vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Mervis Diamonds is a family business specializing in diamond engagement rings and other fine diamond jewelry with a goal to augment life's special moments with high quality pieces that last a lifetime. With their origins at the diamond mines in South Africa, they maintain strong relationships and import all their own diamonds. Every stone they have has been hand-selected by Zed Mervis for superior ""Cut"" and brilliance. They help you choosing the most incredible pieces that help you standout from the crowd."
The justification for an act typically comes after the decision is made. People operate under a fairly universal set of instincts and social behaviors, so I think condemning him for this behavior directly is short sighted. I would ask instead, why do people feel that cheating organizations like target is so emotionally easy? I would wager that burdalane is not the sort of person who would steal his neighbors unlocked bike from his porch or hustle a man for bus fare, so what is different? We seem, (generally, as a population) to have less emotional investment in strangers than ourselves, even less in people from other cultures, and even less in animals. We will fight hard to save the lives of 5000 of our soldiers, less hard to save a million of their civilions, and we certainly don't give a fuck about taking a bee's honey or killing a chicken and eating it (again, generally). I would propose that organizations like big box stores fall somewhere between animals and foreign peasants as far as our feelings of responsibility towards them. It is a little more complicated than that because obviously a big box store supports the lives of a certain number of people, but if a big box store were delicious and did not support people I would wager it would not survive for very long. So the defining difference seems to be whether or not you are a person who makes a rational decision that the store provides more good for your people unmolested or if it is a net harmful force, whether you have strong ingrained emotional belief structures regarding cheating or therft, and whether your rational mind supercedes your emotional decision making (mine rarely does, though I try). A person who thinks that they do more harm to the population than good even with a strong sense of the wrongness of stealing might steal from the store even though they would never steal from another person. They would be completely morally justified in this act. Similarly, a person who thinks that the store does more good than harm, and does not steal from the store regardless of whether or not they think stealing is wrong would also be morally just in their actions. A person who thinks they do no harm to the community but has no negative emotional connection to the act of theft might steal from both the store and their neighbor. They would obviously not be justified.
I have searched like crazy for one that appears to have been taken down.  Basically, the premise was that semi-communist states were more capable of coping with ubiquitous robotics than capitalist states that lacked strong socialism with positive rights.  Like, a capitalist state could do great under UR, if it could regulate markets effectively AND was guaranteeing healthcare, food, and (most importantly) education to all its citizens.     It honestly was exactly what it sounds like you are looking for, but I read it a few years back and no amount of googling has turned it up.
"Both OP and the author of the newspaper article should have titled this ""When the media take the time to explain the true state of our economy, people are less optimistic about the future."" A simple link to [this](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UMCSENT) graph would show that consumer confidence has rebounded, but dipped during the debt crisis (as it should have) because the media were reminding people how utterly weak our economy is. The fact that average hourly earnings today are exactly where they were in 2008 is a disaster. But to state that Americans perception of the economy is worse is flat wrong. They actually perceive it as improving when in fact it's on extremely shaky ground."
A person who thinks that they do more harm to the population than good even with a strong sense of the wrongness of stealing might steal from the store even though they would never steal from another person. They would be completely morally justified in this act. Similarly, a person who thinks that the store does more good than harm, and does not steal from the store regardless of whether or not they think stealing is wrong would also be morally just in their actions. A person who thinks they do no harm to the community but has no negative emotional connection to the act of theft might steal from both the store and their neighbor. They would obviously not be justified. A person with a strong sense of the wrongness of stealing which supercedes their rational decision regarding the value of a big box store will not steal, but they may not be morally justified in the decision, depending on their rational take. I think I fall into the first category. I think it is wrong not to do harm to an organization like target when it is possible to do so, yet I generally don't go about this by stealing because getting caught would be much worse than whatever harm I could do by jacking a few dollars worth of merchandise. This offer allowed a means of theft without getting caught, and had I been aware of it I probably would have availed myself of it. As it stands I just work extremely hard in the field of biochemistry with the hopes that one day I will contribute to technologies which will allow humans to live and thrive without having to buy food, clothes, medicine, or shit from target.
Sure, let's keep bailing them out without ever holding them accountable for risky behavior. I'm sure every time they predictably take huge long term risks for short term gain and get away with it, our bailouts will fix everything. Thus solving the problem once and for all.   But...   ONCE AND FOR ALL!
That’s exactly what many countries do, even going to far as to bake the data they want into their structure. Not doing well in middle school? Time to ship you off to trade school so you don’t take the standardized tests. I’m not saying that’s why they do it, I’m saying countries like Germany artificially look better than reality suggests.
