vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Another possibly significant issue, is that the number ten thousand is very important in the Japanese language.  In Japanese, you count in ones, tens, hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, BUT instead of a 'hundred thousand', you have ten ten thousands.  and then one hundred ten thousands, and then a thousand ten thousands.   The ten thousand yen note, equivalent roughly to the $100 bill, is the main base of Japanese currency.  If you go to the bank, for example, you will almost always take out your money in ten thousand yen notes.   Knowing a little about the language, i would say it would become quite strange and un-natural to suddenly start using a hundred as the main note value.  I doubt the Japanese people would ever even consider that, and my guess is the only people who are even put out by the large number of zeroes are foreigners who are used to dealing in dollars and cents.
"I think this is a point that most tech geeks miss when they start yelling ""Luddite."" Before I even graduated, the stuff I learned in lower division was outdated. A year out, and much of what I was taught is outdated.  They are trying to automate news stories now and paralegal work. I wouldn't be surprised if there are projects out there to computer generate works of art. Not only is the rate growing faster than can be kept up with, but there are few places left that can't be automated."
"I never put race into it, but ok...  I hear lots of interesting stories about teaching. The most recent involves an experimental program where the teacher performance isn't graded on student outcomes but how well they're following the narrative defined by the program. Every few years teachers are handed new programs that the district curriculum people bought and told ""you're going to teach $subject using this program now!"" (sometimes those programs work better for different groups of students - the ones that it was evaluated with do great, the ones in different neighborhoods are failed by the program) The programs are implemented district wide and the teachers are told not to deviate from the programs.  Sometimes you get a superintendent into a district who decides that ""no child left behind"" means ""no child can be held back"" and so you get children hitting second or third grade without being able to identify the letters in the alphabet, let alone read.  A recent [example](http://emergepeoria.blogspot.com/2012/06/this-is-open-letter-to-d150-board-of.html) from the town I grew up in."
Millions of Americans are affected by this. Millions of Americans live in debt, through credit cards and other sources that depend on these scumbaggers. Yet, the media picks it up, due to necessity, and drops it faster than a wide receiver with no hands.
"I agree that real income growth has been flat twenty years, but you're wrong about Americans owning stocks.  Anyone who has a pension is directly involved in ""gambling"" on the stock market.    Check out /r/personalfinance -- there are lots of people who invest/save money, but don't earn a lot.   There are options that are as cheap as $25/pay...It gives you a way to invest when you are young.  I have paid into a mutual fund/etfs since 21...wish I had done it sooner!"
Nobody would goto SeaWorld if they didn't have whale/dolphin shows.  That just the bottom line of reality, 90% of people goto sea world because their kids want to sit in splash zone and see whales and dolphins jump around.   If peoples kids don't want to goto SeaWorld anymore they can go out on a date or something instead with that money.   If they dropped the Orca shows, a bunch of hippie environmentalists that wouldn't be caught dead in a Sea Park would be really happy and keep not going to seaworld, while the thousands of children that basically keep their business afloat would rapidly loose interest and they would have to just become another SixFlags 2 hours away from a bigger, better six flags.  I don't like the Orca shows anymore than you do, but if 2 or 3 whales living in sub-optimal conditions helps keep marine science research and development afloat I think it's worth it even if their conditions where 5x shittier.    Seriously nobody cares about 100's of thousands of starving children or the million people kept in a shittier tank in Gaza, but some uncomfortable whales that almost single-handily keep funding up for projects that are saving millions of sea creatures are a huge deal.   Edit: Downvote me all you want, it doesn't make it less true that 90% of their visitors couldn't give a single fuck about Orca conditions...
Still, tweets are becoming a growing part of our political discourse thanks to a certain US president. They feature in news stories and television reports. I am not surprised by their success at all, judging by how much their company has been discussed in the media.
Even then, there's the potential downside of risk that you still lose principal after that duration. So given that assumption, it's only fair to compare against >= 10 year CDs which are currently rated at 2 percent APY. In addition, CDs can be laddered -- allowing you to lock-in newer (and potentially higher) rates as they become available. You essentially stagger your buyin into these investments, and either reinvest upon the stilted maturity dates or use as income. Also keep in mind that while personal emergencies requiring quick access to cash can happen at any time, the most common scenario is during the sudden change from a bull market into a recession -- the time when stocks plummet. If you need money right away, selling your stocks at these times would lock in severe losses, whereas with CDs you still won't lose principal with an early exit and the only penalty is usually a sacrifice of a few months of potential interest. It's easy to think of the high yields during a protracted bull market (such as now), but personal finance has a huge behavioral component to it that is largely ignored until it's too late. One risk that isn't taken care of by either CDs or Treasuries is inflation risk. All the rates here and in the original question are nominal rates, and the real return will depend on inflation (or deflation). There are other options here besides CDs, Treasuries, and the stock market to outpace inflation if you'd like to hedge that risk with inflation protection: Series I Savings Bonds and TIPS."
