vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
This might vary from other answers but I generally prefer to use debt before touching an emergency fund.  But one of the reasons I have an emergency fund is to that I can make sure I can cover any debt payments.  Essentially, this give you leverage.  You might start off with a small emergency such as needing a new refrigerator.  If you pull the cash out of the fund to pay this off immediately, you've depleted your account and if something major comes along, you might be short.  By using debt, you can often cover the costs with cash-flow and leave your risk buffer in place. Often, retailers will offer really sweet financing deals.  0% for 12 months or whatever.  Often, though, if you don't pay it off in time, they can be costly.  I'm not sure if this is legal (in the US) anymore but if it wasn't fully paid off in time, you'd be retroactively charged interest on the whole amount.  But if you have an emergency fund, you pretty much guarantee that won't happen.  The only time it will is if something else happens that requires the emergency fund to be cashed in.  But if things are that dire, the debt is unsecured.  You're credit may suffer but they can't come after your assets. It's not an either-or situation.  You give yourself options by having the cash available.  It allows you to take advantage of opportunities that might be too risky otherwise.  Ultimately what you want to be able to weather the storm in a situation where you have, say, a mortgage on a house that is underwater, the stock market is down, and you have no income.  In that situation, you don't want to liquidate your stock when it's down and you (probably) don't want to lose your home equity in a foreclosure.
Patience is the key to success. If you hold strong without falling to temptations like seeing a small surge in the price. If it goes down it comes up after a period of time. Just invest on the share when it reaches low bottom and you could see you money multiplying year after year
"Look, I think the thought-process for (falsely) believing physics knowledge is a requirement to understand examples illustrating a completely different topic is as follows:  You don't understand calculus/ODE topic. The teacher gives an example. You still don't get it. Therefore, you falsely believe that if you had understood the context of the problem, you would understand the solution. This is twisted and backwards reasoning.   Let's say I am learning subtraction. If the teacher says ""Gherio wants to make Tyyau. For that, he needs 10 Lals. If he currently has 6 Lals, how many more does he need? Well kids, this is just a subtraction problem: 10 - 6 = 4"", it is completely okay. Who cares what Tyyau or Lal are?? If you know, great; if not, you can still understand the subtraction problem."
"You can make a custom category for ""Website expenses"" under Other Expenses as well. If the domain name only costs a very small amount, like $10, I think expensing it would be reasonable. Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law."
I think it's a bad idea. You are taking a large amount of cash and changing it into an investment that is not liquid - if you need the money, it is expensive to get it back.
The problem is, I don't understand, how such sites work. Is that scam or not? Some of my friends told me that they've actually received the revenue after they deposited a bit of money to similar sites, and I don't have any evidence not to trust them. Yes there are scam. Stay away. Quite likely people got real money back into Bank Account. Or more likely it shows that there is more [notional] money in the sites account.  If such sites really 'work', then how and why? These sites work, because there are quite a few people who believe in free / easy money. The site could be classic pyramid / Ponzi scheme. They could also be involved in some kind of Money Laundering. Why would anyone trust them so much to give them money for absolutely no reason? Okay, I'm not so clever, but they can't make profit only because of stupid people, can they? The same way you did, at times just for fun to experiment. At times because they believe there is easy get rich way. There is a reward that works so that if you see 120 you start believing in it. If you try and withdraw, there will be quite a few obstacles; under the pretext of holding period, withdrawal fees etc... but mostly they will encourage you to keep depositing small amounts and see it grow. This of it this way; if one can make 20% day on day ... one does not need someone else's money. The power of compounding would mean very quickly $ 100 would become 88 BILLION in 120 days!
that's just it, though - they are splitting up the 1%! and in most cases, especially vanguard, they are splitting up far less.  ETFs don't have 12b-1 fees. explaining why you're experiencing different returns for ETFs will almost certainly involve something other than their expense. again, this is especially true for vanguard. they have the cheapest ETFs around (though i think schwab beats them on a few now).  i can only guess at the full compensation structure. betterment likely earns money on cash reserves and  securities hypothecation (i guess?). they also charge a small fee from what i understand. finance is very slim these days.  i guess i'm wondering what your ultimate question is. if it's the inter corporate compensation structure, above is my best guess. if it's about performance, then we need to compare the ETFs you are looking at. if it's about the fees on funds, i think we covered that!  as an advisor, it's my experience that very specific inquiries about fees have a deeper concern. people hear a lot about being overcharged so cost is a very standard place for clients to initially look when trying to compare performance of portfolios or securities.
