vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"You said all terrorists are Muslims, which is not true at all because most acts of terror comes from right winged population (most common are the burning down a refugee house and personal attacks on diffrent looking guys) At least in Germany, dont know about other countries but i can not imagine it much different. Cause and effect and quantity? is a terror attack more harmful if more people heard of it ? Effect on who ? I can imagine you talking in public is pretty scary for foreigners. (which is the point of the hate speech topic). Lets not drag the refugee topic in here too because its very complicated. Just for your information im very much in favour of fighting the cause of immigration and helping where it is needed and not letting millions walk thousands of miles to get to safety of to make a living. Funny how your mind works. Criminal immigrants are not accepted in Germany by the way and if they get criminal here they get deported. The crime rate of the refugees is actually a bit lower then the rate of the rest of the population, so not big a problem. (which makes sense if you think about it. It was hard to get here and they dont want to go back). ""Do you think a rightwing would attack Muslims if they did not attack westerners? Do you think rightwing attacks are more than Muslim attacks? Are they even 1% of all attacks and harm?"". THIS IS THE CORE PROBLEM I AM TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS WHY MILLIONS OF GERMANS SLAUGHTERED THE JEWISH POPULATION. THIS IS THE RESULT OF HATE SPEECH AND HARD RIGHT PROPAGANDA. The difference between now and then? Swap jew with muslim!!! "" the muslims are to blame for the crime rate/ attacking our women / the bad economy. It is exactly the same mindset. People then were no different then people now. They did think they help germany by getting rid of those ""pests"". Most of them did nothing at all and after the war they said they didn't know about any attacks or killings of jews. Needles to say that the actual crime rate if jews in Germany was no different then the non jew crime rate just as it is now with muslims.
How about this rule? Sell 10% of your shares every time they double in price.  (of course, only buy stocks that repeatedly double in price)
&gt;HFT allows those with access to leverage sub-second propagation delays in pricing, which screws those without   Yes it does, just as the first web based trading systems provided investors an advantage over those using the phones to place orders, all the way back to when the wheel provided advantage over those running barefoot in battles. It is the cost of progress.  What is different for the first time in history is that humans are no longer being replaced by other, more efficient humans. They are being replaced by computers, to the point of eventually becoming obsolete. It enables a few to amass enormous leverage but that is a social problem, not an economic one.
"of course if you asked me to give you $24.4955 I can't. No, but if I asked you to give me $24.4955 and you gave me a piece of paper saying ""I O U $24.4955"", and then this happened repeatedly until I had collected 100 of these pieces of paper from you, then I could give them back to you in exchange for $2449.55 of currency. There's nothing magical about the fact that there doesn't happen to be a $0.001 coin in current circulation.  This question has some further information."
Then the USA can respond by pulling troops out of these countries and NATO. Think of all the carbon we will save not sending all those planes and tanks and people in other countries. They can spend some of their budgets on protection then, maybe the French can make a green Jet to defend their country.
"They understand inflation perfectly.  Their owners/member banks own the mortgages, auto loans, business loans, student loans, etc, and, of course all the collateral on unpaid debts.   Inflation is I their best interests.  They aren't in the money game, they are in the capitol game. The fed it's self is in the business of creating inflation and debt.  While the fed, it's self won't capitolise on bad loans, they are happy to do whatever quantitative easing they can to bail out their member banks (who never needed bailing out, as it was their customers, not them, who lost out)...     One of the men behind the founding of/ the principal of the federal reserve/privatized Nation banking, Mayer Amschel Rothschild said ""give me control of a country's money source, and  I care not who makes it's rules"".  The federal Reserve is doing a shitty job by way of we the people, because it was set up specifically to help a small number roof people to plunder our economy.   They built it to create an entire nation of debt slaves... What it needs is to be burned to the ground, and the authority to issue currency be places back into the hands of the legislators- as the Constitution specifies exactly to prevent private interests from doing what they're doing/have done...   The Constitution also doesn't allow for a federal income tax, which was levied the same year that the fed. Was instituted- 1913."
"I've linked to that bureau during the Obama administration, and I've literally seen arguments to authority explained to you repeatedly, yet you continue to lie.   &gt;literally deleting anything his corporate owners don't like  Do you literally still not understand what ""literally"" means?   I've also seen that explained to you over and over."