No, but the damage to the quality/reputation of the brand can be very real. Amazon absolutely has an inventory problem where they  are turning a blind eye to counterfeit goods. This problem is exacerbated by their commingling of inventory, where they can get the same item from multiple suppliers - where some of the goods are genuine and some are counterfeits and they are mixed together. If the good being bought is listed on Amazon as genuine, but the consumer is shipped a low-quality fake, then it is reasonable for the customer to assume the quality of the good is low as they assume Amazon would not ship a counterfeit.  In Birkenstock's case, they are alleging that very thing happened. Amazon was allegedly selling counterfeits that they got from other sources than directly from Birkenstock [via the authorized seller option], and then were shipping those to customers - causing damage to the Birkenstock brand. Though, if that were true, I would expect Birkenstock to sue Amazon and not simply badmouth them.
Generic drugs are cheap and plentiful. Amazon doesn't have much space to depress those prices. Brand name drugs that are still under patent are where costs are high. Manufacturing lines cost millions per drug. Amazon does not have the resources for the millions of drugs to do so. They will not get into manufacturing. And biologics are anticipated to be 80% of the total dollars spent soon. No way to make those generic. Amazon won't be doing much more than a mail order pharmacy service. I highly doubt you will see unique services from this.
The principle here seems to be that just betting itself is not taxable. From BIM22015  The basic position is that betting and gambling, as such, do not constitute trading However,  An organised activity to make profits out of the gambling public will normally amount to trading. The idea seems to be that being a bookmaker is taxable, but just making bets is not. BIM22017 going into it a bit more: The fact that a taxpayer has a system by which they place their bets, or that they are sufficiently successful to earn a living by gambling does not make their activities a trade. BIM22018 goes into detail on the other side, talking those who are taxable: An organised activity to make profits out of the gambling public will normally amount to trading. An example of this is the bookmaker. ... The key feature is that the taxpayer is likely to be involved in the organisation of the activity. They are not mere punters. They are carrying on an activity where the odds are in their favour. The links prove further information, but the theme seems to be that acting as a bookmaker would be trading income, which is taxable, but acting like a punter, even one with a system, would not be. It's not clear from your description which applies. You may need further advice on the tax treatment that is appropriate. Also follow each of the links for further information. BIM22015 provides links to the most relevant information.   Note, it isn't true that all income is taxable, regardless of source. BIM15035 talks about this. It specifies that for something to be taxable income, it must come from a taxable source.  If, for example, a taxpayer is a trader that does not mean that any non-capital receipt he or she gets is chargeable as trading income. It must also be a receipt forming part of the profits of the trade, which is the taxable ‘source’
Agreed.  Its speculative and not worth the time for now. In the past few months, Bitcoin has transformed into a BottleneckCoin with transaction time taking days (unless you pay a premium to miners to process it ASAP) and previously attractive processing-fee has skyrocketed.  Lastly, there is also a real threat that Bitcoin might bifurcate into two versions by August 2017.   Why?  Miners want to increase the size of Bitcoin blocks and the core developers who are the defacto ‘overseers’ do not welcome this. Likewise, the de facto overseers that are instrumental in upholding Bitcoin’s bug-proof software, want to manage some of its data outside the main network to reduce congestion and allow projects such as smart contracts to be built on top of Bitcoin.
You talk about how a future without TV is a good thing, but you fail to realize that it would actually be a bad thing for American culture. People seem to think that sitting in front of the 20inch computer monitors at a table for one is preferable to a 50 inch LCD screen with dolby surround in the den. I am not surprised because the internet is comprised of people who mainly dwell on the internet, where people who watch TV are probably watching TV right now. On top of that, many people would lose their jobs. Just because Apple or Netflix can distribute shows and movies cheap does not mean that many thousands of people should lose their jobs (especially if the majority of America still prefers to watch programming on their TV's and not locked in their room on a small computer screen with the tinny-sounding computer speakers). This is one of the reasons why we're having an unemployment problem, because these jobs are disappearing by the cold mechanical algorithms of a computer program. Think of the many thousands of jobs that have been lost in the music industry, don't you think college kids would have loved to start their careers at a record label promoting music and encouraging growth? Instead we have MP3's and instant gratification, music is arguably dead (read: 90's music). And if we think a future without TV is utopia, then I have some bad news for you, it isn't. TV is American, we do it best and we should NOT be turning our backs on it. Once we do that, we lose our culture. Who do you think will own the internet in 50 years? I can tell you it won't be the US of A. Think very carefully and be careful what you wish for...