The companies may be crappy and doing this on purpose, but I think a large part of it has to due with the sheer enormity of our country.  We're *really* spread out compared to almost every other country (except Russia)...  They just need a lot fewer cell towers to cover an area, so they can pay for each tower to be better  just look at the area between the US and several other countries (all in square miles) from wolfram alpha      United States:    3,719,000     Japan:              145,882     England:             94,508     France:             211,209     South Korea:         38,023     Poland:             120,728     Italy:              116,348     Germany:            137,846
I wouldn't send it to India in the first place because their financial system is a bit sketchy, I would look into countries like Germany to send the money to you if you're looking to avoid high taxes with a very stable financial system
Oh yes, it is absolutely the problem of the consumers. After all how is the bank to know how it should be doing business unless the customer explains it to them?  Please read the other comments about how the customer has verified receipt of some critical document and then they claim that they don't have it. Sure they are very nice on the phone, but that doesn't help when I have to take time out of my work day to call them repeatedly.
"The four countries we examined—Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France—have separated their air traffic control functions from their safety oversight and regulatory functions, the report said. ""While safety and regulatory functions remain government-controlled, each nation has commercialized its air traffic control function into an [Air Navigation Service Provider] using various organizational structures."" http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/253073-audit-finds-significant-differences-in-private-air-traffic-control"
I wish people stop blathering about cheap labor this and that. If that were the case, Japan, Germany, Korea, etc would follow the same trend as in US with declining manufacturing, instead of top global powerhouse and major exporter of manufacturing good.  Yes there are transition from low cost product, but as those 3 countries proved, they can move on and make higher end goods.
No, you don't. Self made means you didn't inherit your money. This person did not inherit his position. He did not inherit his money. He is earning it. He has had some advantages, but that doesn't make him not self-made.    If having an advantage means you're not self made, then when would the cutoff be? Would it be a certain level of wealth? But what about all those people in Africa/India/China? Surely no one born in the US faces that level of hardship, so then no one in America can be self made. Sorry, Oprah. Ok, so within the poorest of countries, there are still disparate levels of wealth. Surely Dinesh who was born to a destitute family in a rural part of India has it tougher than Vijay, who was born to a lower middle class family in Mumbai. Hm.. So to not have an advantage, we've now restricted ourselves to the absolute poorest people from the poorest countries. That is literally the only group of people who could be 'self made', because anything else would be subjective.
&gt; Hoarding more wealth is the solution?  To protect yourself from the coming financial apocalypse, yes.   &gt; Deregulation?  Absolutely deregulate. These regulators keep bailing out banks with taxpayer money... not a very smart move, and not good for the average Joes.  &gt; Starve people till the market corrects itself?  No, bro. The regulators are doing that. Hoarding wealth prevents one from starving, because they have enough funds saved up to buy food.
What does this have to do with capitalism?   To me, this seems like the obvious move when the corporate tax rate is much lower in other countries.  Politicians can only steal from you for so long before you start realizing you have other options.  Maybe nike doesn't want to fund neverending war in the middle east?  I know I don't. Yet my money is taken from me every year to fund it.
I watched the video, it is really very basic, but it does back up my assertion. The banks have a gain because they are the money creators, they don't see a gain from the Cantillion Effect because they are lending money and not buying goods (unless we're talking about investment banking, which we are not). The other people it listed in the pyramid are the ones who gain.
interesting proposition. can't say i disagree with it entirely. i certainly don't want to apply the same label to the young singer that gets applied to real VC's who have repeatedly funded companies that worked out.   then again, what he's doing is venture capitalism at it's most basic level. so...  i'm torn.
Dimon doesn't care about whether other countries get greater economic growth. He wants lower taxes and looser regulation for JP Morgan Chase, and is willing to make ambiguous or outright false statements about other countries in making the case for it.
"Kek!  So no others companies are big enough to take advantage of that?  I don't see any other companies mentioned anywhere.  Hmmm.  It's like they are focusing specifically on Amazon, and don't want you to know about other companies who use this.  That's weird!  Sounds like they are trying to sell you on Amazon hate!  And you're buying it!  You aren't even questioning the missing information!  Now, I agree that Amazon is definitely getting an advantage here.  It may even be unfair, but this article doesn't even provide enough information to determine if the advantage is unfair from a competition perspective, other than being something that bigger companies can take more advantage of. (Wait, isn't ""buy in bulk"" something bigger companies can take advantage of, that smaller companies can't?  Oh no!  Why aren't we fighting that?)  Recognize the lack of information, and avoid the hypocrisy it can cause."
