vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I disagree with most of the answers here so far because they are either too risky or too conservative and don't take taxes and retirement into consideration. OP, keep in mind the higher the potential return, the greater the risk. You haven't stated your risk tolerance, but consider the following: Pick a certain percentage of your $10k to invest for the long term. Pick a low-cost index fund like the S&P500 Index. Historically this investment does well in the long run, and it gets you started in investing. Keep the balance, the money you will need for the short term, right where it is not earning much interest. Have you started saving for retirement? Consider starting a Roth IRA (if you are in the USA) with some of the money for tax advantages. It's up to you to decide how much you should invest and how much you need to keep on hand for emergencies or short-term needs. There are plenty related questions on this forum you can browse.
"So you are off to a really good start. Congratulations on being debt free and having a nice income. Being an IT contractor can be financially rewarding, but also have some risks to it much like investing. With your disposable income I would not shy away from investing in further training through sites like PluralSite or CodeSchool to improve weak skills. They are not terribly expensive for a person in your situation. If you were loaded down with debt and payments, the story would be different. Having an emergency fund will help you be a good IT contractor as it adds stability to your life. I would keep £10K or so in a boring savings account. Think of it not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. Having such a fund allows you to go after a high paying job you might fail at, or invest with impunity. I would encourage you to take an intermediary step: Moving out on your own. I would encourage renting before buying even if it is just a room in someone else's home. I would try to be out of the house in less than 3 months. Being on your own helps you mature in ways that can only be accomplished by being on your own. It will also reduce the culture shock of buying your own home or entering into an adult relationship. I would put a minimum of £300/month in growth stock mutual funds. Keeping this around 15% of your income is a good metric. If available you may want to put this in tax favored retirement accounts. (Sorry but I am woefully ignorant of UK retirement savings). This becomes your retire at 60 fund. (Starting now, you can retire well before 68.) For now stick to an index fund, and once it gets to 25K, you may want to look to diversify. For the rest of your disposable income I'd invest in something safe and secure. The amount of your disposable income will change, presumably, as you will have additional expenses for rent and food. This will become your buy a house fund. This is something that should be safe and secure. Something like a bond fund, money market, dividend producing stocks, or preferred stocks.
So the key factor here, IMHO, is the amount we are talking about.  $2K is just not a lot of money.  If you lose every penny, you can recover.  On the other hand it is unlikely to make you wealthy.  So if I was you I would buy in, more for the fun of it all. Now if it was a large amount of money that we were talking about it would be about a percentage of my net worth.  For example, lets say the minimum was 20K, and you really believed in the company.  If I had a net worth of less than 200K, I would not do it.  If I had a larger net worth, I would consider it unless I was near retirement. So if I was 30, hand a net worth of 300K, I would probably invest as even if I did lose it all, I could recover.    Having said all that it does not sound like you completely agree that the company will be profitable.  So in that case, don't buy. Also, I have the opportunity to buy my own company's stock at a discount.  However, I do not for two reasons.  The first is I don't like investing in the company I work for.  Secondly, they require you to hold the stock for a year.
But I'm not choosing to forgo negotiating on my own. Someone else with ties to the listings is giving special access to my negotiations. Given access I can't get.  I'd rather negotiate on my own, usually adding someone in the middle of a conversation between 2 individuals is bad for everyone.  I'm not being given the option to negotiate on my own, I either take the artificially inflated rate or skip investing all together because I can't get the access that HFT's have, nor can I negotiate around them.
of course! Currently I am running a digital media company based in Bangkok, we produce a wide array of content, some for web distribution some that is targeted for traditional distribution. I also have equity in a number of tech startups around Asia, everything from e-commerce to smart home to big data. I also recently exited a quantified self company I had built with several co-founders.