"Every financial services company (and cellphone provider, cable and broadband provider, private energy supplier, and so on and so forth - it's turtles all the way down in a market economy) spends ""something"" to acquire a new customer.  Paying attractive college students minimum wage to hand out brochures and branded fidget toys costs money.  A 1 million piece postal mailing for a 1% response rate costs money.  A TV ad or billboard costs money.  A signup enticement of cash or airplane miles costs money.   The question is, what does an organization spend per new customer?  The amount a company wants to spend has to do with their medium term outlook and overall margins, so it will vary with the business cycle, but a rule of thumb is $100-200 spent for each customer who signs up.  The advantage to this particular offer is that it may involve some payments to Amazon, but it includes less labor or cost-per-wasted-contact than alternatives.  So there's more in the budget to entice the prospect.   Recall, it's a one-time cost, and you gain a relationship where you get 2% of credit processing turnover for the duration of the account; a chance at 19.99% APR financing or other fees; and an opportunity to upsell a mortgage or life insurance or IRA accounts, etc to a known customer."
If you are from any university in NYC (other than for-profits) you have so much access to networking that you actually have a shot (slim, but still a shot) of breaking into the industry.  You should be reaching out and trying to connect with as many people in IBD as you can. At the gym, through friends/family, through school career center. When you contact them, your goal is to meet them face-to-face. That is the advantage you have over the kids from schools outside of the city and that is what will get your foot in the door.
"&gt;&gt; I propose to make the requirements for finish high school and college degrees much much higher, as it was in the past. &gt; Not gonna happen. Totally agree with you! What I was proposing is what SHOULD be done. &gt; waiting for disadvantaged kids to get higher scores will not happen until they get accepted into college. Even then! Almost all disadvantaged kids, smart or not smart, the diploma they get is almost worthless. The diploma will not give them much advantage or improve their situation. The diploma barely even helps very smart kids from rich advantaged homes. Actually, if in the past, no matter who you knew, no matter your family background, a diploma will almost always GUARANTEE a secure and advantaged life. &gt; If you force schools to gain their income from future students earnings they will have high concern for kids that have a good P/E ratio. It will also stop the loan industry from putting these kids into debt. In theory, you are correct. In practice, many many problems to implement. For starters, this makes college a very risky business because it's very hard to predict future income of its students, even the very smart and accomplished students. And I will give you a related example: colleges teach Computer Science (Programming) to many kids today, but the profession is about to die due AI and automation + outsourcing. This was unexpected 1-2 years ago. Barely economists can predict the economy, so you want colleges to predict income based on what is taught? &gt; The downside is that it may turn colleges into trade techs, Actually, colleges are already trade techs because, today, almost all students study just(!) for the hope to get a job. In the past, you studied to become a scholar and wise, and then pick some kind of a job of your interest where being generally smart and knowledgeable is needed. BOTTOM LINE: Since you and I know that nothing will be done, no higher standards and no future-income based tuition, here's what what's happening with my son, which is what happened with me, which is still happening in Germany.
You are being a scumbag steve. While you are in Korea and not Japan, little shits like you  are what cause foreigners to get bad treatment by cellphone carriers, landlords, money loaning organizations, etc over here.  That is what happens in Japan and I'm sure it's pretty much the same across the sea in Korea. You hurt not just the company but other people.   Of course you can't judge all foreigners by what one shitty foreigner does, but this is what happens in homogeneous countries such as South Korea and Japan.
It would essentially make goods from other countries more cheaper than goods from US. And it would make imports from these countries to China more expensive.  The below illustration is just with 2 major currencies and is more illustrative to show the effect. It does not actually mean the goods from these countries would be cheaper. 1 GBP = 1.60 USD  1 EUR = 1.40 USD 1 CNY = 0.15 USD Lets say the above are the rates for GBP, EUR, CNY. The cost of a particular goods (assume Pencils) in international market is 2 USD. This means for the cost of manufacturing this should be less than GBP 1.25 in UK, less than 1.43 in Euro Countires, less than 13.33 CNY in China. Only then export would make sense. If the real cost of manufacturing is say 1.4 GBP in UK, 1.5 EUR in Euro countires, clearly they cannot compete and would loose. Now lets say the USD has appreciated by 20% against other currencies. The CNY is at same rate. 1 GBP = 1.28 USD 1 EUR = 1.12 USD 1 CNY = 0.15 USD Now at this rate the cost of manufacturing should be less than GBP 1.56 GBP, less than 1.78 EUR in Euro Countires. In effect this is more than the cost of manufacturing. So in effect the goods from other countires have become cheaper/compatative and goods from China have become expensive. Similarly the imports from these countires to China would be more expensive.
"Amount is so big it's pretty much incomprehensible. Does it matter who we vote for? If Dems, gvmt grows by social programs. If Repubs, gvmt grows by defense spending or ""Walls"" or whatever. Grows no matter what... and that takes more and more money that we don't have. Keeps adding zeroes to that debt, and hope that other countries we have a trade deficit with continue to trade us their goods. What could go wrong?"