By most estimates, North Korea doesn't have an effective means of retaliating with a nuclear weapon. Further, its not like we were attacking North Korea even when they have repeatedly attempted to assassinate the leader of South Korea, shelled South Korea, or Torpoedoed one of their ships.   The thing that keeps them from being steamrolled is that no one wants to pay to fix their country afterwards.
I misspoke, but really when you look at the exact same securities what other advantage does a fund have over a moderately wealthy investor than leverage and  managerial clout? That and professional analysts can only give you so much of an edge.
Yes. Slavery. Perfect analogy. You're going to be fettered with chains, your children will be taken from you, and your wife repeatedly raped. When you misbehave, or when someone just feels like it, they will beat the shit out of you. If you try to leave the job, they will shoot you in the back of the head.
Not in even one of those countries you listed is it required to purchase healthcare insurance. Not to mention: this comparison that's always made to other countries always leaves out the fact that the majority of medical innovation comes from the US. Take away the incentive to make money and you take away that innovation.
The average CIO I've encountered is technically incompetent to the point of not being capable of even self sufficiency with e-mail. They have never worked a day in IT in their life. They are generally an accountant or something and slashing budgets is all they know. IT is a cost centre, blah, blah, blah. They do this without being able to understand the significance of their decisions. They get their opinions from Forrester or Gartner reports they barely understand and which are often echo chambers of what other non-IT CIOs are doing, a.k.a. market trends. Add a sprinkle of whatever turds some smooth talking salesman can throw over the wall. They get bonuses for racking up technical debt under the guise of saving money. Support costs eat the savings and then some, which gets hidden under a mountain of bad bookkeeping and robbing Peter to pay Paul. An army of non-technical project managers spring up under them because of the mistaken belief that non-it people should run IT projects.  Costs rise, morale sinks, tech debt skyrockets. People who could provide significant competitive advantage instead spend their days and nights lashing increasingly fragile infrastructures together with duct tape and bailing wire. The solution is obviously labour intensive management frameworks where IT people are made to generate mountains of processes that will amount to nothing when management and the business fail to follow through on their part of the commitment, in the complete absence of any accountability. After they fuck up any advantage to in house IT then it's time to outsource to achieve big savings... for one year, then prices go up, but they already cashed that bonus check. When they've irrevocably screwed up one company then they move on to a better position, to make a bigger mess. Lather, rinse, repeat.  At least I'm not bitter.
But the question remains - even if it's optional, why would you take that option?  What advantage does this have over a ring, or badge, or keychain, or any of the zillion other things that can hold an RFID chip and don't need to be implanted?
Either make your best guess, or set it low and then file quarterly Estimated Tax payments to fill in what's missing, or set it high and plan on getting a refund, or adjust it repeatedly through the year, or...
"Yea, thinking the bank rescue is some old boys club conspiracy is pretty far off the mark. Primarily they were sticking to their ideological guns of ""let them fail"" with Lehman, until they saw the over the cliff they were about to go over and started bailing."
"Because its going to effect a lot of people's jobs but being able to work deals with those jobs on the table ""is essential to US business export interests"" &lt;/sarcasm&gt; in the rapidly growing developing countries, which have a surplus of skilled workers who could do those jobs.   Without privatizing education, they could not put those hundreds of thousands of jobs into play.  the same thing goes for health care, (which Ive heard described repeatedly in terms like ""the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal economy"" - a dangerous situation because they mean exactly what it sounds like)   They could not be giving discounts to Americans or having public health care here. Its too important to the US insurance and drug industries that US trade ~~ideological~~ goals be maintained purely and consistently. &lt;/sarcasm&gt;"
There were 100 causes to the current mess and I will assume that we will need 100 solutions, with the stimulus being one.  If I use a bucket to bailout 10 gallons of water but in the same time the boat takes on five gallons, I need to stop the leak but I also have to keep bailing.
