vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The problem with this story is it's basically saying run your business like betting on the lotto.  Just because there's anecdotal evidence that a ""Bob"" *MIGHT* grace your company doesn't mean you should sell the company trying to please every customer.   For every one company that bumps into a ""Bob"" there are thousands who helping those disgruntled customers drive the business into the ground.  This is not to say that companies shouldn't try to go above and beyond.  It's just above and beyond should be controlled.  For example, if I were to own a restaurant and I see a customer drop food on the floor, I would enable my wait staff to clean it up and give free food as a replacement.  But I would also limit this.  If the customer starts THROWING FOOD AT THE STAFF, I would also enable the staff to kick the mother fucker out.  Sure the customer might be a ""Bob"" and come back later with 4 million dollars to give me, but I'd prefer my staff keep their fucking dignity."
While you may think, ""I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,"" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the ""sure thing"" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do."
A bit of poking around brought me to this thread on the Motley Fool, asking the same basic question: I think the problem is the stock price. For a stock to be sold short, it has to be marginable which means it has to trade over $ 5.00. The broker, therefore, can't borrow the stock for you to sell short because it isn't held in their clients' margin accounts. My guess is that Etrade, along with other brokers, simply exclude these stocks for short selling. Ivestopedia has an explanation of non-marginable securities. Specific to stocks under $5: Other securities, such as stocks with share prices under $5 or with extremely high betas, may be excluded at the discretion of the broker itself.
In short, thanks to the answers and comments posted so far. No actual money is magically disappeared when the stock price goes down but the value is lost. The value changes of a stock is similar to the value changes of a house. The following is the long answer I came up with based on the previous answers and comments alone with my own understandings. Any experts who find any of the following is 200% out of place and wrong, feel free to edit it or make comments. Everything below only applies if the following are true: The stock price is only decreasing since the IPO because the company has been spending the money but not making profits after the IPO. The devaluation of the stock is not the result of any bad news related to the company but a direct translation of the money the company has lost by spending on whatever the company is doing. The actual money don’t just disappear into the thin air when the stock price goes down. All the money involved in trading this stock has already distributed to the sellers of this stock before the price went down. There is no actual money that is literally disappeared, it was shifted from one hand to another, but again this already happened before the price went down. For example, I bought some stocks for $100, then the price went down to $80. The $100 has already shifted from my hand to the seller before the price went down. I got the stock with less value, but the actual money $100 did not just go down to $80, it’s in the hand of the seller who sold the stock to me. Now if I sell the stock to the same seller who sold the stock to me, then I lost $20, where did the $20 go? it went to the seller who sold the stock to me and then bought it back at a lower price. The seller ended up with the same amount of the stocks and the $20 from me. Did the seller made $20? Yes, but did the seller’s total assets increased? No, it’s still $100, $80 from the stocks, and $20 in cash. Did anyone made an extra $20?
The price of a shares reflects the expected future returns of that company. If it does not someone will notice and buy until it does. Look at this chart http://www.finanzen.net/chart/Arcandor (click on max), that's a former DAX company, so one of the largest german companys. Now it's bankrupt. Why do you think you are the only one who is going to notice? There are millions of people and even more computers, some a going to be smarter than you. Of course that does not happen to everyone but who knows. Is Volkswagen going to survive the current crisis? Probably. Is it coming back to former glory in the next half year? Who knows? Here comes the obvious solution: Don't buy single stocks, spread it out over many companies, some will shine, some will plument and you get the average. Oh that's an index, how convinent. Now if there were a way to save on all these transaction costs you're incurring...
The All Ords Index consists of the 500 largest companies by market capitalisation listed on the Australia Stock Exchange.  Each stock in the All Ords. Index is given a weighting based on its market capitalisation. As the price of the stocks within the All Ords. Index change, so does the points on the index itself.  The Index is more sensitive to changes in the larger capitalised stocks due to their larger weighting in the Index. Example: If a company has a weighting of 10% and its price goes up by 10%, and all other stocks in the Index don't go up or down, then this will cause the All Ords Index to go up by 1% (10% of 10%).
"IT actually doesn't have the issue with the charg enumber thing because the Manhour allocation charge covers IT support so we don't bill our time out.  It is mostly just people who work direct for projects that pull the ""give me a charge number"" business. Also, it isn't everyone either. Mostly just the douchebags.  Additionally, a department policy like you suggest actually sounds like a great Idea. I think I like you. However, in a company our size, it would get abused more than it would be respected. Great programs and policies like that always get bombed in my company because of a a 20% group of dickbags."