This is a letter by a mother two her loving twin daughter. At the age of 3 her father was died and in this letter her mother shows a book of letter in which her dad’s family, friends and co-worker share their stories about him. Now her twins are 16 year old, she tells about her stepfather who is as loveable as her father.
To complement farnsy's answer, I want to warn people against market prediction scams. If they give uniformly distributed buy/sell predictions to 256 people, one of them will get eight correct predictions in a row. They are trading a few cents of Amazon server time for 3% of your capital.
The limits on an HSA are low enough that there's no real danger of overfunding it.  The limits max out at (as of 2011, for an individual) at just over $3000 per year.   Sometime in the next few years, you will have more than $3000 in health care expenses.  It might be something like a car accident, acid reflux, a weird mole that the doctor wants to check out, a broken toe, a few nasty cavities that need to be filled, an expensive antibiotic, or something else entirely.  Or, it might be something less dramatic, getting eaten away by copays and contact lenses. When that happens, you want the peace of mind that you can pay for your deductible plus any other expenses.  Keep in mind that even a $5000 deductible can cost you more than $5000 out-of-pocket; either because of non-insured expenses, or simply an illness that straddles multiple calendar years. Besides, it's not like your HSA money is going anywhere; even if you never touch it, it's just a savings account that you can't touch until you turn 65.  And if you do truly have an emergency, you can get at it if you have to. Even if your HSA is filled with several years' worth of deductibles, it's still a way to shield thousands of dollars a year from taxes, with luck moving them into lower-tax years 40 years from now.  And it's a way that doesn't involve income limits or mandatory withdrawals.
"Doing fine != creating more jobs  edit:4 million in the past two years isn't really enough to say that we are making any real progress on the millions out of work. Also wages are declining as they seek to cut costs which is a major problem as well. They way you define ""fine"" is very relative."
"There are also millions moreunemployed and millions of homeless because of lost jobs, There are far fewer ""real"" jobs and far more people looking for them than 4-5years ago, the companies who use part time workers are doing it to increase their bottom line and know that there are far fewer jobs than people looking for them, so they feel free to abuse staff."
"&gt;I have never heard that phrase before. Thanks for posting that.   You're welcome.  It was (once upon a time) a commonly understood ""meme"".  Sadly in recent decades we have ""lost"" (ignored? set aside?) a lot of collected human wisdom that was passed down via such stories &amp; parables (and regardless of whether the ""original"" was a REAL historical incident, the lesson via analogy can still be applicable and thus ""true"").  &gt;It fits perfectly in this situation  Alas, yes it does.  Even worse, politicians are in many senses ""selling"" not only their constituents collective ""birthrights"" but are (in some cases) making them (and their children, even the unborn) into proverbial indentured slaves."
So your complaining taxing stocks, hurt stock holders who make more money because they hold stock that gets paid from people's payouts? How about that stock holder stop being a whiny bitch because the pennies a stock he lost because other people's stock was taxed, created thousands of jobs that put 50k a year into their bank.
"Yes these are the number of shareholders that are not held in ""street name"" plus the different brokerages that hold the shares in ""street name"".  So the stat is pointless since it really only lists the few people who own the stocks outside of a brokerage account and a bunch of wall street brokers."
The sport is turning out to be very popular and there is a very sensible possibility that it will rival boxing in the forthcoming days. Though, for those that are just getting into the sport it can be a precipitous learning curve in terms of methods and purchasing the right gear such as  [MMA shorts](http://www.mmasportinggoods.com/).
Well then that kind of makes drug tests seem stupid then, right? I grew up in an area where oil money was big,  heard handful of stories of people failing drug tests and being fired. Heard a few other rare stories of people working 20+ years in the oil industry who knew how to pass and smoked weed daily. But you seem pretty convinced this has worked well for you. So I guess its fair to ask then, do you believe this is the best we can do? What are your thoughts about medical conditions, should opiates be treated the same as weed? Do you know that theres different types of weed? I encourage you to keep learning, and you can start to understand why so many people might be defending this topic. The war on drugs is over, the facts are out and proven its an extreme waste and set back to humanity. Step back for a second, look more at the bigger picture, is this really the best we can do?