First off, inflation doesn't necessarily imply that goods and services will rise in price.  The amount of goods &amp; services increases over time as well, and this is balanced (partly), by an increase in the money supply.  Without inflation you lose the incentive to invest, as your dollar would become more valuable over time.  Why invest in a risky venture if I know that my dollar will buy more if I just wait it out.  Might as well stick the money under the mattress. (This is bad)
If we own 1,000 units of the fund, we will get Rs 2,000. Since it has paid Rs 2 per unit, the NAV will fall from Rs 18 to Rs 16. If we invest in the growth option, we can sell the units for Rs 18. If we invest in the dividend option, we can sell the units for Rs 16, since we already made a profit of Rs 2 per unit earlier. What we must know about dividends The dividend is not guaranteed. If a fund declared dividends twice last year, it does not mean it will do so again this year. We could get a dividend just once or we might not even get it this year. Remember, though, declaring a dividend is solely at the fund's discretion; the periodicity is not certain nor is the amount fixed.
&gt;Nail holes.  If they were the small picture hanging nail holes and there were only a couple of them then it would be normal wear and tear.  If they used  regular nails to hand them then no, that's a misuse.  If there were a lot of nail holes (think a collage of 15 pictures all together on one wall) then it is not normal wear and tear.  &gt;The stains were small discolorations, not big purple splotches of wine.  Stains are never considered normal wear and tear.  Stains are excessive.  &gt;The carpet was old when they got there also  Was it in good shape or poor shape?  If it was fraying and had worn paths in it when they arrived then I would make an argument stating that the carpet was is disrepair to begin with.
"I think your question is pretty wise, and the comments indicate that you understand the magnitude of the situation.   First off, there could be nothing that your friend could do.  Step parent relationships can be strained and this could make it worse, add the age of the girl and grief and he could make this a lot worse then it potentially is.  She may spend it all to spite step-dad. Secondly, there is a need to understand by all involved that personal finance is about 75-90% behavior.  Very high income people can wind up bankrupt, and lower income people can end up wealthy.  The difference between two people's success or failure often boils down to behavior.   Thirdly, I think you understand that there needs to be a ""why"", not only a ""what"" to do.  I think that is the real tricky part.  There has to be a teaching component along with an okay this is what you should do.   Finding a person will be difficult.  First off there is not a lot of money involved.  Good financial advisers handle much larger cash positions and this young lady will probably need to spend some of it down.  Secondly most FAs are willing to provide a cookie cutter solution to the problem at hand.  This will likely leave a bad taste in the daughter's mouth.   If it was me, I would encourage two things: Both of those things buy time.  If she comes out of this with an education in a career field with a 50-60K starting salary, a nice used car, and no student loans that would be okay.  I would venture to say mom would be happy.   If she is very savvy, she might be able to come out of this with a down payment on a place of her own; or, if she has education all locked up perhaps purchasing a home for mostly cash.   In the interim period a search for a good teaching FA could occur.  Finding such a person could also help you and your friend in addition to the daughter.  Now my own step-daughter and I have a good financial relationship.  There are other areas where our relationship can be strained but as far as finances we relate well.  We took Financial Peace University  ($100 offered through many local churches) together when she was at the tender age of 16.  The story of ""Ben and Arthur"" really spoke to her and we have had many subsequent conversations on the matter.  That may work in this case. A youTube video on part of the lesson."
"With regard to your edit (although I didn't downvote): one way to reduce the security risk is to separate the payment from the ability to drain your account.  A considerable part of the security risk is inherent in giving people a number which is directly linked to a bank account where you keep all your money.  If you don't want that risk, don't do that.  Instead of (or in addition to) trying to reduce the chance of fraud, you can reduce the impact of fraud, even if it occurs, by not paying for things using the details of an account where you have all your money.  Trying to protect against fraud while keeping all your money in the account is sort of like carrying around thousands of dollars in cash in your wallet and then worrying about how to defend against robbery.  Yes, you can carry a weapon or hire a bodyguard, but it's probably simpler to just not carry that much money in the first place. You already mentioned one solution with your option #1, which is to just keep a small amount of money in a separate account and use that for online payments.  Assuming you can easily transfer money in and out of this account via online banking, this effectively is what you say you want in your edit: you log in to your bank online, but rather than ""informing it"" you're about to make a payment, you just transfer money in.  You'll probably have to keep a small amount of money in the account to keep it open, but if this is an important issue for you, that shouldn't be that big a deal. Another solution is a credit card.  With a credit card, you simply make the payment online.  In the US, if the merchant (or someone else stealing the info) makes fraudulent charges, the credit card company assumes the liability and the consumer suffers only the inconvenience of having to get a new card issued.  I don't know what the UK laws are regarding credit vs. debit fraud, but some sites I found seem to suggest that credit cards have fraud protection in the UK as well.  This is probably worth looking into if you are concerned about fraud."
