vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Short answer: student loans are loans given to people that are currently enrolled in school and yes, you can use them for personal expenses.  Long answer: be very careful because you can easily be financially ruined if you borrow too much and can't repay it quickly. Once the loans get beyond a certain size relative to your income, you can find it hard to stay ahead of the interest payments let alone actually pay off the principal. These are the facts you need to know:
He is still a board member able to receive company perks and exert his influence and keep it in line with his vision although he will be more of a shadowy character and he is still a billionaire, worth 6.7Bn if my memory serves me right...
I think you are asking quite a few questions here;   If you have Rs 10000, its better you get it converted in India before you leave. Most Banks and Exchange houses like Western Union would take Rupees and Give you USD. What do they do with USD, there are other who give them USD and need Rupees. They make a spread in this process.   If you are getting a salary in USD in US, whenever you want to transfer money to India, the Banks or Remittance services like Western Union would take USD from your US Account and Transfter equivalent Money into your Bank Account in India in Rupees. They will tell the exchange rate applicable. Depending on why visa type & the duration you are going, your company should be able to tell you your tax liabilities in the US. Read similar questions here to get a general idea.
You should definately have a stop loss in place to manage your risk. For a time frame of 5 to 10 years I would be looking at a trailing stop loss of 20% to 25% off the recent high.  Another type of stop you could use is a volatility stop. Here the more volatile the stock the larger the stop whilst the less volatile the stock the smaller the stop. You could use 3 or 4 x Weekly ATR (Average True Range) to achieve this. The reason you should always use a stop loss is because of what can happen and what did happen in 2008. Some stock markets have yet to fully recover from their peaks at the end of 2007, almost 9 years later. What would you do if you were planning to hold your positions for 5 years and then withdrawal your funds at the end of June 2021 for a particular purpose, and suddenly in February 2021 the market starts to fall. By the time June comes the market has fallen by over 50%, and you don't have enough funds available for the purpose you planned for. Instead if you were using a trailing stop loss you would manage to keep at least 75% of the peak of your portfolio. You could even spend 10 minutes each week to monitor your portfolio for warning signs that a downtrend may be around the corner and adjust your trailing stop to maybe 10% in these situations, protecting 90% of the peak of your portfolio. If the downtrend does not eventuate you can adjust your trailing back to a higher percentage. If you do get stopped out and shortly after the market recovers, then you can always buy back in or look for other stocks and ETFs to replace them. Sure you might lose a bit of profits if this happens, but it should always be part of your investment plan and risk management how you will handle these situation. If you are not using stop losses, risk management and money management you are essentially gambling. If you say I am going to buy these stocks and ETFs hold them for 10 years and then sell them, then you are just hoping to make gains - which is essentially gambling.
Grantham is far more well known, has a very good record, and he manages over $100B. He has been accused of being a perma bear, and he's not calling a top yet for at least another year. He's one the only managers who had the 2008 crash coming and going - that is he is on record saying to get out well before the crash, and he said to get back in at the march, 2009 lows.   Everyone has biases. Grantham, iirc, got back out after the 2009 rally too soon. That's *his* style.   Regarding 2012, Grantham has mentioned election year rallies many times in the past, and that sure helped with 2012 HARP relief for homeowners. Plus you had the incredibly high equity premium, with very low stock prices.   This Levy fellow seems way too bearish. I feel way more comfortable listening to Grantham or Gary Schilling, who are more reasonable bearish leaning advisors.   &gt; In addition, Grantham backs his prior call that the bull market probably won’t end for a year or two, not before the S&amp;P 500 rallies past the 2,250 level.  http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2014/07/21/yellen-encourages-fully-fledged-equity-bubble-says-jeremy-grantham/
Look at my answer here, and then calculate again. If you keep on saving and keep on paying off your highest interest rate loan, you'll be 'making' money. Also look at this answer here for saving or paying back. Basically, you should always calculate whether the money you have is better 'spend' in a savings account or as a return payment to your loan. Always tackle the highest interest loan first. My 0,02€
That 0.625% is the annual interest rate you'll receive.  It is paid out in two, semi-annual payments. That is, every six months you'll receive a check for roughly 0.3125%. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_tnotes_glance.htm
It has a real use and it's not owned by a single individual or company. I think you're over thinking it. The bottom falling out would require people to stop using it. There are a limited number of Bitcoins in existence and as long as there is demand, the value can be extrapolated.
Lack of taxes are a symptom, but not the root cause. It's a vicious cycle where the more money that accumulates in a few people's hands, the more they can use it to manipulate politics and the media in order to get the system further changed to let them take more and more, then use it for influence, etc. This is the inevitable consequence of capitalism, but can be kept in check by a well regulated market and economy. Which it was. Reagen took care of that though.
