vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I agree with everything you said except that increasing employee wages will raise prices. It can lead to that, assuming upper management receives the same level of compensation. The fact that unrest within Walmart ranks is taking place, is a symptom of what we can all see when we look at the numbers. The upper management is being overly compensated at the cost of employees. Employee wages can be increased without the cost being shifted to the customers by decreasing upper management's take home. it's one part ethics, two parts good management, manage a company through equidible graduated work reimbursement.
&gt; When an EVP comes to your desk and needs something done and you're lower level, that's A Priority, but if you have other priorities that are on deadline from your more immediate boss, then you're scrambling.. it gets old.  That's your issue, it's not a priority.  The thing to remember about this is he's taking about communication, not orders.  No one in another division is going to be setting my priorities, I will, or my supervisor will.  If you've made a VIP's request a priority, it's your fault.  It's maybe different for me coming from an IT background, but I prioritize agnostic of requester.  The issue decides the priority, not the user.  For the most part, no matter how far up a company you go, explaining to someone that their request is noted, but you have X do get done before you can start is enough.  If they insist, let them know they can speak to your supervisor if they feel priorities should be changed.  Communication should be open, orders should not.
&gt; Google would be forced to actually compete with companies vs. Giving everything away free. That creates employment opportunities for other startups to compete in a fair environment vs. Trying to acquire millions of users on no revenue. TL;DR Don't blame business, blame the politics that let bad business happen. Business doesn't work like that, specially for a publicly traded company. 'Free' goods or services are used as a loss leader to drive their profits in other sectors of the company. Whether it's for PR, marketing, or sales, no company drives their business at a loss. Somewhere, somehow the free things they do are driving their business towards higher profitability. Money isn't being lost on the economy by providing these things as free, it's just being used in different ways. Sure it could be used to pay for the wages of an employee at a startup which provides the same service... but if Google is providing it at or below the most efficient market price then it would be *wasting* money to have less efficient companies providing essentially the same product or service. That money could instead be used in more profitable sectors of the economy, which could in turn generate a healthier and/or faster growing economy overall. Working smarter, not harder. Secondly, startups aren't designed for profitability in the first few years of their operations. They're designed to capture users and information (or as patent holders but that's largely unrelated to my main point) that can later be acquired by larger companies who are looking to target those users. Why else would any company pay for a startup while they're operating at a loss? The revenue for startups comes much later on as they're bought out by bigger companies or they find a way to monetize their user base/generate stable sources of revenue. If your argument is that employment by start ups drives the economy at large, I have to ask, if the economy is operating less efficiently (by supporting start ups in replacing the market share currently held by much more efficiently operating large companies ~) by employing more people, how is this healthier for the economy as a whole? Supporting start ups is good but it has to be done in such a way that it doesn't hurt existing business just for the sake of making jobs.
It will only last you 10 years that way, but if you are not too young, that will be a significant portion of your life. If you are young, you can work and add to it. Unfortunately, financial markets don't magically make people rich. If you make a lot of money in the market, it's because you took a risk and got lucky. If you make a comfortable amount with no risk, it means you invested in a market environment very different from what we see today. --------- EDIT ------------ To get an idea of what risk free investments (after inflation) earn per year at various horizons see this table at the treasury. At the time of this writing you would have to invest in a security with maturity almost 10 years in order to break even with inflation. Beating it by 10% or even 3% per year with minimal risk is a pipe dream.
"&gt;&gt; Check the ""maybe""(s): they are all yours! &gt; Here is where you first used ""maybe"" My one(!) ""maybe"" is with confidence that Trump is trying to reduce drug prices. Your many ""maybe""(s) are about why Trump is not going to reduce drug prices, despite him saying he would and him trying very hard to fix the mess with the expensive ObamaCare. Do you understand the difference between me and you here? &gt;&gt; How ""instability"" will happen because it's tiny bit hotter? &gt; I gave you a link when I said global warming is a serious risk to the country. It gives possible scenarios. LOL!!!!!! You just said it! I can't believe it! You just said ""possible scenarios""... for how global warming may(be) cause ""instability"". **Your ""maybe""(s) together with your ""possibilities"" are to desperately convince yourself (and me) about baseless things you want to believe in.** &gt;&gt; I asked you, again, and again, and again, and again, to give me one ACTION by Trump that you oppose. &gt; Here is your first request for an example: ... Here is the second request to which I responded: ... Neither one asked for an ""action"". Oh c'mon! Are you seriously saying you can't/won't give me actions by Trump you oppose to, because I did not ask for them initially? Really? Or is it because you have no examples? &gt;&gt; He's a liar, so you won't believe anything he said, anything he does or anything I say about him. &gt;No, it only means I won't accept what he says as true. LOL!!!!
