vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt;so I am unsure of whether or not re-selling other supplier’s inventory without their consent is legal  You shouldn't wait to find out after you start making sales.  &gt;Is using generic names for sale a workaround for selling inventory without their consent?  That sounds like an issue concerning skirting around unauthorized resale of merchandise issues.  If you're concerned that buying a company's product from a Canadian distributor might not be authorized for resale in the United States, you should first ask the reseller and then ask the Company if not provided with a satisfactory answer. *Not* getting that answer beforehand could be disastrous.  Generally speaking however, let's assume you've got your logistics figured out. You need to find a specialized need in the market that bigger suppliers can't meet. If Staples is selling bulk plain/recyclable paper to get people in the door—you're never going to compete with them. You have to look for areas where companies like that can't compete. For example, a Martin Luther King Jr. Day themed line of stationary would be something you'd never find at Staples, but some people would buy in a heart beat. The trick is to find the *biggest* types of these ignored segments of buyers not addressed by larger players—and start inching your way into the market.   First step is to find your niche(s) and supply. This will probably be a balancing act, in that many suppliers will could give you good rates but not have the products you need. The second step, if you're selling online, is to develop effective digital marketing strategy to target your niche's keywords.
No but from what I remember, they didn't label this pink slim at all when they sold it.  The example I gave is from a recent one as from what I remember about this, they were tossing meat in a dryer with ammonia to break down scraps to re-purpose later.  They weren't required to label anything they sold as what they did and it was misleading to consumers and many people wouldn't approve of the process they used to obtain the meat.  It's a lot like meat products bought in the US and being labeled as US products but the cattle is killed in the US, shipped to China for processing then back to the US for labeling and resale.
The article doesn’t show Obama targeting big cable specifically (at least in the parts that I can read, as the rest requires an account).  Secondly, I have been personally involved in this expansion of high speed to schools, which I know from vast personal experience need the speed badly.  Some have had only 1.5Mb/s to feed a school of 100 students.  Now the main internet companies out in our rural areas are getting competition because of these subsidies, by providers who are wliking to do the work to get high speed internet to these more remote location.  I happen to be on the front lines of this situation, actually.  What this is doing for the schools is rather amazing and sorely needed.  What it has done for competition in my area at least was also sorely needed.  So . . . I’m not really seeing the same issue from This particular subsidy.
"Based on the updated information  ""I'm able to get my health insurance in full from my old job which is   why still have it(ABC). Anthem Blue cross only costs me about 15   dollars a month. At my new job I work full time so I took up the   healthcare because eventually I will more than likely get rid of my   old one(or loose it)."" There are a couple of issues:  The old company will no longer be paying for the ABC policy, you will have to cover the entire cost. The cost could be significantly m ore than $15 a month. One will be primary and one will be secondary. You will have to tell them about each other. How they will interact when one is a percentage and the other a copay will have to be investigated. Look back at all your procedures from last year, and ask how they would cover them. You will also need to see if your doctors and specialists are in both networks. This could create situations where the 2nd policy provides no coverage because you went out of their network. You could also require multiple referrals."
I understand the concepts behind the different weighting methods, but what I’m wondering is why a company CHOOSES a specific weighting method. For example, what exactly was being looked at when the decision was made to make the DJIA price-weighted instead of market cap-weighted? Why does a manager decide to use free-floating methodology over price-weighting? I just don’t understand why there’s no uniformity.  Apologies as I may have not worded my question properly.
"Well I disagree with the economists who claim Bitcoin can't (or wouldn't) be a currency.  As far as I'm concerned, Bitcoin is the best-established digital ""unit of account"", and in the event of a Dollar/Euro crisis you are likely to see some entrepreneurs figure out ways to speed its adoption.  I don't own any Bitcoin now, and I wouldn't put more than 15% of my total portfolio in it, simply because it's not possible to predict if something like that would catch on.  But I own a ton of silver (about 20% of which is physical and the other 80% is via Sprott's ETF).  I also don't own physical gold, but I own a lot of Swiss Francs, which in my view are a good proxy for gold and a safe haven given the fact Switzerland owns so much gold-per-capita.  You get the benefits of gold AND a captive, skilled tax-livestock.  Soros indicated recently he thinks the Euro won't last much longer than a few months.  I'm always amazed by how the elite can push things off, though.  So I hold about 50% of my savings as cash USD.  In the event of market turmoil (you'll know it when you see it, like 2008) you can use this to scoop up some cheap stocks and gold/silver coins.  Don't beat yourself up over missing opportunities, though.  The main thing is just to steer clear of government bonds and the stock market.  If you do that, you're going to come out in the top 20% over the next few years."