Alternatives like free-market capitalism? I'm not convinced that the Chinese model is superior to any alternatives, especially capitalism. The Western world was built on free-market capitalism and China was left in the dust for decades under the Maoist regime. China's strange mix of communism and capitalism has definitely benefited their economy, but it wasn't the communism part that did it, it was opening their economy that did it. I can't see how the bureaucracy and control of the state has benefited their economy beyond keeping everyone in the dark about the actual solidity of their economy. It seems like government planned expansion and development is just a scheme to pump money into their economy to keep it afloat. I think it's a bubble and it's bound to pop at some point, with potentially catastrophic consequences. I'm not normally some doom-sayer, but the Chinese economy looks like a house of cards from the outside without further critical analysis.
&gt; To those moaning about loss of jobs, is this really a job you want to fight to keep?   You're really underestimating how uneducated and worthless so many people are. While you may find a few good ones out of 100, many of the ones in my area (Los Angeles) can't even count to 10 in their own language and don't speak English
Because of things this article doesn't go to that I've read other places.   1. Britain didn't have elections in Hong Kong for decades at the request of Communist China.    2. Britain started really democratizing Hong Kong before the handover to get some facts on the ground to try and have a better representational system in place for the Chinese handover.    3. Stuff in Hong Kong used to get done under the British.    4. Now with newly empowered representation and politicians who don't necessarily trust the Beijing government, opposition to development and policy issues is happening, and less is getting done in Hong Kong vs. other major mainland cities.
I think overall you are correct. This is going to be a series of smaller improvements that will add up to big gains.  * Stem cells to regrow my lost teeth? Sign me up!   * A cream that renews skin tone? Take my money!   * A caffeine replacement with no crash? More (enhanced) tea, please.   * A vaccine series against cancer? Which arm?   * A candy that *burns* fat? Yum!    Soon I will be the person the 2011 monkeybreath was afraid of. And with better breath, too.
"How do option market makers actually hedge their positions so that they do not have a price risk? You cannot complete hedge away price risk of a sold call simply by buying the underlying and waiting.  As the price of the underlying decreases, the ""Delta"" (price risk) decreases, so as the underlying decreases, you would gradually sell some of the underlying to reduce your price risk from the underlying to match the price risk of the option. The opposite is true as well - as the price of the underlying increases, you'd buy more of the underlying to maintain a ""delta neutral"" position. If you want to employ this strategy, first you need to fully understand what ""delta"" is and how to calculate it.  Then you can use delta hedging to reduce your price risk."
I'd assume they're trying to cut down on logistics costs for their likely biggest market.  When I ordered a laptop from lenovo.com, it came in a shipment straight from Shanghai.  Regardless of deals or speed, that can't be cheap.
"Pay the Best Buy first.  Most of these ""Do not pay until..."" deals require you to retire the entire debt by the deadline, or they will charge you deferred interest for the entire period. So, if this was a six-month deal, they're going to hit you for an extra $300 in December."
No. You shorted the stock so you are not a shareholder. If you covered your short, again you are not a shareholder as you statement of account must show. You cannot participate in the net settlement fund.
BUT, because they are ""medical devices"", it's super easy to take a single nearly identical product, make two different named brands, and get regulatory approval for A for 1-day use, and get regulatory approval for B for 2-week use. (They have to do studies and things to prove they are safe to use... that costs money, but it also gives them a forum for ""official differentiation"".) Why haven't you heard of it? Not sure. Maybe not a critical mass of people in society that use contacts that can create a self propogating word of mouth information wave. Most people I know can't tolerate them, or find it too hard to put them in. (I originally had problems putting them in, then found a much better method of doing it. I've gotta put that on youtube someday.) And a lot of people simply get the laser surgery. ps: Ask more questions about why ""prescriptions"" for pieces of glass you put on your nose ""expire"", but your glasses themselves don't have a ""throw out by"" date nor do they ""wear out"" in 2 eyars, also then compare it to the racks of reading glasses on sale at book stores and pharmacies that don't ""require a prescription"", and how there exist charitable associations that take your donated ""old glasses"" and ship them to Africa in bulk for use by people who've never had an optometrist appointment in their life. Also ask yourself about how when Benjamin Franklin invented ""shaped pieces of glass for the nose"", he and millions of others didn't have something nasty befall them by wearing pieces of glass on their nose that wasn't ""prescribed by a doctor"". Finally note that Optometrists appointments between the ages of 20 and 60 are not covered **at all** by Canadian medicare."