The referenced article leaves out the relevant information that Russia's embargo was a response to bans, by other countries ~~of~~, of food imports from Russia. BBC News offers a somewhat fuller picture:  http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28714869  The Russian government's actions still seem vindictive and self-defeating to me, but I wanted to add that information.
You should probably talk to a lawyer experienced in such matters, it is really hard to tell from what you described whether there is a problem or not. Are they trying to put majority of blame on me so that they can   increase my premium or are they acting the right way? Both may be true. They are acting in their own best interests, not yours. They're trying to minimize their exposure. Had the other guy had insurance they would be much more susceptible to shift the blame, but since he doesn't - it is unlikely that they'll recover their money. So it is not in their best interests to accept your claim. Whether they're right or not - you answered yourself. A person backing out is usually responsible and the burden of proof that you aren't is on you. Does the insurance have something to gain from assigning more fault on me? Of course. Less money to shell out, more premiums to get. That said, they are willing to admit that some of the blame is on the other driver, which means that they're not entirely dismissing your claims. In general, I'm just trying to make sure I'm not being cheated   monetarily by the insurance company in any way. Sue them.
Trickle down economics / tax structure have been repeatedly shown to not work as well as progressive taxation for the health of the overall economy. Poor people don't save, give them money and it comes right back putting us all to work.
Contributing factors to the diversion were that: A) China's currency does not float like other major countries' currencies  B) China's real estate market didn't have the same lending criteria leading to the level of speculation seen in USA, at the time.
"I am not familiar with this broker, but I believe this is what is going on: When entering combination orders (in this case the purchase of stocks and the writing of a call), it does not make sense to set a limit price on the two ""legs"" of the order separately. In that case it may be possible that one order gets executed, but the other not, for example. Instead you can specify the total amount you are willing to pay (net debit) or receive (net credit) per item. For this particular choice of a ""buy and write"" strategy, a net credit does not make sense as JoeTaxpayer has explained. Hence if you would choose this option, the order would never get executed. For some combinations of options it does make sense however. It is perhaps also good to see where the max gain numbers come from. In the first case, the gain would be maximal if the stock rises to the strike of the call or higher. In that case you would be payed out $2,50 * 100 = $250, but you have paid $1,41*100 for the combination, hence this leaves a profit of $109 (disregarding transaction fees). In the other case you would have been paid $1,41 for the position. Hence in that case the total profit would be ($1,41+$2,50)*100 = $391. But as said, such an order would not be executed. By the way, note that in your screenshot the bid is at 0, so writing a call would not earn you anything at all."
I got my degree in chemistry because I didn't know wha I wanted to do but I wanted to challenge myself. It didn't end up being an advantage. I encourage you to consider your major an investment in your future career rather than as a way to challenge yourself. Look at the jobs out there and pick a few paths for yourself, then see which major best fits into ALL the paths you're interested in. You can always do a math minor (which you may reconsider when you hit the crossroads of linear algebra and differential equations). Take advantage of internships, network. A degree is nice piece of paper but most of what you learn in college just doesn't apply to working a real job. Keep that in perspective! But also enjoy yourself.
I hear what you are saying, but it doesn't seem to ring true.  The subsidies again may exacerbate the issue, but they aren't CAUSING the issue.  The real issue is the regulatory burden in your explanation here, not the subsidies.  But again, I think the large companies' abilities to sue forever, or buy out of existence, the smaller companies, or to gain regulation that does disproportionately favor the larger companies, is the real issue, then.  Subsidies are only a catalyst to help the process go faster.
I don't disagree with you, but just as a broad generalization, I think increasing social spending does more good than increasing military spending *at this point*. It'd be different if there were several other countries that had the same military prowess, but if you already have a significant lead, I feel like you should address the other weaknesses.
&gt;&gt; Nothing Mr Obama has been able to accomplish since 2008 – including staving off a second Great Depression and pushing through an overhaul of the healthcare system – appears to have resolved that underlying structural challenge.  Wow this is a loaded sentence. So you really think the Obama/Bernanke team has actually *helped* the situation by bailing out the banks and printing trillions of dollars? I think a lot of people would take issue with that sentiment. I would also argue that Obamacare is not only immoral, but resolves none of the issues in American Healthcare and will only exacerbate them. It was just a huge handout to politically-connected healthcare companies, and a push towards total a government takeover and forced socialization of healthcare.