&gt;He's a talented guy  Was he any more talented than the thousands of other art grads that end up as long term unemployed or in low paid jobs?  He was told to forget about a career in writing in an academic evaluation.  Surely, someone talented wouldn't have been rated that way?  Besides, plenty of untalented celebrities sell millions of books.  Popular literature is hardly tied to talent.
Yeah, too subjective of a question I shorted BP last year during the deep water crisis, using a leveraged account 20 times larger than the amount of cash I actually had, instantly profitable. I was long Freddie Mac in March 2009 and that took several months to turn to move and turned a 100% gain I've flipped penny stocks trading at .0001 cents, bought a few million shares and sold them at .0002 cents. Sometimes instantly, sometimes over several months because they were illiquid I'm primarily a derivatives trader right now, which I did not know about or understand less than a year ago. Dont have crazy targets, that how you will blow up your account. Have meticulously calculated plans. Also you need to determine what kind of trader you are.
"This is perfect timing for a ""pre-Winter check"" type offer. Sure I read something about a similar campaign in The Wizard of Ads or a book like that. Essentially, a lot of people's plumbing goes bad in the winter when they start turning their heating on or their pipes are leaky, etc, so they can save money now by getting a pre-Winter check for $X. I can't flesh out the idea any further than that, not being in the industry, but it might inspire some ideas.  Depending on the market, this sort of thing could even be turned into a story within the local media *especially* if a particularly bad cold snap is predicted or the like."
"If I invest in individual stocks I will, from time to time, sell stocks that aren't performing well. If the value of my portfolio has gone up by 10%, then the value of my portfolio has gone up by 10%, regardless of whether selling those stocks is labeled as ""delete[ing] failures"". Same thing for mutual funds: selling underperforming stocks is perfectly ordinary, and calling it ""delete[ing] failures"" in order to imply some sort of dishonesty is simply dishonest."
"I hope a wall of text with citations qualifies as ""relatively easy."" Many of these studies are worth quoting at length. Long story short, a great deal of research has found that actively-managed funds underperform market indexes and passively-managed funds because of their high turnover and higher fees, among other factors. Longer answer: Chris is right in stating that survivorship bias presents a problem for such research; however, there are several academic papers that address the survivorship problem, as well as the wider subject of active vs. passive performance. I'll try to provide a brief summary of some of the relevant literature. The seminal paper that started the debate is Michael Jensen's 1968 paper titled ""The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964"". This is the paper where Jensen's alpha, the ubiquitous measure of the performance of mutual fund managers, was first defined. Using a dataset of 115 mutual fund managers, Jensen finds that The evidence on mutual fund performance indicates not only that these 115 mutual funds were on average not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy-the-market-and-hold policy, but also that there is very little evidence that any individual fund was able to do significantly better than that which we expected from mere random chance. Although this paper doesn't address problems of survivorship, it's notable because, among other points, it found that managers who actively picked stocks performed worse even when fund expenses were ignored. Since actively-managed funds tend to have higher expenses than passive funds, the actual picture looks even worse for actively managed funds. A more recent paper on the subject, which draws similar conclusions, is Martin Gruber's 1996 paper ""Another puzzle: The growth in actively managed mutual funds"". Gruber calls it ""a puzzle"" that investors still invest in actively-managed funds, given that their performance on average has been inferior to that of index funds. He addresses survivorship bias by tracking funds across the entire sample, including through mergers. Since most mutual funds that disappear are merged into existing funds, he assumes that investors in a fund that disappear choose to continue investing their money in the fund that resulted from the merger.
There is a survivorship bias in the mutual fund industry. It's not about individual stocks in which those funds invest. Rather, it's in which funds and fund companies/families are still around. The underperforming funds get closed or merged into other funds. Thus they are no longer reported, since they no longer exist. This makes a single company's mutual funds appear to have a better history, on average, than they actually did. Similarly, fund companies that underperform, will go out of business. This could make the mutual fund industry's overall history appear to be better than it actually was. Most companies don't do this to deliberately game the numbers. It's rational on the part of fund companies to close underperforming funds. When a fund has a below average history, investors will likely not invest in it, and will remove their existing money. The fund will shrink while the overhead remains the same, making the fund unprofitable for the company to run.
Disclaimer - I am 51. Not sure how that happened, because I remember being in my late teens like it was yesterday.  I've learned that picking individual stocks is tough. Very tough. For every Apple, there are dozens that go sideways for years or go under.  You don't mention how much you have to invest, but I suggest (A) if you have any income at all, open a Roth IRA. You are probably in the zero or 10% bracket, and now is the time to do this. Then, invest in ETFs or Index Mutual Funds. If one can get S&P minus .05% over their investing life, they will beat most investors.