"&gt;""Frequently you’ll see that there’s really no future for the business beyond the selling season,” Albergotti said. “Lenders want to liquidate inventory and get as much cash as they can to sell the company and move on.”  The last paragraph of the article really echoes your sentiment. With the exception of a few brands that could be ""saved"" - whether it is due to their strong customer base or a maneuverable capital structure / balance sheet - there is a lot to be concerned about  when it comes to these traditional retailers."
"Why it is good to be risky The reason why it is good to be risky is because risky investments can result in higher returns on your money. The problem with being risky, is there is a chance you can lose money. However, in the long term you can usually benefit from higher returns even if you have a few slip ups. Let me show you an example: These two lines are based off of placing $2,000 in a retirement fund at age of 20 and then at age of 25 start investing $6,500 a year (based off of a salary of $65,000 with a company that will 1 to 1 match up to 5% IRA contribution, presumably someone with a Master's should be able to get this) and then being able to increase your contribution amount by $150 a year as your salary begins to increase as well. The blue line assumes that all of this money that you are putting in a retirement account has a fixed 3% interest (compounded yearly for simplicity sake) every year until you retire. The red line is earning a 12% interest rate while you are 20 years old and then decreasing by 0.5% per year until you retire. Since this is using more risky investments when you are younger, I have even gone ahead and included losing 20% of your money when you are 24, another 20% when you are 29, and then again another 20% when you are 34. As you can see, even with losing 20% of your money 3 different times, you still end up with more money then you would have had if you stuck with a more conservative investment plan. If I change this to 50% each 3 times, you will still come out about equal to a more conservative investment. Now, I do have these 3 loses placed at a younger age when there is less to lose, but this is to be expected since you are being more risky when you are young. When you are closer to retirement you have less of a chance of losing money since you will be investing more conservatively. Why it is OK to be risky when you are young but not old Lets say you loose 20% of your $2,000 when you are young, you have 30-40 years to make that back. That's roughly $1 a month extra that you are having to come up with.
I think the point is that there is something structurally wrong with a company if it has billable orders a year and a half out, for a super -premium priced product, and it still can't make money.  It's like, what is the turning point we are waiting for? I don't know that startup apologies are applicable when you have an 18-month lead time for six-figure cars. You can't claim that you're still trying to build a customer base with that kind of wait list.  You can't talk about economies of scale, not when you can't even service your existing customers, especially not with this kind of product.  If an 18-month waitlist of customers ready and eager to pay the super-premium asking price is not enough to break even, what would be?
As much as people on the internet and ZH-like blogs like to harp on auto deliquencies and other narrow metrics as broader statements about how life around us is all a sham, I feel this article does a good job at discussing the mitigants here.  Notably: 1) that the sub-prime auto market is rather small, so while delinquencies may rise it won't represent a catalyst for a broader financial crisis.   2) The securitized products Santander and others are putting together are structured in a way to account for these defaults and loss rates, so while the relative uptick in default rates is interesting to note, it doesn't necessarily spell doom in absolute terms.   3) The fact that many auto dealers don't verify income isn't uncommon and in fact an industry standard practice due to point #2 above. The statement these dealers have been lying about incomes and/or is not verifying incomes certainly pulls at the heart strings of the 2008 Housing Crisis, but when discussed within the context of how the auto lending market works, it isn't nearly as scary as those statements would suggest in isolation.
So they attempt to correlate all of the items in your list, to see if any of those items indicates that you should be charged more (or less) for your insurance. This is equal parts art and science, and a lot of it comes down to how they market themselves. ie: if an insurance company gives a discount for being in college, is that because college drivers are better drivers, or is it because they want to increase the number of young customers they have, so they can keep those customers for life? Therefore how each metric factors into your calculation will be based on the company using it. It would basically be impossible to 'come up with' the same answer as the insurance company by having the information you provided, because of how heavily dependant that answer is on statistics + marketing. As for how your state matters - some states may have different accident rates, and different payout systems. For example - is Hawaii driving more dangerous because of all the tourists driving rented cars faster than they should? Is New York less expensive to insure because better public health care means less cost is borne by the insurance company in the event of an accident [I have no idea if either of these things are the case, they are purely for hypothetical discussion purposes]. In short, make sure you get quotes from multiple providers, and understand that it isn't just the cost that changes. Check changes in coverage and deductibles as well [ie: if one company charges you $100 / month when everyone else charges $200 / month - make sure that the cheaper company doesn't limit its coverage in ways that matter to you].