I already commented the best existing answers, however let me note a couple of other things.  Some of my friends in the past have wanted to do one of the following:
Think of Ether (the units of Ethereum) as the gas that's required to power applications and transactions on a decentralized version of AWS.   If you foresee a future that involves an internet that runs applications without central ownership of the cloud servers, then investing in Ethereum is a good idea. Think of it as buying futures on computational power.  Keep in mind, Ethereum (unlike Bitcoin) isn't designed to be a long-term store of value. ~95 million Ether exist today and ~10 million more are mined each year. That being said, demand still seems to be greater than existing + new supply.   **Disclosure** - I hold a signifiant amount of my net worth in bitcoin with a much smaller position in Ethereum.
I will never advocate for being high at work. We can both agree on that front, my main point is that it is stupid to care what people do on their off time.   I can respect many of your arguments, but I just want to be clear I think smoking and driving is bad. What I think is acceptable is getting high on your own time in the privacy of your own home. Therefore in my mind it should have 0 impact on insurance of any kind, and employers shouldn't care what you do on your own time.   You're entitled to your opinion, and it is very clear that it differs from mine. I would just hope that in the future you don't use a broad brush and attack everyone that smokes weed
St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia March 23, 1775. MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House?
One thing you may want to consider if your budget is tight....do your own Escrow.  You have to be disciplined, but I don't see that as a problem for you.  Nice job on no car payment or student loans! The banks almost always screw up escrow, and you can keep your monthly savings payment exactly what they need to be.  Dump 610 in a savings account every month and you should be golden.   Here in Orange County, Florida taxes are due in April, you can get a discount of 1%/month if you pay early.  November is the first time you can pay it.  When you run your own escrow, as I do, I can pay when I want (at the end of November) and maximize my discount.  Now your situation may differ, but probably 110% (not based upon research) of escrow accounts are goofed up.
"And? What's the big deal? For the people who are upset about Netflix not having the Star Wars content, those are more than likely big fans of Star Wars, and said fans, if they consider themselves to big a big Star Wars fan, already own the old and most recent Star Wars movies. Watch, people are going to down vote my post, and it will be from those will most likely are a fan but don't own a copy of the movies or will say, ""Why should I have to buy them in order to watch them? I should be able to stream them whenever I want."" Think of the price of buying the movie, let's say $20. You can watch it over and over again. With watching it via stream, you'll have to pay between $15-$20 a month in order to watch it."
"Thank you very much for your humility- it serves you well in your obvious desire to maintain an intellectually correct position. I concede that you point out a generally bothersome and dishonest tactic in debate in which people ""move the goal posts"" in pursuit of ""winning"" an argument by shifting the subject of the argument itself. In this case, I'd hope you'd see that the person I was speaking with was so far in agreement with me (when held to the larger context of the discussion- consider the subreddit we are in) that my intent was not even to argue with them but to refine their own claim. The two of us weren't in any kind of disagreement, we simply hadn't agreed upon basic terminology."
"I started typing out a really lengthy response.  I think the better idea is to turn you towards this article at [Yale which discusses the use of fast breeder reactors.](http://e360.yale.edu/features/are_fast-breeder_reactors_a_nuclear_power_panacea)  In short, FBRs (several designs exist today) can consume most of the fuel put into them.  Further, they can consume a lot of the waste that already exists.  In effect, we can use existing stockpiles of ""waste"" as fuel.  I put ""waste"" in quotes because it becomes fuel and has value.  The economic and ecological value of this should be exciting!  Next-gen MSRs can potentially be even more effective.  Like current breeder reactors, they have the potential to be safer, operate at more desirable temperatures for thermal efficiency, and consume some of the products of existing reactors."
I'm on the other side! I was recently (just today) extended an informal offer from a team that's seeing some pretty big growth recently. I'm 6 months into my entry/mid level management position and I've been thinking about working in client-facing roles. The earning potential is greater, and I'm attracted by the prospect of being your own boss/reporting to your team instead of where I'm currently at, a cog in a giant corporate hierarchy. It's nice as I get to cruise sometimes when things are quiet, and I won't feel stuck in a neverending loop of prospecting and closing. Right now, I'm just a messenger - I figure a research position would be much the same.