"From the article: ""Because of complicated legal and financial constraints I (Abigail) am unable to withdraw my investment at this time...""  BECAUSE:  ""*I still gonna make money off this cause it's HARD to separate this asset from my overloaded portfolio...stocks go up in value and then Yaaaa! Bonanza down the road WITH THE HIGHER STOCK VALUE... but hey, I still love those little snot-nosed children and the scrappy puppies they chase around in my park - yeah, my park as their deadbeat parents don't pay any taxes - of course I don't either, but my accountants can explain all my write-offs every year that gives me a ""No tax due"" notice and usually a refund!""*"
"Wouldn't this be part of your investing strategy to know what price is considered a ""good"" price for the stock?  If you are going to invest in company ABC, shouldn't you have some idea of whether the stock price of $30, $60, or $100 is the bargain price you want?  I'd consider this part of the due diligence if you are picking individual stocks.  Mutual funds can be a bit different in automatically doing fractional shares and not quite as easy to analyze as a company's financials in a sense. I'm more concerned with the fact that you don't seem to have a good idea of what the price is that you are willing to buy the stock so that you take advantage of the volatility of the market. ETFs would be similar to mutual funds in some ways though I'd probably consider the question that may be worth considering here is how much do you want to optimize the price you pay versus adding $x to your position each time.  I'd probably consider estimating a ballpark and then setting the limit price somewhere within that.  I wouldn't necessarily set it to the maximum price you'd be willing to pay unless you are trying to ride a ""hot"" ETF using some kind of momentum strategy.  The downside of a momentum strategy is that it can take a while to work out the kinks and I don't use one though I do remember a columnist from MSN Money that did that kind of trading regularly."
"Makes total sense. My main concern is what the worldwide speech monopolies (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Reddit) do with their power. I'm not concerned with the likes of Krispy Kreme. I am concerned when there are no alternatives and no competition (monopoly). The speech companies decide what gets seen and who can speak and they're often of the same political bent because they have similar (global) aims...meaning they don't care about the first amendment as long as they make $$ and satisfy the demands of bullies.   If some blue-haired twenty something (or some bot) decides they don't like one of my sentences, they can effectively exercise their power and cut me off from the entire world to some non-insignificant extent for life. Sure you could jump to some ""thriving"" platform (that doesn't exist) and talk to a handful of people, but that's quite the restriction considering you previously had access to millions of voices with Twitter.   YouTube trending is a good exercise in how brainwashing works. It's the same people every time with their banal opinions. Colbert and Seth Myers and preteens. Colbert is actually famous, so I get why he's trending somewhat...but daily? And Seth Myers? Do people even watch his show or does someone at Google simply want us to see his humourless rants every single day? I'd bet on the latter."
You’ll find home owners calling the experts for this project as they want to sell the property. In this situation, hiring project management Sydney experts and getting renovation done gives a handsome boost to the property’s resale value and find most of the project management Sydney companies offering the service called restoration.
The drive is on to make the minimum wage $15/hr.  I am concerned that we shouldn't set our standards so low and allow company's like Walmart to normalize low wages. In 1981 when I got out of high school, my first real job before college paid me $8.00/hr which is inflation adjusted to $21.44/hr today.
"In my opinion, you're in a precious metals ""bubble"" when rising prices are driven by the people's desire the own the commodity without a reason other than ""the market is going up"". Usually ""bubble"" markets are fueled by lots of debt. IMO, this isn't a bubble. I don't think that silver and gold values are shooting up like a rocket due to some orgy of speculation.  In my opinion, citizens are losing faith in the government and in the value of money itself. If you have money to save, most banks pay less than 1%. The government claims that inflation is nonexistant -- the inflation rate on a US Series I Savings Bond was 0.37% in November 2010. Yet most people are noticing escalations in price in things that dominate their budget -- fuel, healthcare, local taxes and food. I bought a pound of store-brand butter for $3.99 yesterday... that was $0.99 4-5 years ago.  People are seeing precious metals as a way to hedge against that. They're rational about it -- trying to protect assets is different than speculation. I think the question to ask is: ""Is the US Dollar's value a bubble?"""
You’re right.  I guess the point I’m trying to make is not that Democrats and Republicans are not the same, but rather that neither party really cares to question the deep-rooted corruption of our system in any fundamental or meaningful way.
