable? Yes.
The calculations you suggest have some issues, but I think they are not necessary to answer the question: It sounds like you are buying the house either way. So the question really is simply whether to pay toward your house first or your loan first.  In that case, the answer is simple: pay whichever has the highest interest rate first.  Make the minimum payment on the other until the first is paid off.  Remember this and make it your mantra for the rest of your life.  If you have any debts (such as credit cards) that charge a rate higher than the two options you have presented, do them first. Now, be careful as you compute the interest rates.  Most likely you can deduct interest on your mortgage, so its effective interest rate is lower [it is (1-T)*R instead of R, where T is your marginal tax rate]. For a while, the cost of mortgage insurance will make your effective mortgage rate artificially high, but it sounds like you intend to get to that 20% hurdle pretty fast, so my guess is that this is not a big factor. Congratulations on your bonus and good luck with your new home.
IT *IS* a cost center.   Investing in improving the operation a cost center to increase it's efficiency and reduce its overhead does not magically make it into not being a cost center.   IT will never make Home Depot or Lowes profit because they don't sell IT. It is a cost center.   http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cost-center.asp  If you want to get into pedantics, this is why Amazon is eating the world - they figured out how to take their largest cost centers (their retail IT operations and Logistics operations) and actually turn them into profit centers (Amazon AWS and Fulfilled by Amazon). As a result, Amazon actually does not HAVE many cost centers anymore.... they may have crappy margins, but when you eliminate cost centers outright, it will have dramatic results over time.  It is hard however to imagine Home Depot or Lowes figuring out a way to replicate this.
I beg to differ: Israel has an incredibly well managed central bank, and the usury market is wonderfully competitive.  It's a shame Stanley Fischer has retired.  His management is the case study in central bank management. Rates are low because inflation is low.  The nominal rate is irrelevant to return because a 2% nominal return with 1% inflation is superior to a 5% nominal return with 9% inflation. A well-funded budget is the best first step, so now a tweak is necessary: excess capital beyond budgeting should be moved quickly to internationally diversified equities after funding, discounted and adjusted, longer term budgets. Credit will not pay the rate necessary for long term investment.  Higher variance is the price to pay for higher returns.
Look I agree with you in theory.   In practice, it is quite different.   The fact that there is way more educated people than is even remotely necessary. The extreme vast majority of jobs out there DO NOT even require actual ability to get a diploma, let alone a degree.   Think about your daily life: with whom do you actually deal with that requires much of an education? Few people are going to pay more to their barista, retail sales or car detailer because they have an advanced degree.    Everybody having a college degree drives the value down for everybody...which is exactly what is happening.    Things need to be turned on their head. I propose that Colleges need to receive their income as a percentage of the first 10-15 years of income from their students.  It will cut down on bogus baloney degrees, concentrate on valuable students (even those with questionable academics like Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison) and concentrate on degrees with high future value.   However, when you get 2500 applications for a lower-end job, I would immediately take it down to those with a degree because it's easy and nobody will second guess you.
If they screw up and start asking for above necessary stuff or pick a developer who wastes their money, etc. They are going to lose ""business"", they will stop getting donations, lose profit, etc. However, the government doesn't have that. Why? Because their revenue/donations aren't voluntary. There really isn't accountability, especially in bureaucracy. To the exchange/stock problem: I would say that exchanges are private businesses too. They should have full reign on whether they allow trades. If they believe that there is an unnecessary selloff because of a fake tweet saying that President has been shot, they can stop that. If fact, it would be in there best interest to do so because it could limit unnecessary investor losses. It is unfortunate that the whole world is covered with governments. I wish there was another Western Hemisphere to populate and try new ways with. However, I would say that there is a clear shift away from government is society. A few examples, the driverless car. Elderly people and people who are disabled will be able to rely on the government less for transportation. Additionally, assuming everyone will eventually have a driverless car, there will be much less demand for traffic cops/ambulances/etc. Cryptocurrency/Noncash: As there are now more and more businesses that stop accepting cash (mainly starting with change), there will naturally be less robbers, because there is no money to steal (you could make the argument that there will be an increase in cyber theft, which I agree but not on a 1:1 ratio of the decrease in physical robberies), this decrease will help also lessen the demand for police officers. Package delivery: If it wasn't for the post office monopolizing their ability to deliver letters and using mailboxes, they would have gone broke a long time ago. Imagine Amazon, DHL, UPS, Fedex, etc all competing to deliver you letter. I'm assuming that it would be less than the cost of a current stamp and with a lot more assurance that it will actually get to its destination. Those are just a few examples"
You are going off on some tangents here. Yes, I agree, doctors and economists have different jobs and those skills won't transfer over necessarily.   What I do disagree with is your claim economists simply can not grasp why American healthcare is so much more expensive. You gave a reason that has already been well studied and accounted for by economists. Having a patient die on a table I'm sure is very emotional. I don't believe it is necessary for someone to experience to properly research why American healthcare is so expensive.
(If you find yourself needing to tap into your savings on a regular basis, adjust your budget accordingly.) Figure out based on your projected expenses and income how much you can reasonably set aside and not touch. It's impossible for us to say exactly how much this will be. Some people have trouble setting aside 5% of their income on a regular basis without touching it; others easily manage to save over 50% of their income. Don't worry if this turns out a small amount at first. Get in touch with your bank and set up an automatic transfer from your transaction account to the savings account, set to recur each and every time you get paid (you may want to allow a day or two of margin to ensure that the money has arrived in your account before it gets taken out), of the amount you determined that you can save on a regular basis. Then, try to forget that this money ever makes it into your finances. This is often referred to as the ""pay yourself first"" principle. You won't hit your budget exactly every month. Nobody does. In fact, it's more likely that no month will have you hit the budget exactly. Try to stay under your budgeted expenses, and when you get your next pay, unless you have a large bill coming up soon, transfer whatever remains into your savings account. Spend some time at the end of each month looking back at how well you managed to match your budget, and make any necessary adjustments. If you do this regularly, it won't take very long, and it will greatly increase the value of the budget you have made. Should I use credit cards for spending to reap benefits? Only if you would have made those purchases anyway, and have the money on hand to pay the bill in full when it comes due. Using credit cards to pay for things is a great convenience in many cases. Using credit cards to pay for things that you couldn't pay for using cash instead, is a recipe for financial disaster. People have also mentioned investment accounts, brokerage accounts, etc. This is good to have in mind, but in my opinion, the exact ""savings vehicle"" (type of place where you put the money) is a lot less important than getting into the habit of saving regularly and not touching that money.
what he is claiming is that it would be cheaper on the city to have a bucket collector, like some toll roads have.  Of course he isnt providing any evidence, it just fits his preconceived notions that the worker sucked and that a bucket will be cheaper.  and while a bucket doesnt have overtime pay, much less any pay, it doesnt catch people cheating, or breaking in, and  it probably has a much much much higher installation costs. I dont have the numbers and not going to try to claim that a human is cheaper and better. But you shouldnt just agree with dkinmn because it feels right. You have to actually secure them baskets, add electronics to them.. etc. It isnt cheap as putting a bucket out there and hoping no one takes the money.