"&gt; You're saying I can substitute my 2-week for dailies and wear the dailies for a month? I've been doing exactly this for ... almost 10 years now. (I recommend you only wear them for 2-3 weeks.) &gt; Is there any reputable source that can confirm that dailies are built exactly the same as monthly contacts? When I first got contacts and was trying to find a make or brand that was comfortable I did some research. They're all made out of pretty much the exact same kind of super sparse material. At the time I did my research, there were only four different classes of materials used, and even amongst them they were all very very similar. And in all cases, contact lenses are 94% water. If something is made out of 94% water, it almost pretty much doesn't matter what they're made out of. And you also must remember, doesn't matter if they are 1-day or 2-week lenses, they have to do the exact same thing to light. They might be a bit thinner or a bit thicker in total, but in the end, physics governs their shape and comfort governs their size. And it's not the plastic of the ""lens"" that is actually providing the correction, it's the refractive index of water being held in a certain shape by the matrix of the plastic. The plastic simply ""retains the water in it's matrix and prevents evaporation"". IMPO, it would be nearly physically impossible to make 1-day lenses that could not be used as 2-week lenses. You can be damn sure the lens makers have been trying hard to do this. BUT, because they are ""medical devices"", it's super easy to take a single nearly identical product, make two different named brands, and get regulatory approval for A for 1-day use, and get regulatory approval for B for 2-week use. (They have to do studies and things to prove they are safe to use... that costs money, but it also gives them a forum for ""official differentiation"".) Why haven't you heard of it? Not sure.
"I don't disagree with that but my point is that there is a need to be engaged on both fronts: international as well as domestic. CFR President Richard N. Haass argues in his new book ""A World in Disarray"" that it's imperative to our long-term interest that we do both, successfully. That means not just changing allocations but raising more money to get our fiscal house in order as well.   Again, just a different school of thought. I follow it but I get why others don't."
"That doesn't make any sense.  Companies bid for these contracts and often the lowest bid wins.  The issue is employee compensation of these rail services and the power of public union that ""represent"" them.  When you have janitors pulling in $270k + benefits with their OT something is wrong."
What do you mean by professional? Seems like you want to hire people to work and you to manage. This is fine but your costs will rise significantly. Seems like first you need more business to hire more people. Be careful that your market can support a larger buisness. Ive heard of many 2 bay car garage types going bankrupt after moving to a 4-6 bay because they couldnt keep the bays full 100% of the time
I don't know what their turnaround plan is, but they're definitely salveageable. They can be where McDonald's is today in a couple years if they wanted to. They need to stop trying to compete with restaurants, reduce SKU if possible, reinvest in reinventing their restaurant experience and feel, and improve their image. What do people want when they go to an Applebees? Something that is cheaper, yes, but also something that's a known quantity, a good experience and value for price. Also, sell more booze."
McDonald's started offering more ""crafted"" sandwiches, and invested heavily in McCafe. They spent enormous amounts of money on revamping their restaurants to update them for the times. Prices went up a little, but the perceived value for those went up much more. McDonald's isn't simply a fast food burger joint anymore. They're a cafe, and a restaurant offering sandwiches that could be classified as fast casual. They've changed the value proposition while maintaining prices. What has Applebee's done to improve the restaurant experience? They've certainly attempted to tackle pricing with menu items like 2 for $20, and probably reducing SKU (though just speculating). But what's different about the restaurants themselves? When customers go in, do they feel like they did when they went to an Applebees five years ago? That's where their mistake lies. They need to shed underperforming restaurants as they just announced, but they also need to double down and heavily invest in revamping their restaurant experience and image. Adding ipads isn't part of this strategy. iPads are a great way for them to increase labor leverage by reducing headcount, but does it add to the customer experience? Based on my last visit to an Applebees the iPad was clunky to use and the server came over just as often as before, the only difference being that he'd take our order then put the order into the iPad himself. Lol, what's the point of that? And given the IQ level of people going into Applebee's, and how stupid so many people are that go into restaurants, how the hell they thought people could operate these things is beyond me. I don't know what their turnaround plan is, but they're definitely salveageable. They can be where McDonald's is today in a couple years if they wanted to. They need to stop trying to compete with restaurants, reduce SKU if possible, reinvest in reinventing their restaurant experience and feel, and improve their image. What do people want when they go to an Applebees? Something that is cheaper, yes, but also something that's a known quantity, a good experience and value for price.