"A lease is a rental plain and simple.  You borrow money to finance the expected depreciation over the course of the lease term.  This arrangement will almost always cost more over time of your ""ownership.""  That does not mean that a lease is always a worse ""deal.""   Cars are almost always a losing proposition; save for the oddball Porsche or Ferrari that is too scarce relative to demand.  You accept ownership of a car and it starts to lose value.  New cars lose value faster than used cars.  Typically, if you were to purchase the car, then sell it after 3 years, the total cost over those three years will work out to less total money than the equivalent 36 month lease.  But, you will have to come up with a lot more money down, or a higher monthly payment, and/or sell the car after 36 months (assuming the pretty standard 36 month lease).  With this in mind, some cars lease better than others because the projected depreciation is more favorable than other brands or models.   Personally, I bought a slightly used car certified pre-owned with a agreeable factory warranty extension.  My next car I may lease.  Late model cars are getting so unbelievably expensive to maintain that more and more I feel like a long term rental has merit. Just understand that for the convenience, for the freeing up of your cash flow, for the unlikelihood of maintenance, to not bother with resale or trading the car in, a lease will cost a premium over a purchase over the same time frame."
"The entire time you've talked about cost. Changing incomes matters little if the cost scales with it. Me thinks you don't understand how a market works, even a semi-planned one. If more people make more money, the price of most goods goes up. This isn't due to real actual demand, its due to something called inflation. When the amount of money in circulation increases, we have inflation. Lets say I make 35k a year as a store clerk. Is my labor being undervalued compared to the income of a store clerk in the past? Or is the price of goods scaling faster than my income has scaled?  Simply adding more money doesn't fix anything. The price of the good or service is what matters the most. While everyone having more money is good, you can't just magically give everyone more money without the cost of goods and services rising. I imagine that if everyone suddenly were at least a millionaire, the price of a laptop would sky rocket. The cost of the laptop in parts wouldn't be that much more, but since most people would have disposable income beyond their needs some goods would then get more expensive. Once that happens, the inflation of prices starts to spread until its effects are seen across the market.  I don't think the ""fruit of my labor"" is being stolen by the ""upper class"". If anything, the fruit of my labor gets taken more and more by my own government and transferred to the lower classes more and more. I'm not rich, not even close. But I know I've had at least 15k of my income in the last 5 years taken and distributed through taxes ON my income to people that are generally unable to earn enough on their own.  If these people are the upper class, then I must be Marie Antoinette!"
Remember this company is making a profit by collecting your personal data and you're not making a dime from this deal.  &gt;I don't get what the big fear of being marketed to is.   The fear isn't being marketed to, it's the loss of privacy that most people are concerned about.
Fair point that its historically been just as fucked up, lol.    But please, explain to me, since I'm a layman and maybe the disconnect is in my head, how the market going up and down in dramatic fashions due to speculative behavior by traders (of any kind) should have the power to decide the worth of thousands of companies going about their normal business.
Thank you for your feedback, I'd asked her all week about communicating to me a date of returning to work but at this point its costing me time and productivity. I cannot not help but feel I am being taken advantage of (because she knows she is killing it). I sent a message letting her know I'm seeking temp help and that if anything opens up in the future I will contact her. Currently on hold with local temp agency. Wanted to be concerned about being considerate but she is 10 years older than I and I couldn't ever image my boyfriend leaving as a reason for me missing a single day of work. Glad to be reassured I wasnt being insensitive.
I think part of the confusion is due to the age of the term and how money has changed over time relative to being backed by precious metals vs using central banks etc. Historically: Because historically the coin itself was precious metal, if a change occurred between the 'face value' of the coin and value of the precious metal itself, the holder of the coin was less affected since they have the precious metal already in hand. They could always trade it based on the metal value instead of the face value. OTOH if you buy a note worth an the current price of ounce of gold, and the price of gold goes up, and then the holder wants to redeem the note, they end up with less than an ounce of gold. In the more modern age  The main concern is the cost to borrow funds to put money into circulation, or the gain when it goes out of circulation.  The big difference between the two is that bills tend stay in circulation until they wear out, have to be bought back and replaced.  Coins on the other hand last longer, but have a tendency to drop out of circulation due to collectors (especially with 'collectible series' coins that the mint seems to love to issue lately).  This means that bills issued tend to stay in circulation, while only a percentage of coins stays in circulation.  So the net effect on the money supply is different for the two, and since modern 'seigniorage' is all about the cost to put money in circulation, it is different in the case of coins where some percentage will not remain circulating.
If you are concerned about it being inequitable due to the prenuptial agreement, discuss the idea of amending the prenuptial agreement to give you some consideration for your investments in the house. Prenuptial agreements often get amended over the course of a marriage.  How do you proceed? It has to start with discussion. It's not an unreasonable concern given your legal separation of assets, so broach the subject and go from there. Perhaps you'll find there's a good reason for you to invest in the property even without having interest in it, who knows.