2008 • Conduct raised questions as to the regulation of the entire financial industry • Contrast with their responsibility for much innovation and engineering in the financial services industry Credit ratings agencies • Party to major conflicts of interest • Overwhelmingly gave AAA ratings to MBSs • Agencies loosened their rating criteria and perhaps over-rated MBSs in an effort to gain more business from originators • Agencies also rated the debt of institutions that held positions in MBSs • CDOs holding MBSs obtained high ratings as well – statistical models used indicated them to be safe • Based high ratings in the commercial paper market on IB lines of credit – obliged the IBs in order to gain more business • Agency downgrades of MBSs/CDOs resulted in large IB losses, setting in motion further developments • Ratings became less useful as the MBS market froze up, with even AAA-rated MBSs struggling to find a market • Previously championed as an alternative to government intervention in the market • Role of ratings agencies heavily questioned in aftermath • Also questioned was how ratings in general should be used • RAs deflected claims that they acted irresponsibly during the subprime boom • Criticised for the large proportion of AAA-ratings given to MBSs o Argued that historical defaults on MBSs were lower than similar corporate bonds • Conflicts inherent in having issuers pay for ratings o Committees that assigned ratings were separate from negotiations regarding fees • Emphasized benefits of giving all investors free access to ratings rather than them paying for them • Wave of downgrades in 2nd half of 2007 a result of unexpectedly poor performance of subprime mortgages originated in 2006 o Attributed to: laxer underwriting standards, declines in housing prices, more restrictive borrowing standards that prevented borrowers from refinancing Investors • Backbone of many institutions – shareholders • Owned stock in IBs and GSEs, two major players in subprime crisis • Driving force behind institutions taking on riskier investments (e.g. MBSs) • Unwilling to inject more capital/equity into firms required them to turn elsewhere for aid • Worries that the crisis could spread to other markets (e.g. credit cards) added to worries • Grouped with IBs in being seen as responsible for the crisis o US government would not allow higher sale price for Bear Stearns to avoid appearance of bailing out investors
I think that *all* Washington Post articles that mention Amazon or Bezos include that ownership disclosure statement - it's form, no particular significance here.   That said, I agree with you on both points:   &gt; I am leaning more towards the belief that Amazon registered for the patent to keep other competitors from using such a system  &gt; this is a very ominous and scary technological innovation  I love innovation, but it's not always *used* well. This patent describes a bad use: spying on someone's communications to gain an economic advantage over them.   (In the sense that if you are effectively discouraged from comparison shopping and pay a higher price than you would otherwise, they are advantaged to your detriment - potentially even without your knowledge.)
"Which was the foreign airline and what currency do they bill in? It's surprising to think there could be an FX exchange gain, after 30 days, considering the ""Thomas Cook"" high street spreads you (or your credit card company) ought to be being charged... In other words the rate would have to move at least 20% before you saw any FX gain from bid to offer."
It turns out you face a lot of the same problems in a modern battlefield as you do in a humanitarian crisis. Again, charities just don't get the funding to do this sort of thing on the same scale. There was a huge amount of funding dropped on the 2004 tsunami from many countries, but you can't build a hospital ship in two weeks, or a nuclear reactor to provide monumental amounts of fresh water, or the helicopters and operational procedures to tie everything together. Many thousands more would have died without their presence. &gt;what evidence or reason you have to believe that hundreds of millions of people would have died in a century without governments. 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? &gt;“Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide... Yeah, good one. There weren't any Anarchists in a position to do any of that. Great straw man. and that statement by Higgs is just that - a statement. WHY is the burden of proof on the 'statists'? It's the Anarchists who are arguing for the change in the status Quo. You're the one making the claim that it would be a better system here with nothing to back it up but 'well people probably wouldn't start murdering each other', pretty low bar there tbh. But if you want reasoning, see my previous point - if it's such a better system, if people won't exploit every advantage they can get and distort the free market, if people wouldn't try and subvert the system for their own personal gain - why do we have states right now? Would any Anarchist 'state' (region?) not have simply outperformed neighbours if it's so much more efficient?
Bad bad analogies.  No offense sorry, I make bad analogies too.  Tinkering with income inequality will not get in the way of overall wealth creation.  Go check out the income gap of the US vs any other industrialized nation.  Many have lower debt and lower unemployment than we do now, and have a lower income gap, which is caused by laws set up by society, not by some magical force.  People think it is just natural that some countries have a higher income gap than others.    It actually is NOT fact that increasing everyone's wealth helps society more.  if you look up any study done that measures happiness in a society, it shows many countries have happier people than the US does.  The US has more crime, mental illness, etc. than any other industrialized country.  if wealth creation were the solution to our problems, why isn't the US even keeping up with other countries when it comes to measurements that involve a society's success?    The key is that wealth creation only helps a society to a certain point, beyond that it doesn't make people happier.  When you said 'helps society more', you obviously meant people in it being happy, right?  having iPhones doesn't 'help society more' if everyone is miserable.  Anyway, once you get to where basic needs are met, more wealth doesn't really make people any happier.  But there is a mountain of evidence that a high income gap makes people miserable.