"It's really easy to shit on an industry sector that is having challenges without recognizing the opportunities. Remember a couple years ago when everyone said that fast casual was destroying fast food, and that firms like McDonald's were in the shitter and wouldn't be able to compete? Look how much of a return Burger King provided, and while McDonald's isn't out of the weeds yet they've been doing better. QSR are getting hammered on both sides by fast casual / fast food (terms that are becoming increasingly less meaningful as fast food restaurants improve quality and experience and converge towards fast casual) and restaurants. Competition is putting downward pressure on pricing given that consumers recognize that QSR's offer an inferior service compared to good local or chain restaurants - why go to an Applebees when you can go to your local Gastropub or something? Look at menu prices. Going on Applebee's website, they're selling burgers for $12-15. Since this includes fries, that's pretty much their ARPM. Add tip and tax and you're talking $20 or more for a meal. You can get a burrito at Chipotle for $10, or go to a local restaurant and get a burger for probably a similar price with a more personalized experience and feel. Applebees feels it needs to cut down on pricing because they think they are a restaurant and compete with other restaurants, and that if they have better prices than other restaurants they will succeed. Perhaps that's true. In my opinion it's missing the point entirely. Pricing is an issue, but it's price *in relation to value*, not in its own right. McDonald's has a great strategy - try to maintain prices while increasing perceived value of service. A correct approach is two-pronged. McDonald's started offering more ""crafted"" sandwiches, and invested heavily in McCafe. They spent enormous amounts of money on revamping their restaurants to update them for the times. Prices went up a little, but the perceived value for those went up much more. McDonald's isn't simply a fast food burger joint anymore. They're a cafe, and a restaurant offering sandwiches that could be classified as fast casual.
There are tons of data provided on the CIA - The World Factbook webpage. Among the rest, there are the GDP values as well. The World Factbook provides information on the history, people,   government, economy, geography, communications, transportation,   military, and transnational issues for 267 world entities. Our   Reference tab includes: maps of the major world regions, as well as   Flags of the World, a Physical Map of the World, a Political Map of   the World, a World Oceans map, and a Standard Time Zones of the World   map.
Right, at least you get a better understanding of whatever question you have in general.   The internet is the age of information, yet here some people are still stuck to traditions. Everything you wanted to know is just a search away, but some just might be harder to find.
I just read the article and I'm not sure if the calculation is flawed. When they look at the single stocks. Do they always reinvest the dividends to the same stock? That would be quite unusual behaviour I think.  An investor who uses the buy and hold strategy  might have a bunch of companies which won't exist anymore in 20 or 30 years e.g. coal plants.  While many stocks are a good investment now. Reinvesting all the dividends for decades is obviously a bad decision for a large portion of the stocks.  Maybe I misunderstood the article. But what do you guys think?
"Crickets here, so I'll respond with what I ended up doing. At the end of each month, I download transaction data from each of Stripe and PayPal.  For each, I do the following: So it is just six entries in Wave per month plus a little spreadsheet manipulation to determine revenues and fees.  Takes about 10 minutes to do this. I really dislike Wave's ""automatic"" integration with PayPal.  It creates a lot of entries, and it also doesn't seem reliable so it is easy for transactions to get lost."
Nope, take the match.  I cannot see not taking the match unless you don't have enough money to cover the bills. Every situation is different of course, and if the option is to missing minimum payments or other bills in order to get the match, make your payments.  But in all other circumstances, take the match. My reasoning is, it is hard enough to earn money so take every chance you can.  If you save for retirement in the process, all the better.
Make use of a assistance box such as The look for applications foundation. It is used by The look for applications to try to give the most enjoyable [Local Business Listing](http://come2ourdeals.com.au/) and appropriate reply from different information sources. You can post bottles of your things immediately through the use of The look for applications foundation.
Shit article that displays the author has no farming idea of how Warren Buffet operates.    The man has metrics that tell him when shares are too expensive. When this happens, he doesn't buy, and dividends can tend to accumulate when you have almost $500 billion in assets (which could just be 2 years of 5% dividend yields).   If they are expensive, he won't buy, and money will accumulate. When there is a crash, he buys on the cheap. That how you get 23% of Year-on-year gains for 40 years.   The fact that he is not buying does indicate that the market is overvalued, which is consistent with the fact that there is still a substantial amount of QE. The question is: what will happen as the Fed winds it down. They are aiming for a small decrease or leveling out of the stock market. If that happens, and the market stagnates for a couple of years, maybe the metrics will catch up and he will buy again without a crash happening.
"You are the troll. The simple true story here, not reported by fake-news mass media, is that Trump does not give those business leaders what they want and does not cave-in to their lobbying, so they leave.  Trump see what those ""councils"" are all about and dismantle them."
How is this Obama's fault? Also, it doesn't mean the economy isn't recovering. I love how Republicans complain he hasn't fixed the massive problem caused by them fast enough. It's like lighting your house on fire and blaming the firefighters for not putting it out fast enough.
Short of canceling the card, you could just report the card as lost and ask for a new card number on the same account. Another option is to just make a note to look for the charge and keep disputing it. It has been a while since I did credit card processing at my business, but I think the company gets dinged if too many customers dispute charges and kicks them into a higher fee schedule with the credit card company.