"I think there's value in charging family members/friends interest if it will make them take the loan seriously.  The problem is that if you're thinking about charging interest because the person seems to be borrowing from you too cavalierly, it may be too late to make them take it seriously. In the situation you describe, if you're concerned about the loans being paid back, I think you need to have a serious conversation with the kids and make it clear you expect them to pay the loans back on whatever schedule you agreed to.  If, based on your knowledge of your kids, you think charging interest would help motivate them to do this, great.  If not, charging interest is unlikely to accomplish anything that the conversation itself won't accomplish.  If you haven't previously outlined a specific schedule or set of expectations for how you want to be paid back, just doing that (in writing) may be enough to make them realize it's not a joke. The conventional wisdom is that you shouldn't lend money to anyone unless you're either a) okay with never being paid back; or b) willing to pursue legal remedies to ensure you're paid back.  Most people aren't willing to sue their own family members over small loans, which means in most cases it's not a good idea to loan money to family unless you're ""okay with"" never being repaid (whatever level of ""okay with"" makes sense for you). I should note that I don't have kids; my advice here is just how I would handle it if I were considering loaning money to my brother or a close friend or the like.  This means I don't really know anything about ""teaching the kids about the real world"", but I have to say my hunch is that if your kids are 25+ and married, it's too late to radically change their views on how ""the real world"" works; unless they had a very sheltered early adulthood, they've been living in the real world for too long and will have their own ideas of how it works."
Nop&gt;So? That means he should be dirt poor? No. Maybe he's been there for 30 years and got raises. Janitors do way more than clean toilets. My ex has a great government job in science 4 years of school. She does the same repetitive task that you can watch a YouTube video and be an expert. Way easier than being a janitor. She deserves to live good, a janitor doesn't?   There are so many I'll thought out things in your post.   First off fucking get it through your head that middle is middle. That means that there will always be lower and upper, with the lower being worse off and the upper being better off.  Maybe what you want is a higher standard of living across the board, starting with the lower class. Actually I agree esp starting with healthcare. However, higher standard of living won't make the lower class equal to the middle class.  I am sorry your ex's job can be outsourced to a robot and there is no need to be outraged this will happen soon. If not then it actually requires a skill or a thought that she trained for and your argument is invalid.  I am not sure why you think longevity at a skill-less job should be rewarded. Or should we fire all the old janitors and higher young ones so we pay for the job performed and not some longevity bulshit?  I am not sure WTF you think someone who spent time acquiring knowledge and a skill necessary for their job should be paid the same as one who didn't learn anything and works a job that doesn't require any skills. Even communism wasn't that delusional...  Finally the janitor does deserve to live comfortably, your ex possibly deserves to live well and you need to improve your English.
I'm speaking of the investment I'm making in my own skills and work ethic, which would still be extremely valuable even if I was a terrible person who didn't give a shit about anyone else.  That said, where I've worked, no one is getting locked in the building at night or threatened (although one of my employers did try to pay me under the table one time). My experience with organized labor in my workplaces has been that the leaders whine about having to do stuff that is actually part of their job and don't actually provide much of a benefit to the workers.   I'm not saying this is true for all employers - organized labor is obviously an important check on employers that abuse their employees. But in my experience, having an organized workforce is not a universal positive. Rather, its value depends on the leadership of the union and whether the working conditions are actually abusive to begin with.
"I was in a similar situation about a year ago, and the expedient thing to do would be to remove your grandfather from the Title.  He would probably have to agree with this, but I think he will if you approach it correctly. In my case, I was the cosigner for my son's car loan and was told by the dealer that I ""had to be on the title"".  This is not true as far as Virginia is concerned (Illinois may be different).  I know this because when my son dropped his auto insurance I got the fine for having an uninsured vehicle and was told during the hearing that the dealer was mistaken. It all worked out in the end, but all we had to do was go down to the DMV and get my name taken off of the title. I'm sure if you approach it this way - you do not want him to be responsible for things that you do (who would get sued if you caused an accident?) he would agree to have his name removed from the title."
Yes, and now I'M the person who is drowning the public in debt due to my incompetence! You should see the size of my novelty check I got to bail me out. It's almost as big as my penis.  By the way, my penis can also see the future.
This. People say on Reddit pretty often 'Oh, you should buy a new fridge to save your electric bill'. Meanwhile, old fridges are built like tanks. You will never make up the cost of electricity when you factor in longevity and cost to purchase a new fridge, and I'm sure the manufacturing process and pollution from making a new fridge is worse then continuing to use a functioning one. The same holds true for other appliances as well.