&gt;Its marginal in that it is small  How small exactly? Waiting for your source.  Still waiting to know what it even solves.  &gt;You operating on the premise that loans for advanced education is the right model.  I never said I support this model, if you want to even call it a model.  I support paying your debts. Government shouldn't be involved in this industry at all, but that is a can of worms we shouldn't even bother with  &gt;Make public university free  You keep using that word free...   &gt;Not that hard.  Yea, if you actually believe it's 'free,' ugh.  Good luck with your loans dude or dudette.
There is another drawback, and this is why I keep a low-limit card for online purchases and another for carrying in risky/unfamiliar situations (e.g. travelling) a small limit acts as as damage limitation in the event of theft. In theory you may not be liable if your card is stolen and used.  In practice you may be out of pocket for a considerable amount of time, and trying to spend large sums on an overlimit card will soon trip it up (especially if those large sums are out of the ordinary)
i would check out why other people make good money on the market when they invest but when i do it the economy goes into a recession. am i the only real person in the world and everyone is a simulation? is it black magic? is it the universe telling me to earn my money in other ways?
Exactly, the only reason for the US to default is if Congress voluntarily does so. I don't think they are self destructive enough to do it tho, it's okay if it happens with the Dems in power, but the current Congress wouldn't want to have that on their backs. Hopefully at least.
It's really not comparable.  I love Wegmans, but it's not the same thing.  Wegmans is a nice grocery store.  Whole Foods is not a place you go for most groceries - it's a place you go for fresh meats/fish/etc, especially when looking for more unique things, and especially if you're picky about what you're getting.  And even if you want to deny all that, Wegmans has a small footprint, so it is irrelevant in most areas.
If no, I'd say don't bother. Last I checked the payoff is very small and it takes over a decade to break even, unless you live in a desert next to the Mexican border. Many places never break even. Electricity is cheap in the United States. If you need a new roof anyway, I suppose look at the difference. If it's about the same you might as well, although it's guaranteed to be more hassle for you with the panels. Waiting makes no sense if you need a new roof, because who knows how long that will take and you need a roof now. If a solar roof appeals to you and you would enjoy having one for the price available, go ahead and get one. Don't do it for the money because there's just too much uncertainty there, and it doesn't scale at all. If you do end up making money, good for you, but that's just a small, unexpected bonus on top of the utility of the product itself.
It it's paste form? Probably not if only because it would be a pain to form into food I can cook easily, maybe if I wanted to make sausages or something but that is a bit beyond my personal interest and abilities.  But as a product I can cook like other food, yeah I got no problem with it. I use to raise my own cows and knew how to slaughter them but I still sent them to a butcher in large part because I would be wasting so much of the meat otherwise. It is too much work to do all the processing they do for trim and waste meat to make it palatable. I don't want to eat a straight up cow tongue or cow heart, but if you blend that bitch up into a sausage ill gobble it down.
Dollar cost averaging doesn't (or shouldn't) apply here. DCA is the natural way we invest in the market, buying in by a steady dollar amount each pay period, so over time we can buy more shares when the market is down, and fewer when it's higher. It's more psychological than financial. The fact is that given the market rises, on average, over time, if one has a lump sum to invest, it should be deployed based on other factors, not just DCA'd in. As I said, DCA is just how we all naturally invest from our income.  The above has nothing to do with your situation. You are invested and wish to swap funds. If the funds are with the same broker, you should be able to execute this at the closing price. The sell and buy happen after hours and you wake up the next day with the newly invested portfolio.  If funds are getting transferred from broker to broker, you do have a risk. The risk that they take time, say even 2 days when funds are not invested. A shame to lose a 2% market move as the cost of moving brokers. In this case, I'd do mine and my wife's at different times. To reduce that risk.