"&gt; she makes some very good points to the whole ""Startup"" mentality.  The 'fight' here is for responsibility.  Ahoyhere is challenging people to be responsible for themselves, and to 'take the blame' if they have nothing to show for it when or if their vc startup employer goes bust (or, gets wildly successful and they don't share in the success.)    People don't want that.  They want to tell themselves they're justified for being bitter after being screwed.  They want to know that 'hard work always pays off', which is obviously false."
Most of the information we get about how a company is running its business, in any market, comes from the company. If the information is related to financial statements, it is checked by an external audit, and then provided to the public through official channels. All of these controls are meant to make it very unlikely for a firm to commit fraud or to cook its books. In that sense the controls are successful, very few firms provide fraudulent information to the public compared with the thousands of companies that list in stock markets around the world.  Now, there is still a handful of firms that have committed fraud, and it is probable that a few firms are committing fraud right now. But, these companies go to great lengths to keep information about their fraud hidden from both the public and the authorities. All of these factors contribute to such frauds being black swan events to the outside observer.  A black swan event is an event that is highly improbable, impossible to foresee with the information available before the event (it can only be analyzed in retrospect), and it has very large impact. The classification of an event as a black swan depends on your perspective. E.g. the Enron collapse was not as unexpected to the Enron executives as it was to its investors.  You cannot foresee black swan events, but there are a few strategies that allow you to insure yourself against them. One such strategy is buying out of the money puts in the stocks where you have an investment, the idea being that in the event of a crash - due to fraud or whatever other reason - the profits in your puts would offset the loses on the stock. This strategy however suffers from time and loses a little money every day that the black swan doesn't show up, thanks to theta decay.  So while it is not possible to detect fraud before investing, or at least not feasible with the resources and information available to the average investor, it is possible to obtain some degree of protection against it, at a cost. Whether that cost is too high or not, is the million dollar question.
The supply of people that are able to do these types of jobs is probably not much bigger than it is already. &gt;20% are imported. And they don't have to set up a ""supply chain"" - just the bare minimum to legally siphon funds into another company they own, be it via interest on credit, rent, intellectual property (i.e. franchise or trademark payments) or anything else. This is laughable, do you really believe this? Grocery stores have absolutely MASSIVE supply chain risk. Arguably their entire value proposition is in supply chain. You seem to think there's an evil cabal moving money around to screw people over. This is left wing bullshit conspiracy stuff. You sound like a left wing version of Alex Jones. Show me clear evidence that a grocer is doing this, including references in their actual financial statements."
"The 2 months extension is automatic, you just need to tell them that you're using it by attaching a statement to the return, as Pete Becker mentioned in the comments. From the IRS pub 54: How to get the extension.   To use this automatic 2-month extension, you must attach a statement to your return explaining which of the two situations listed earlier qualified you for the extension.  The ""regular"" 6 months extension though is granted automatically, upon request, so if you cannot make it by June deadline you should file the form 4868 to request a further extension. Automatic 6-month extension.   If you are not able to file your return by the due date, you generally can get an automatic 6-month extension of time to file (but not of time to pay). To get this automatic extension, you must file a paper Form 4868 or use IRS e-file (electronic filing). For more information about filing electronically, see E-file options , later.  Keep in mind that the due date is still April 15th (18th this year), so the 6-month extension pushes it back to October. Previous 2-month extension.   If you cannot file your return within the automatic 2-month extension period, you generally can get an additional 4 months to file your return, for a total of 6 months. The 2-month period and the 6-month period start at the same time. You have to request the additional 4 months by the new due date allowed by the 2-month extension.  You can ask an additional 2 months extension (this is no longer automatic) to push it further to December. See the publication. These are extension to file, not to pay. With the form 4868 you're also expected to submit a payment that will cover your tax liability (at least in the ballpark). The interest is pretty low (less than 1% right now), but there's also a penalty which may be pretty substantial if you don't pay enough by the due date. See the IRS tax topic 301. There are ""safe harbor"" rules to avoid the penalty."
"A Ponzi scheme, simply defined, is where the schemer uses funds invested by one person to pay off (or provide a return) for an earlier investor.  Such schemes require a continual supply of new investors, and when they run it, the schemes collapse. Bernie Madoff is the best modern-day example of how a Ponzi scheme works, and he ran his for decades before it finally caved in thanks to the 2008 economic crash.  People who had been content to leave their ""returns"" with Bernie started getting margin calls as the markets imploded, so they asked Bernie for redemptions he didn't have the funds for.  That's what caused him to come clean, because there was no way to hide it any longer. Buying shares in a company with no revenues and then selling them to someone else at a higher price is not a Ponzi scheme.  That falls under the ""greater fool"" theory of economics -- there's always a bigger fool who can be parted from his money. As was pointed out, Enron is a great example of what you're talking about -- they published totally fabricated financial statements that people then used as the basis to invest, only to learn later that it was all a lie."