"Appeal to Authority - Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.  As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.  That is what I've been getting at in my comments. You kept saying you have more experience so I brought up that I've actually studied economics. Then I immediately followed it up with that, despite my studies, that doesn't mean I'm right just like your experience doesn't mean you are correct. That was my whole point and why I brought it up. Experience or ""authority"" doesn't mean you are correct. It's like saying ""I'm older so I know better.""  But, you kept pressing forwards with ""I have more experience and more academics than you,"" and even calling me kiddo despite not knowing my age, so I went and grabbed a link to a consensus of 600 people who are considered experts in this field that disagreed with you. Each personal individually would trump your experience, let alone 600 of them collectively.  As far as my first source, it doesn't matter. I can go find more if you want. I stand by my claims because I've also seen it elsewhere. Sorry I didn't send you 10 links instead of just one, and now I'm in mobile so I can't easily discuss it.  As far as your source that discusses academic leanings, I'm intrigued with its findings, because it appears to be reputable, and plan to look over it. I've personally said for awhile that when faced with new facts/evidence I'll consider it in regards with my position, and will change my position if the evidence appears to line up. I've done it before and I'm not so prideful to not do it again. Besides, that's what people should do instead of just digging their heels in because they don't like what they hear."
"I agree with you halfsies. Marketing yes, but to paraphrase Steve Jobs, marketing isn't how you get the word out, it's what you build to start with.   The vast majority of startups have ideas which could only be profitable in a universe other than our own.  In the real world, outside of venture capital, the people with these ideas would understand that, at best, they are only hobbies. Nobody would give them a loan. But venture capitalists will throw money at anything with chunky nerd glasses and an iPad, so they are ""enabled"". Then they waste years of their lives on things which should rightly have never lived to begin with.  It's desperately sad."
Some discussions don't need to be had.  I've had plenty of time to research and form my viewpoint.  I was in military intelligence, I am extremely interested in history and politics, and I am currently going to a school that many people consider to be pretty good.  I feel like I know the issues and the events pretty darn well, although I am always learning something new. I have come to an opinion on the matter that is my own.  Im happy to live in a society where others can have very differing positions.  However, you came across as pretty hostile in your reply, so I have no interest in talking with you about it.
"I think you have to go back to [this HBR article](https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity) to really understand: TLDR: Buybacks boost CEO pay and hurt the long term value of companies. But I'm not convinced that they're ""the root of inequality"" ""Consider the 449 companies in the S&amp;P 500 index that were publicly listed from 2003 through 2012. During that period those companies used 54% of their earnings—a total of $2.4 trillion—to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. Dividends absorbed an additional 37% of their earnings. That left very little for investments in productive capabilities or higher incomes for employees."" ""Why are such massive resources being devoted to stock repurchases? Corporate executives give several reasons, which I will discuss later. But none of them has close to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority of their pay, and in the short term buybacks drive up stock prices. "" ""Trillions of dollars that could have been spent on innovation and job creation in the U.S. economy over the past three decades have instead been used to buy back shares for what is effectively stock-price manipulation."" "" Most are now done on the open market, and my research shows that they often come at the expense of investment in productive capabilities and, consequently, aren’t great for long-term shareholders."" ""Research by the Academic-Industry Research Network, a nonprofit I cofounded and lead, shows that companies that do buybacks never resell the shares at higher prices."" ""Many academics have warned that if U.S. companies don’t start investing much more in research and manufacturing capabilities, they cannot expect to remain competitive in a range of advanced technology industries. "" Specific examples: ""Pharmaceutical drugs.
They have data on their own CURRENT inventory- but if they had in theatre data set? They could do a number checks and references that'd be WELL worth the investment.   For example: They couldCross compare audience viewing for statistically meaningful overlap for particular genres and movie types.  I.e. We see that big grosses for horror movies don't actually align with our viewer's habits, so despite the studio playing up that metric as a success factor, we instead won't pursue adding more horror films to our library.   That's just off the top of my head, but I beleive a valid counter to your argument you should consider.