If the transfer is from a country in Euro region, then yes, using Does, it's possible. However if it's outside then all other details are required. Edit IBAN is used by EURO countries and is supposed to simplify things. However till its fully adopted by all countries and clearing networks, there is quite a bit of confusion and complexity for individuals.   Low Value Transfer in Euro region in EUR currency is on SEPA network that only understands IBAN and only supports EUR currency. If you are transfering within UK [both banks in UK] in GBP, it would go on BACS network that only understands SortCode+AccountNumber. There are some Banks that give you interface that take an IBAN and convert to SortCode+AccountNumber and submit to BACS.
I'll give the credit to @Quid in the comments section of the question.  You put out $10k, you got back $20k, that's a cash gain of $10k, how the asset was valued between your purchase and sale isn't relevant. From an accounting perspective, the company is the only party that is realizing the loss (as they have sold the asset for 40K less than par). You the buyer, only get to see the initial buy and sale of such capital asset.  Example: A company purchases a car for $20,000 and after depreciation it is worth (book valued at) $2,000. It is then sold to a customer for $3,000.  Does the customer realize a loss of $1,000? No.  Does the company realize a gain of $1,000? Yes.  Your bank analogy is flawed in two ways:
RIM is dead. It's entire business was based on integration with business before other phones could. Now all phones can, and they have no advantage. They will either be bought out or close up shop completely. It's only a matter of time.
As a daily slickdeals user, I saw this thread and decided it was one of those 'deals' to stay away from.   The idea of people just being able to repeatedly buy giftcards using the previously purchased giftcard to get free money, just had bad news all over it. Its a shame the admins didnt get rid of that thread, as it puts a big black spot on the community as a whole, IMO.
I understand that, and it is important, but you have to consider their size.  As I mentioned, they are the world's largest private employer now.  They use their size too much to their advantage.  They are a monopoly.  &gt; really. there are no other places a person with that level of training can work?  If there was, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.  They take so many other businesses out, drive so much wealth to so few, that there is no other place to work for those with that skill-set.  What other discount retailer is there one Walmart has come to town?
&gt; You see zero ads? Really? Have you watched a YouTube video recently?  It's funny that statement has been met repeatedly now with disbelief where most people would simply ask how I block all of the ads. Which I assure you, I am doing.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/09/the_fbi_is_harder_to_trust_on_the_dnc_hack_because_it_relied_on_crowdstrike.html &gt; The DNC maintains there’s a simple answer to this question: According to the group, the FBI never asked to see their servers. But FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee back in January that the FBI did, in fact, issue “multiple requests at different levels” to the DNC to gain direct access to their computer systems and conduct their own forensic analysis. &gt; Instead, whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/30/nyt-turns-out-17-intelligence-agencies-was-fake-news/ &gt; Despite the mainstream media and the political left making constant referencefor months to the “17 intelligence agencies” agreeing on Russia’s actions during the campaign, this has repeatedly been debunked. The single released report on the matter from the American intelligence community was produced by only three intelligence agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security Agency (NSA). &gt; Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the “17 agencies” line was fake news. While there are 17 American intelligence agencies and none, to his knowledge, objected to the CIA/FBI/NSA report, none of the other 14 agencies have published any independent confirmation of its claims.
&gt; The study, as far as I can tell, does not adjust for government expenditure.  I think that is unnecessary.  Unless countries with wealth taxes are going into debt faster or slower then the average, the economic stimulus should come out in the wash.
But which effect is larger, short-term stupidity or long-term rationality? Investors may repeatedly make this mistake and forever affect FACE's price because of FB's actions. Maybe the fools who confused FB and FACE last month have learned their lessons, but the market provides an inexhaustible supply of fools.
The cycle has been continuously going for a couple generations now and seems to be getting worse. I don't have the answers but it seems obvious that doing what they've always done doesn't work.  I'm always entertained by people thinking that life should be fair. No where in nature is life fair. Some people are born with an advantage and still screw it up and others are born disadvantaged and succeed. I think it's obvious that people make choices that make one or the other outcomes more likely but nothing is guaranteed for them.
Who runs the courts? Would you have multiple competing courts? Courts usually work on the principle that one party doesn't want to be there; how would that work in a nationless world? What happens when a private enforcement agency gets a monopoly and then wants your stuff?  States work because we have representation, political recourse if there's abuse of the system (in theory).  A 'private enforcement agency' sounds like a fast track to a protection racket.  And also i'd argue that response by the state 100% is what is stopping 99% of people, look at the London 'riots' a few years ago - bunch of kids realized they could get away with it if they all went and looted a place at once, repeatedly happened until the ringleaders got caught or turned in to the authorities.   What right would a private organization have to restrict my freedom in a stateless society? Where does it get the constitutional power? Everything would just devolve into constant warfare between groups - until a single group outperformed the others of course and boom you've got a government again.