"No, they are a fucked up company that uses patent litigation to try and control designs they have no rightful ownership of. The phrase ""patent troll"" certainly can have multiple meanings and that is one of them.   The judge that slapped them with an injunction for abusing patent law and acting as bullies pointed out that the patents they were suing against had expired over fifty years previously. That is a patent troll."
Your dislike for free trade scares me. Shopping for lower wagers in order to bring production cost down is extremely beneficial to both the surrounding production area and the receiving consumers of the products. If it isn't beneficial then the company loses demand and eventually fails. I believe where you hatred stems from is fiat currency and foreign affairs. Free market has its con-men and hustlers but that is far better than government control. You decide what you spend your money in and no one else can say otherwise.
It will depend on how much you expect to earn this way, and whether you expect the company to become profitable soon. Has the company just not made a profit yet, or has it actually made a significant loss that your invoices would just be offsetting? If you're earning over £10,000 per year then invoicing through the company is preferable. Above that level, you'd be taking money from the company as dividends after paying 20% corporation tax with no other tax to pay on your personal tax return. As a sole trader you'd be paying 20% income tax and 9% NI. (Note however that the company can only pay dividends from profits, which is a problem if there are significant losses to offset.) Below £10,000, there's little difference. Through the company, you can take a salary of £7956 per year without paying any income tax or NI. With the new £2000 discount on employers' NI you could then take salary up to £10,000 and just pay 12% employee's NI. As a sole trader, you pay 9% Class 4 NI over £7956 and a fixed £143 per year for Class 2 NI. Paying 9% rather than 12% saves you £60, but then you add the £143. In practice the company would work out more expensive at this level because you'll probably want to pay an accountant to deal with the payroll for you. Having the company repay your £2000 from the invoices doesn't really save any tax if the company will become profitable in the future. You don't pay any tax now since the money you receive isn't income, and the company doesn't pay any tax if the extra £2000 of revenue doesn't put it back in profit. However, if the company is profitable next year then it will have an extra £2000 of profit that would otherwise have been offset against this year's loss, and you do end up paying 20% corporation tax on the £2000. You could still have the company repay the loan in order to delay the tax liability, but it's not really tax free money. Loaning additional money to the company has no tax benefit, you just give the company £1000 and get your original £1000 back later. You pay no tax and neither does the company, but it was your money in the first place.
At the time of the auction android was just vaporware but many companies were restricting the phones that they allowed on their networks so that they could control what the phones were being used for.  The big guys (AT&T, Verison, and Sprint) feared that being forced to allow phones that could do things they did not have control over would cost them money(Especially since they charged for every little feature they added). They also wanted to prevent their phones (which they subsidize to their customers in to reap long term profits) from being taken to other networks.   Goggle saw the potential for the largest chunk of bandwidth available to the telco's to be restricted to services of one company and their strangle hold over the phones and services that were allowed to use it.  They manuvered the bidding to ensure that this did not happen.  There are many who believe that Verison bought the spectrum more to prevent anyone from competeing with them than because they actually wanted to use it.  But at least they are forced to allow other parties in to compete even if it is on their playground.
"First, it's much safer to be shorting stocks over $5 than stocks under $5.  I use 3 indicators to show that a stock has topped out and about to drop. Key is the timing cause the initial drop is often the biggest. More close you get in at the top, the higher the risk. Using 1D Charts ONLY:   - MACD Indicator:  I use the histogram, when it reaches a peak height, and the next day it is down 1 ""Step"". If you wait til the MACD lines cross, you are pretty late IMHO.  Need to get in earlier. Timing is everything.   - RSI(15) - Needs to topped out and above 67 meaning, ""Over bought""  - Do not buy when RSI is high above 70. Often stocks go on a Run up when RSI is over 70!   - I use Stoch RSI or CCI to confirm my status on RSI. I like to see that all 3 indicators agree. This gives me a 75% chance that the stock will drop. It may take a day or 2.. so you need patience."
This is the S&P a bit over 20 years. If you've discovered a way to sell at 1400 in 2000, buy at 800 or so in 2003, sell again, well, you get the idea.  There's strong evidence the typical investor hears the S&P is making new highs and rushes in. It's this influx that may send stocks higher from here, until the smart money senses 'overbought' and bails.  I am not the smart money, but my ability to ignore emotion, and use asset allocation naturally had me selling a bit into each run up, and of course buying during downturns. Not all or none, and not with any perfect timing, just at year end when I'm rebalancing.  I am not a fan of short term timing, although I do respect Victor's observations and excellent example of when it's been shown to work.
"I've seen many Redditors school you on this over the years, and I'm not the least bit surprised you're trying it with me.   There are several first world countries with suicide rates higher than the US that have much more strict gun control than the US.   I'll take you back to your false claim that started this latest bit of trolling from you: *""Gang violence makes up a relatively small portion of of gun violence""*  To make that lie even worse, you're only referring to deaths. Your lie gets much much worse when gang/gun stats include drive-by's, assaults, robberies, shootings, and rapes  that didn't just involve death.   I mean, I know you're rather slow, but do you honestly believe if it doesn't involve a death, it doesn't qualify as violence?"
"Okay, I'm going to give you my opinion based on experience; not any technical understanding. The options - by themselves - are pretty meaningless in terms of determining their value. The business plan going forward, their growth expectations, the additional options to be authorized, the additional preferred stock offers they anticipate, even current estimated value of the company are some of the pieces of data you will be needing. I also want to say something cynical, like ""to hell with the stock options give me cold hard"" but that's just me. (My experience two-times so far has shown stock options to be worth very very little.)"
You're absolutely right.  That is why I eat at local restaurants instead of fast food.  I get better food at a lower price.  The real problem with fast food is institutional.  Typically, you have a large public corporation with shareholders.  I do not like shareholders.  They usually want maximum returns, but they don't care about the business.  They don't have to work there and they do not make choices about the food or anything else.  They only care about money.  Further, most fast food chains are run by franchisees.  They care more about the product, but there's still a lot of profit motive and they don't have much, if any, control over corporate.  So you end up with competing interests driven by profits and, with that many people demanding money, the product suffers and prices go up.  I think this is a *terrible* model for delivering a quality product.  All the forces at play are trying to cheapen things and increase profit.  A small family-run restaurant doesn't have these problems.  They know they need to make a good product at a fair price or they go out of business.  Without all the grasping hands, that's an easier and less expensive thing to do.  Which is why the small local restaurants get my business.  They give me a better product at a lower price.  I don't think a company like McDonald's is capable of that unless they go private, throw out their shit food and focus on delivering quality at a fair price.  That's just not possible with a shareholder/franchise business model.  It is not efficient.
I have had a couple of businesses do this to me.  I simply ask them to come over to talk about the bill.  Sometimes this ends it.  If they come over then I call the cops to file a report on fraud.  A lot of times the police will do nothing unless they have had a load of complaints but it certainly gets the company off your back.  And if they are truly unscrupulous it doesn't hurt to get a picture of them talking with the police and their van, and then post the whole situation online - you will see others come forward really quick after doing something like this.
The fiat currency is the basis for currency markets - that is, currency that is not made of precious metals.   The factors that influence what the value of a fiat currency are the state of the country's economy, what the gov't says the value should be, their fiscal policies, as well as what the currency is trading at.   And what the currency is trading at is a product of these factors as well as the typical factors which would affect any stock trading.  eHow has a great outline, here, which describes them.
That has nothing to do with my statement. My point is that the moves in Bitcoin value are not even *discussed* in the same way as other currencies.   When the Japanese yen rises in value, everyone realizes there is simultaneously a fall in some other currency or currencies. And you can look at the other cross-currency prices to see what the real story is. A huge rise in Bitcoin means there is a huge drop in the U.S. dollar value, but that is not matched by any other dollar valuation.
The indication is based on the average Buy-Hold-Sell rating of a group of fundamental analysts. The individual analysts provide a Buy, Hold or Sell recommendation based on where the current price of the stock is compared to the perceived value of the stock by the analyst.  Note that this perceived value is based on many assumptions by the analyst and their biased view of the stock. That is why different fundamental analysts provide different values and different recommendations on the same stock. So basically if the stock's price is below the analyst's perceived value it will be given a Buy recommendation, if the price is equal with the perceived value it will be given a Hold recommendation and if the price is more than the perceived value it will be given a Sell recommendation. As the others have said this information IMHO is useless.
My opinion would be to sell now. I think what Valve is attempting to do is lance an bubble. Up until now, you have people purchasing (and storing) more keys than they're using in the hope that they'll maintain or rise in value.( I.e. The value of a key is greater than the utility of opening a chest.)  In the coming year, there most likely be more players wanting to sell keys for their value than players hoping to open chests. So I think you're going to see a minor crash in the value of the keys.