Let me first start off by saying that you need to be careful with an S-Corp and defined contribution plans.  You might want to consider an LLC or some other entity form, depending on your state and other factors. You should read this entire page on the irs site:  S-Corp Retirement Plan FAQ, but here is a small clip: Contributions to a Self-Employed Plan You can’t make contributions to a self-employed retirement plan from your S corporation   distributions. Although, as an S corporation shareholder, you receive   distributions similar to distributions that a partner receives from a   partnership, your shareholder distributions aren’t earned income for   retirement plan purposes (see IRC section 1402(a)(2)). Therefore, you   also can’t establish a self-employed retirement plan for yourself   solely based on being an S corporation shareholder. There are also some issues and cases about reasonable compensation in S-Corp.  I recommend you read the IRS site's S Corporation Compensation and Medical Insurance Issues page answers as I see them, but I recommend hiring CPA You should be able to do option B.  The limitations are in place for the two different types of contributions:  Elective deferrals and Employer nonelective contributions.  I am going to make a leap and say your talking about a SEP here, therefore you can't setup one were the employee could contribute (post 1997). If your doing self employee 401k, be careful to not make the contributions yourself. If your wife is employed the by company, here calculation is separate and the company could make a separate contribution for her. The limitation for SEP in 2015 are 25% of employee's compensation or $53,000.  Since you will be self employed, you need to calculate your net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the eductible part of your self employment tax and contributions business makes to SEP.  Good read on SEPs at IRS site. and take a look at chapter 2 of Publication 560. I hope that helps and I recommend hiring a CPA in your area to help.
GM acquired the startup Cruise Automation to develop their robotaxis for $680 million (it was money well spent).  Cruise was cofounded and is led by Kyle Vogt who sold his first company, Twitch, for a billion dollars to Amazon in 2014 at age 29.  So he's already had his *PayPal payday* and now, as Cruise CEO and the youngest GM vice president ever, he's doing what he really wants to do, which is build self driving cars.   Vogt and the Cruise team have the full force of General Motors behind them, they basically have free rein to strip the company for parts. I guess it should be noted that Vogt participated in the 2004 Darpa Self Driving Car Grand challenge as an MIT junior. It's been his thing since he was a kid. So watch out; Kyle Vogt is major League. Right now Kyle belongs to GM, but in 5 or 10 years GM will belong to him.  Autopilot 2, which is Tesla's better late than never autonomous driving system has yet to surpass the capabilities of the comparatively tiny  Mobileye eyeq3 chip used in Autopilot 1.  Musk claimed last October that AP2 would be able to drive coast to coast without intervention before the end of the year, which is bs. I honestly don't know how they managed to get it so wrong.   The Autopilot division is now on it's 4th director in a year, all is not well. The AP2 system is way underpowered. Magical thinking isn't going to make cars drive themselves, you need LIDAR, high res 3d maps, giant fucking computers, and it takes years to fully  validate these systems and train them to handle every conceivable edge case that can occur in real world drivjng. Cruise has been at it since 2013.  So when you see GM execs acting cocky, and calling Elon full of shit, there's a reason for it.
MyDeals247 is the world’s first personalized eCommerce platform - post your request (on what you want) - it creates healthy competition among the local sellers and brings the top 5 lowest offers for the buyer request real-time - you can buy or sell any items in your local area - totally customised to your own personal needs.
My understanding is that BD is on the block b.c it isn't meeting financial targets. Masa is a big picture guy so maybe he doesnt care. I expect his new fund to snatch up a bunch more of these types of companies because he is willing to take the risk.   I dont see how he actually adds anything to BD or any other company besides cash. But his strategy has not been the home run, it has been to hit the ball into orbit.
Yes, there are checks and balances.  Employers can be, and have been, prosecuted for failing to pay super before the statutory timeline, which is three months from the pay date. However, it is still in your interests to check for yourself.  The most common point for missing super to be discovered is when the company goes broke, at which point it's too late for you.  What you should do is  Check on your payslips that the right amount is allocated to super.  It should be 9% of gross, plus any salary sacrifice or additional component. Check your super fund's half-yearly statements line up the deductions given on your payslip. Consider getting online access to your super account so you can check more quickly. If something is missing, call your super fund and/or payroll office. Resources: