vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Thanks for the insight. You kind of confirmed my thoughts on it as well. I will most likely pursue it until the possibility of a job offer, which in the least, I can use to leverage a possible job offer in the supply chain team with my boss.
"I find myself being very skeptical about robotics' use in society. I think robotics will splinter off into many different specifically designed forms. the ""irobot"" dream of a humanoid robot doing all the menial tasks that humans don't want to do will never happen. Instead, there will be robots designed for specific tasks, because that specific design will be better for that purpose than any generally designed robot will. Also, AI will solve most of the use cases that i see robotics used for and it will not require the expensive electronics and manufacturing required."
I have lived in five of the 7 continents. Yes, I have been outside my house. Part of that time was in third world countries where you get to see what it looks like when you don't have basic government services.   &gt; And I don't know where the hell you live but I have to pay for my own internet, had to pay to get the lines put in too.  Did you pay for the interstate which allowed for those cables to be brought to your state? The transportation and security that imported those cables if they weren't made in the USA? Did you pay for the installation of the utilities that made it possible for you to even have power in your house?   The answer to all these is yes, through your taxes.
If you're asking about how to move money from Canada - check with your local (Canadian) bank about the conversion rates and fees for transfers, check cashing, ATM, card swipes, etc - and see which one is best for you. When I moved large amounts of money across the border, I chose wire transfer because it was the cheapest, but for small amounts many times during the period of your stay it may be more expensive. You can definitely use your Canadian credit/debit card in the States, you'll be charged some fee by your credit card company, and of course the conversion rate. How much tax does I have to pay at the end of my internship? Let's assume one is earning $5,000 per month plus a one time $5,000 housing stipend, all before taxes. Will I be taxed again by the Canadian government? $5K for internship? Wow... You need to talk to a tax specialist, there's probably some treaty between the US and Canada on that, and keep in mind that the State of California taxes your income as well. What are some other tips I can use to save money in the California? California is a very big place. If you live in SF - you'll save a lot by using the MUNI, if your internship is in LA - consider buying an old clunker if you want to go somewhere. If you're in SD - just enjoy the weather, you won't get it in Canada. You'll probably want a ""pay as you go"" wireless phone plan. If your Canadian phone is unlocked GSM - you can go to any AT&T or T-Mobile store and get a pre-paid SIM for free. Otherwise, get a prepaid phone at any groceries store. It will definitely be cheaper than paying roaming charges to your Canadian provider. You can look at my blog (I'm writing from California), I accumulated a bunch of saving tips there over the years I'm writing it."
I would be weary using Yelp. I've read several stories of people being screwed over by them. For example, a company would have 10 five star reviews and one 2 star review. Yelp would only show the 2 star review on the company's main page, and would contact the business owner saying for a fee they would make the 5 star ratings show on the main page instead of the 2. Very shady but not illegal since you are opting in to use their service.
"My roommate works for Regal as a theater manager so I think I can help here.   As a general rule of thumb for tracking performance, they use:  Concession sales divided by attendance (industry lingo is ""per cap""). The higher the ratio, the better the theater did.    Most people don't know that theaters make most of their money off of concessions, not ticket sales. The majority of the money that you pay for the movie ticket is actually money that goes to Hollywood, etc.   Hope this helps! If you have more questions, let me know and I'll pick my roommate's brain."
I would certainly hope to make the transfer by wire - the prospect of   popping cross the border with several million dollars in the trunk   seems... ill fated. I suppose I'm asking what sort of taxes, duties,   fees, limits, &c. would apply Taxes - None. It is your money, and you can transfer it as you wish. You pay taxes on the income, not on the fact of having money. Reporting - yes, there's going to be reporting. You'll report the origin of the money, and whether all the applicable taxes have been paid. This is for the government to avoid money laundering. But you're going to pay all the taxes, so for transfer - you'll just need to report (and maybe, for such an amount, actually show the tax returns  to the bank). Fees - shop around. Fees differ, like any other product/service costs on the marketplace.
That 2t is if you invest the money for a decade before cutting checks, which is the methodology with which I mentioned I disagree.  From the article:  &gt; After spending a little quality time in Microsoft Excel, I’d say it’s somewhere the ballpark of $1,350 per household, or $1,000 per worker.*  If you divide $1000 per worker by ten years, you get $100 per year, which is what I said and which the title mislabeled.  Edit: I see what you mean, I typed households instead of workers. Thanks for pointing out my typo, I edited the comment to correct and show I misspoke originally. Also I put 200b instead of 2t. Either way, the point is it is $100 per year, not $1000. I should’ve paid attention when commenting, but the point remains valid
Weird situation. It sounds like there were options for a non implantable, wearable option. The microchip basically serves as an advanced employee badge. I don't understand the outrage at all. My guess is that the people complaining are reacting to the soundbyte instead of the reality of the situation.
"&gt;Yes, taxes pay for infrastructure but they aren't the ""whole reason we pay taxes in the first place.""  Did you not even read my post? I already said taxes pay for infrastructure. They are not however ""the whole reason we pay taxes in the first place."" They are part of many things taxes pay for.   Jesus Christ."
I'm sure they'd be all ears. &gt; Because the pooling of vast resources for disaster relief is something that states do? That they do it doesn't mean that it couldn't happen without the state on a voluntary basis. The funding for all of these programs combined is easily less than, what, a quarter of the government's budget? If the people who made this same objection put their money where their mouth is, there would be no shortage of funding. People from the left and the right alike claim that they want these things, so which is it? Are you telling me that there are just millions and millions of people who virtue signal about humanitarian efforts? &gt; This is my point, neither you nor I have any evidence to base this off rather than a tendency for people to be utter bastards to each other, looking at history. You're postulating that if all governments dissipated in a puff of smoke, there wouldn't be huge conflict in the resulting power vacuum? Actually I don't think that immediately destroying governments will create the best outcomes, as that usually happens violently and results in someone wanting to fill the roles performed by government. Instead, I think that based upon history individuals are less likely to be violent when they aren't acting on behalf of governments, and they can and will find alternatives to the state that will replace it over time *if they are not violently stopped.* Here are some examples: 1. I would rather be entirely left alone by the state police agents and allowed to use my own private security. I would not be taxed for state agents and would instead pay out of pocket. This would likely lower the cost since they would be interested in preventing losses rather than busting people for parking tickets, speeding tickets, drug offenses, civil asset forfeiture, etc. Would you not agree that this is a superior model? 2. I would rather have private large-scale defense since it would not be involved in international wars of aggression. I would not be taxed and would instead pay out of pocket. All else equal, this would be less expensive and less dangerous since resources would only be used for defense. Would you not agree that this is a superior model? 3.
&gt;I would imagine that given any lack of compulsory regulation, that Americans are using whatever means of payment that suits them.  I'd agree, it's almost entirely about competition and consumer protections in areas like banking outside of the US rather than compulsory regulation pushing people to use particular approaches.  I run a company in the UK, processing cheques is expensive and awkward (its a manual process, it costs money at basically all points of the process and is more likely to result in a failed payment) for me compared to almost every other method of payment, so I prefer (and actively encourage) the use of electronic payments instead.  I can do that because my bank doesn't charge extra for processing electronic payments, in fact it's now cheaper to process them than cheques. That also makes sense from the banks perspective given it costs more money for them to maintain, offer and process cheque payments (to the point that they are already essentially converting them into electronic payments by scanning..).   It's not Americans being backward, it's US banks.  I doubt that if you had safe, secure, cheap and reliable electronic payment facilities, with the same level of protection and control as with a cheque, most Americans would take the same approach as they do elsewhere (After all, its convenient..).
There's nothing stopping most of these people from renting or delaying moving out from their parents.   If you're broke but keep shopping at expensive grocers instead of minimizing your consumption so that you're able to eat the next day in case you get fired then it's your fault as well for not planning for it financially.   People over extended themselves and they need to start accepting part of the responsibility. Sometimes the only way to win the game is to not play.  See I can use shitty analogies too when I feel like it.
"We're screaming about it because we're barely hanging on by our fucking fingernails, and more taxes will suck all the cash out of our businesses and push us over the edge.    I find it weird that the people who complain most about big box corporations are also the ones screaming for more government involvement in the marketplace, which acts as a regressive tax in the business ecology, and selects for the largest corporation.  I for one think you can shove your ""sensible, smart decision"" through my *accounting program* and figure out how to make payroll, when I have to take out a *loan* to pay my taxes."
&gt; Less capital tax = less pressure on the wealthy/entrepreneurs (since you keep bigger portion of your net income, the interest to bring back business should increase) = capital inflow back to the US.  IMO, this statement makes a whole lot of assumptions that are untrue.  1) The wealthy create jobs.  I believe the opposite is true.  I think if you want more companies/jobs you should offer universal healthcare so low to middle class folks can risk leaving an established company to start on their own.  2) More money to the rich means more investment in the economy. My experience shows the rich will use the money to grow their own wealth, not everyone's. I remember a recent Bloomberg article where businessmen said they would use repatriated money for buyouts, liminting competition and growing a company's hold on the market.  3) Take home money is used for investment.  It isn't. Companies do the large investments, not individuals.  Consider Amazon looking at growing their distribution channels or Apple with their iPhone evolution.  If you make it more profitable for corporate profits to go to compensation, you leave less money for investment.  4) Companies struggle in the US due to overtaxation. This is a flat out myth. Cost of taxes for business in the US is one of the lowest for rich, educated countries and that is before the tax kickbacks (a la Foxconn) or loopholes.  5) And the bigges IMO -- the US has been fed the lie that the best thing for the citizens of the country is aligned with the best things for the country's companies. The opposite is the case.
"No, there are no issues.  When you form the corp in DE, you pick a business there to serve as your ""agent"" (essentially someone who knows to get in contact with you).  The ""agent"" will notify you about taxes and any mail you get, but besides the fee they charge you for being the agent, you should file all the taxes directly with DE (franchise tax is easy to file on the web) instead of going through the agent and paying a surcharge. When your LLC files taxes, you'll do so in DE and then the LLC will issue you a federal and state K1.  You'll file taxes where you reside and use the federal K1, but I think you might have to file DE state taxes (unsure about this part, feel free to edit or comment and I'll correct)."
Is this for the US? Or does it apply here in the UK in a general sense?  Obviously I think we are using different terms, but this is just a general run down of the different business types really right?  I'm wondering if the use of a name thing matters here in the UK or not. I'm happy to trade under my actual name, but would prefer a name for the business that is separate to my own name.
The big difference for me under the High deductible plan has been that instead of paying the co-pay, now I am now responsible for the negotiated rate until I reach the deductible limit. The HSA is only a way to funnel medical payments through a tax free account the insurance company and the doctor don't care about the HSA. If we go out-of-network, then I am responsible for the full rate, but they only count the negotiated rate as a credit against the out of pocket/deductible. This big difference makes it very important to pick a doctor in-network. For your example: I would have paid $50 under the PPO, but $200 under the high deducible plan. If I go out-of-network I would have to pay whatever the doctor want me to pay, but the insurance company would only credit me $200 against my deductible. I can pull the extra $350 from the HSA. It is hard to get good pricing information from some doctors, but the price difference for me has been so large that in-network is the only way to go. For prescriptions the high deductible plan has been worse, because we pay the full price with no discounts for the medicine, until we reach the plan deductible. That makes the cost of the prescriptions as much as 10x's more expensive. In fact the annual cost of our prescriptions all but guarantees that we hit the deductible each year.
"He didn't ask them to do those things! They forced him to give them his money!  If I were allowed to opt out of parts of the government, I would. I'll pay the local taxes that build the local roads and I'll pay the tolls to use the larger roads. If you let people compete with the police, I'd opt out of the public police, as well. I'll also gladly pay a subscription for a fire company (as it happens, my fire department *is* private, albeit non-profit, and I *do* pay a subscription).  Your argument is literally ""That guy who robbed you spent the money on a bench and you sat on it. So, yaknow, he was justified robbing you."""
Eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes is punishing blue states. No way around it - this is the definition of double taxation that the GOP rails against for corporations.  I'm sorry that my state and local government provide me services I want, utilize and enjoy.
"&gt; The main reason you see so many people in first class is because they earn miles for themselves  Yup.  My private company allows us to use our own milage accounts when booking company travel, so we earn the miles.  I also make heavy use of my Chase sapphire card, that has a 1:1 transfer between card-miles and most airline programs' miles.    While I don't travel _often_ for my job, I'm usually on a plane every couple months, at least, and most of the time, I can upgrade to first/business, or at least the ""special cattle"" rows of coach on my own dime (or miles)."
15 years ago I bought a beach condo in Miami for $400,000 and two extra parking spaces for $3000 each. Today the condo is worth 600,000 but the rent barely covers mortgage repairs and property taxes. Most of The old people in the building have since died and are now replaced with families with at least two cars and spots are in short supply. I turned down offers of 25,000 for each parking space. I have the spaces rented out for $200 per month no maintenance for an 80% annual return on my purchase price and the value went has gone up over $700%. And no realtors commissions if i decide to sell the spaces.
I really like wireless charging, not a deal breaker though. I find the larger screen more usable. I rarely use my phone for calling anymore, so the increased size if helpful. My phone spends most of its time held horizontally.    I also really like the customization.  I know this isn't for everyone. I am a tinkerer so I like android for the same reason I like PCs. There is just a lot more freedom.   Apple products are great but I find them more like appliances they work and typically they work well.   I like my nexus devices I have had for their bang for the buck value as well. I like buying an unlocked device for a great price. I occasionally travel for work and I like having  an unlocked device.   I also hate being locked into a contract, so the purchase price really helps compared to an iPhone.  My biggest problem with android is the lack of accessories. I wish we had the amount that apple users do. It is all worth it though.   I am open to having an iPhone. I am always looking over the fence but I feel their high cost of entry will keep me away unless something amazing happens with them.
The irony is Walmart would probably get more of my business if they hadn't copied Amazon and gone the market place route. Their online site is a disorganized mess without any of the customer service or guarantees you get from Amazon. Their one strength would be if I could go on their site check the inventory and go pick it up at the local store. Instead unless it's an absolute emergency I just order from Amazon and wait the 2 days for delivery when I buy the same type of products I used to purchase at  Walmart.
Politics is certainly part of the equation, in two ways that I can think of. These don't necessarily reflect my views; just trying to explain as I see it. First, there are a lot of interests in having the current, convoluted tax system entrenched. ProPublica did a piece talking about the question you're asking, and Intuit, makers of the popular tax software TurboTax, is mentioned as someone who lobbied heavily to keep the kind of system you describe out. It's spun as increasing the size and cost of government (which, I guess, is true - someone has to do the work if you aren't filing) while opening up possibilities for error, but the piece portrays the companies as being more interested in preserving the status quo. Second, plenty of people don't like the idea that taxation is done automatically, out of sight and out of mind. An issue that illustrates this is airline pricing. Consumers don't like seeing a $19 fare advertisement and then finding out that they'll actually have to pay $50 after the taxes are added. However, those in the airline industry and those who are generally against taxes don't like the idea that a tax can be added without the consumer really knowing that the government was responsible for the price increase. You sometimes see this with gasoline prices, where taxes are built into the price per gallon. My home state of Pennsylvania recently raised the gas tax without anyone really noticing since the overall price was dropping dramatically at the time. Contrast that to Pittsburgh-area bars who were able to very specifically pin an alcohol tax on its creator. Point being, direct deposits with automatic deductions already take most of the thinking out of taxation. Those in that situation really only think about their income in terms of the amount that shows in their bank account. For some, that time of filing taxes is the one time a year where you actually get to reflect on the amount of money you're paying the government for its services. The more automatic taxation is and the less that the public thinks about it, the easier it is for the government to raise it without people noticing.
This is going to be a philosophical answer, but here it goes.  What is the purpose of an insurance? In my perspective, insurance is a way to protect yourself from risks in life you can not afford to take. Following this principle, most of the people do not have enough money to fix a Ferrari, or pay the medical expenses of a third party--so insurance against liabilities makes financial sense, but many can afford buying an equivalent car as they are insuring.  If you have enough money to buy an equivalent car, you are paying for a risk you can take yourself. Then, instead of paying the comprehensive fee which is used to pay the different accidents, the company's administrative fees and the shareholder profits; I would save your money in a separate account and use it as a self-insurance. That is at least what I do.  I even put other insurances and extended warranties, which respective risks I have decided to absorve; that way I diversify my fund.
I appreciate your answering my questions instead of just downvoting.  I'm kinda losing respect for this sub by the minute.  I didn't imagine the government commandeering private fleets, rather there being rules in place for those corporations to handle evacuation situations.  I do see the potential complexity inherent in that endeavor, but it's by no means too complicated to carry out.
"There are way too many details missing to be able to give you an accurate answer, and it would be too localized in terms of time & location anyway -- the rules change every year, and your local taxes make the answer useless to other people. Instead, here's how to figure out the answer for yourself. Use a tax estimate calculator to get a ballpark figure. (And keep in mind that these only provide estimates, because there are still a lot of variables that are only considered when you're actually filling out your real tax return.) There are a number of calculators if you search for something like ""tax estimator calculator"", some are more sophisticated than others. (Fair warning: I used several of these and they told me a range of $2k - $25k worth of taxes owed for a situation like yours.) Here's an estimator from TurboTax -- it's handy because it lets you enter business income. When I plug in $140K ($70 * 40 hours * 50 weeks) for business income in 2010, married filing jointly, no spouse income, and 4 dependents, I get $30K owed in federal taxes. (That doesn't include local taxes, any itemized deductions you might be eligible for, IRA deductions, etc. You may also be able to claim some expenses as business deductions that will reduce your taxable business income.) So you'd net $110K after taxes, or about $55/hour ($110k / 50 / 40). Of course, you could get an answer from the calculator, and Congress could change the rules midway through the year -- you might come out better or worse, depending on the nature of the rule changes... that's why I stress that it's an estimate. If you take the job, don't forget to make estimated tax payments! Edit: (some additional info) If you plan on doing this on an ongoing basis (i.e. you are going into business as a contractor for this line of work), there are some tax shelters that you can take advantage of.