"Doomed is the word I wouldn't say about this. Hollywood has been producing shitty movies (which is why nobody goes to movie theaters anymore) and it's harder to find movies to go to that are worth it. Sure... There are an increasing amount of movies like ""Get Out"" and ""Moonlight"" and even ""Logan"" that are smart, insightful and fun to watch but with those movies comes movies like another Marvel Cinematic Universe film or a comedy film featuring Seth Rogen or some action movie like ""Independence Day: Resurgence"". Hollywood used to rely on people going to movies without knowing if it was good or not to earn back their money. Now that we have Rotten Tomatoes which gauges critic and user reaction and easy access to rent movies that used to be in theaters; Hollywood should have incentive to make better movies but they still make 80% shit, especially considering that streaming movies does not make a movie studio a lot of money then when it's in theaters. Movie theater operators are shaking in their boots because of the threat that the digital age poses... ""Why go to a theater and waste money on crap when you can wait for it at home?"" MoviePass is quite possibly the movie theater chain's only hope at remaining relevant. I still feel like I'm able to watch a movie in a comfy environment with unique experiences in a theater and I feel like the theater is the only place where the audience is engaged and interacting with each other. It would be a shame to lose that in exchange for movie watching where it's all done solo. It's okay but it's not as fun as a theater experience. MoviePass offers the best concessions for the best deals. I don't mind having to pay near the theater and I don't mind that my data is being given to analytic companies; Hollywood needs to know that I and others like so and so and that data I'm hoping can be used to make better movies. The thing that'll hinder MoviePass' chances of success is some holdouts. AMC isn't holding out because they think it'll do harm to their business; far from it...
No I have it quite clear... I am an employer of a small business... What people that support unions don't understand is the secondary collateral damage that Union support can cause on us...  He States it pretty regularly in the article... The unions apparently did it in the past as a trap of sorts...  Think about it, if universal healthcare system were to be implemented, that would be a huge benefit package that everyone would get, not just union members...  If my employees were offered the same Healthcare as a union member, union membership would lose that appeal an advantage over small business...
One could make a fair argument that the overall economic climate isn't as bullish as it used to be, although I would only be convinced that this was affecting stock splits if data could be gathered and tested. A stock split can also raise the price of a stock because if small investors feel the stock is suddenly more accessible to them, they purchase more of it and might therefore drive up the price. (See the Investopedia article on stock splits for more information). Companies might not see the necessity in doing this because their stock price isn't high enough to warrant a split or because the price isn't high enough to outprice smaller investors. One interesting point to make, however, is that even though stock splits can drive small investors to buy more of the stock, this isn't always a gain for the company because professional investors (firms, institutions, etc.) have a tendency to sell after a split. The paper is a bit old, but it's still a very neat read. It's possible that more and more companies no longer see any advantage to splitting because it might not affect their stock price in the long run, and arguably could even hurt it. Considering that large/professional investors likely hold a higher percentage of a company's shares than smaller investors, if a stock split triggers a wave of selling by the former, the increasing propensity to buy of the latter may not be enough to offset the decline in price. Note: My answer only refers to standard stock splits; the reasons above may not apply to a decrease in the number of reverse stock splits (which may not be a phenomenon; I don't know).
"&gt; People generally do not like labor, especially if it is something they do not find fulfilling. I agree... sort of. Of course people don't enjoy doing work they find unpleasant, but I think the idea that people do not like working as a rule is not as obvious as it seems. After all, that's more of a guess as it has never been tested in any meaningful way; humans throughout history have, for the most part, worked. While I have an easy time agreeing that it's preferable for people to work on things they find fulfilling (or at least not unpleasant) than to work on things they hate, I'm not sold on the concept that people would actually prefer not working at all to working. I think productivity and purpose are critical components to the human experience, and work plays a big role in them - in other words, the idea of not working wouldn't necessarily match the reality of not working if we ever had a chance to properly explore it. On a side note, I think this is something absolutely worth experimenting with - you could run some decent experiments for less than $50m, which is really a small amount to explore such a universally relevant topic. &gt; Wage (chattel) slavery has never, nor will it ever be a positive attribute to any society. This strikes me as a loaded statement - and, on the surface at least, not one I agree with. Please help me understand your thinking here. How exactly do you define wage slavery? If you define it as ""working in order to survive,"" would you consider maintaining a small working farm in order to feed your family, as was done by many throughout history, to be a form of wage slavery? How about hunting and gathering - not paid labor, clearly, but nonetheless difficult work that was done only because it was necessary for the worker to survive? Is working for wages, which you can then exchange to buy food and such, different in kind from working to produce or capture food? Is working to afford enough food and shelter to survive different from working to afford more luxurious food or shelter? I'm not being argumentative - I'm just trying to understand the implications of that statement. :) As far as a reduction in hours worked, that isn't necessarily disastrous.