"I am guessing your comprehensive deductible is around $500, and a totaling of your car would net only a $5000 payout. The expected value of the insurance is payout * chance of occurrence. To keep things simple lets only analyze the chance of ""total"" event what percentage of occurrence would give you an expected value of the insurance of $300? $5000*P=300 = 6% This is simplified because it ignores smaller payouts, but I think it's probably not a good value for you as a totaling event would not be a desperate situation for you. You can take it on faith that the expected value of ANY insurance product is less than the cost, otherwise the company wouldn't sell it.  You need to decide if the insurance product is something needed by you."
What a hoot. Fulgoni's people at comScore confirmed the impression value of search advertising years ago. Now Facebook is just catching on?  However, no one in online advertising is yet acknowledging the key truth that impressions are not all created equal. A tiny search ad's impression is nowhere near the value of a TV ad's impression.
This is primarily opinion based. It is like predicting what will happen in future, similar to predicting the value of stock. This is interesting topic on a coin discussion forum like WOC My question is whether moving the coins out of the Whitman folders (some of which are in serious disrepair) to the stapled pockets will adversely affect their value? Whitman folders are for basic collectors to know what to collect and easily show what is missing. These are not great way to preserve coins. Infact good quality coins should never be put into such folders. There are quite a few ways to store coins, Stapled flips ... now one also gets self adhesive flips. Coin Capsules or Archival grade envelops. It depends on the value of coin and how long you want to store these and where are the coins kept [moisture, humidity, pollutants are bad for coins]
Long Straddle:  \\/  Assuming you're trying to straddle the spot price, it will be more expensive to set up than a strangle as options strikes near the spot are more costly. Any price movement will regain against what was spent to acquire the options.  Long Strangle:  \\_/  Assuming you're trying to strangle the spot price, it will be less expensive to set up than a straddle as the options strikes are away from the spot.  It will require a larger price movement than the straddle to begin to regain value against what you spent, as there is a dead zone between the strikes where both expire worthless.  The / is the gain from a price movement up from the increase in value of calls; the \\ is the gain from a price movement down from the increase in value of puts.
"An option without the vesting period and the price at which one can exercise the option is of not much value. If vesting is determined by board, then at any given point in time they can change the vesting period to say 3, 5, 10 years any number. The other aspect is at what price you are allowed to exercise the option, ie if the stock is of value 10, you may be given an option to buy this at 10, 20 or 100. This has to be stated upfront for you to know the real value. On listing if the value is say 80, then if you have the option to exercise at 10, or 20 you would make money, else at 100 you loose money and hence choose not to exercise the option. However your having stuck around the company for ""x"" years in anticipation of making money would go waste. Without a vesting period or the price to exercise the option, they are pretty much meaningless and would depend on the goodwill of the founders"
Import these CSV files into this PayPalHistory table. Do a simple test to see how bad PayPal's default data is: To find out where the differences are coming from, run this query: (The ORDER BY (...), RowId is to ensure consistent ordering when multiple transactions share the same timestamp) As you scroll through the results, you'll see how the naive SUM is thrown-off from the official PayPal-computed Balance column. So as you can see, the Net column value cannot always be trusted - what we need is to generate our own ""EffectiveNet"" value which is accurate - that is, the value is 0.00 for rows which do not affect the balance, instead of being what they are right now. The problem is, given a single row of data (such as any single row from the example table in my original Question) we have no way of inherently knowing what its ""EffectiveNet"" is. I have devised two functions to help solve this problem, the first function only looks at the ReferenceTxnId, Type and Status column values and generates accurate values for the vast majority of rows - indeed, in our dataset we only had one row for which this approach did not work. I recommend you try this one first and compare the running-sum value to ensure it works for your data: You can use this function in the query like so below, hopefully it should give you an accurate running-sum and balance figure at the end: 8. And here's the view that ties it all together: Used like so: I hope this helps anyone else wanting to do accurate bookkeeping with PayPal Transaction History files!"
ITT: people saying bitcoin is backed by emotions just like stocks  Fact: you're right that some of a stocks movement is emotion (not all) but a stocks VALUE is backed by a profit generating business that creates value as time goes on through increased profits (increasing the stock price).   Bitcoin has very little uses to backup the spike in demand. It's pure speculation, ask anyone who's in bitcoin what their thesis is and it's very abstract and almost always mentions the fact that it's rising so much which drives the value. Classic bubble