I'm not looking to contradict a fact. I'm contradicting the view that the fact is bad. It's not. Investors need an incentive to keep investing, in the short and long term.  If, for example, pharma companies were to invest only in R&amp;D, which is a high risk, high reward, long term prospect, it'd be exposed to only one kind of risk which is open to a single risk-factor materialising, at which point the entire equity will be wiped off in one single sweep.  At the end of the day, all businesses have to create share holder value, in the short and long term. The only contemporary exceptions are StartUps like Amazon and Uber. And we know from Dotcom Bust, Yahoo, etc that this is hardly a tenable strategy.
I second this. You should be able to keep them in place. As far as I know, you can leave the HSA funds with the existing administrator indefinitely, unlike a 401k. I'm not certain of that rule, but I think that is accurate. It is possible the current administrator may include a maintenance fee or something, so watch it.  I left my employer 4 months ago and have kept my HSA with the same administrator. I don't recall hearing anything in the exit paperwork about a requirement to move, I haven't received anything in the mail telling me to move it, nor have any fees or other charges been implemented that would cause me to move.
This has been going on forever. Hardened battlefield laptops were made by a small startup; I saw a demo of a realtime digital chart that was created by a bunch of guys in an office park (I think that got bought by one of the big contractors)  And I'll wager there are a thousand startups creating military solutions with Raspberry Pi (both ultraportable and massive scaling)
"Thanks for disagreeing in a classy way. Seriously - as you can see, it's not that common!   Two points:   1. You wouldn't trade the (bad) experiences. People say that about being paralyzed. I said it about the douchebag ex-bf who stole my car. Doesn't mean you would recommend people do it, right? In fact, you'd probably steer them away from it. That's why I write what I write.   2. ""do something big, or fast, or perhaps manufacture something… these types of business need outside funding""  I don't disagree with you there, in principle. But the vast majority of startups who want to ""do something big, or fast"" are in fact not businesses. All the big high-growth startups are losing money -- pretty much EXCEPT Facebook. Groupon, Salesforce, LinkedIn, Angie's List, Yelp, Twitter… these are not profitable years later, they are not businesses, they are the essence of gambling.  It's just another part of the con.   Some of them have or will go public, spreading their lack of profitability around the stock market… just like a package of sliced up bad mortgages. Others will get sold to a bigco who bought them for some OTHER reason, but not because they are a profitable, smart business. And the rest will shutter.  It's part of the con."
I have been torn on college in it's entirety for the last couple of years. When you consider how many successful business men and women, who never finished college, the stories of experience beating out education in hiring, and the amount of debt stress you carry for basically your entire life...  I am just not sure people should even bother at this point.   My girlfriend right now has sooo much debt it weighs on her constantly. I had never seen the weight of that debt on someone so personally until recently.
Build skills to harvest and analyze data and you are ahead of the curve.  I picked my majors in college to get into algorithmic investing then I realized I didn't want to work in such a cut throat industry.  Now I work in health care.
Haha, I bet. I think sometimes people in upper echelons of their fields assume they can understand others just as well while forgetting that the whole base layer of fundamentals that took to get there. Definitely a human problem, as we all tend to fall into that trap on occasion.  I'm a CPA so I have no intention doing the CFA, which came with its own set of misery. I just follow finance as a side interest. I definitely fall on the side of conservative when it comes to investing. When I see Tesla, red flags go up. It might pay off later, but it's not for me.    I actually just switched industries myself, went from a  manufacturing environment to a client based one focused on start ups. In another year or so I'll move on to another industry to plug in more gaps in my knowledge base. Depends on where the economy is at that point.
Instead of purchasing computing power from an existing company, they created their own. Got so good at it they began offering their services to other companies. Same strategy being applied here I predict. Start building shipping capacity for themselves then begin offering those services to other companies when they excel at it.