vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt; ...diminishing the power of Washington to play favorites, as that will clear the way for the deserving to succeed and the undeserving to fail.  You've been to a supermarket, yes?  Have you ever noticed the impulse buy items all on a rack as you're waiting for checkout.  It's stuff nobody needs and is often bad for you like candy and tabloid newspapers.  People don't go to stores to get a publication on Trump's alien baby but it is something people will buy on impulse.  Fifty years ago these checkout racks were only in a few stores.  Today they are everywhere and any retail store that wants to stay in business must copy this model or operate at a disadvantage.  This is because they make money as they encourage people to buy things they wouldn't when in a deliberate mindset.  Companies like Walmart have taking the idea to another level with impulse buying corridors you have to walk through at every register.  That is what you get in an capitalist battlefield.  The ""deserving"" you want to support are simply the companies that manipulate their customer base better.  The science behind getting you to buy is staggering.  You mentioned Amazon before as being a good example of a corporation.  Have you seen their site recently?  Its pages are loaded with impulse buy items, selected specifically for you by a sophisticated neural network.  Did you forget, [it was Amazon that was known for 1-click buying](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click) because 2-clicks is enough time for a second thought.  You think government is in the way?  Government is only thing standing between you and getting milked like a cow."
"&gt; Ms is not one of them  CO is, which is where the gay bakery incident that's going to the SCOTUS happened...  &gt;providing a service based on their bias is ok for some and not for others.   No, I think that it's okay to not provide service for any reason *except based on status in a protected class."" This really isn't a difficult concept. And yes, I think that orientation should be a protected class anywhere that it isn't yet.   Dude, this is the same as employment law and other discrimination areas like apartment rental. You can fire someone for any reason or no reason, but not for a reason of membership in a protected class. You can refuse to rent to someone for any reason except membership in a protected class.   Do you see the pattern yet?  &gt;How can you not see the similar aspects of the two  Because there are no similar aspects between non-choice biological factors and by-choice rhetoric.   &gt;You are agreeing with a company choosing to do business with whom they want to, but then you are doubling down on having another business doing the same thing   Rephrased, this says, ""You're saying that sometimes X but then trying to say that sometimes Y!"" Yes. Exactly. There are different circumstances. ""You're agreeing that a company can do business with whomever they want except but another company can't because they're refusing based on protected classes.""  Libertarian fantasy land logic doesn't work in the real world."
"You can be a great CEO without knowing anything about technology.  However, right now, there are a lot of businesses going through Schumpeter level creative destruction due to technology. In those contexts, you *need* the technological expertise *as well as* the leadership.  You wouldn't seriously suggest ""a CEO doesn't need to know anything about finance, because that's what their CFO is for"". In this context, technology is just as vital.  The strength of the team will definitely fill in for missing skill sets. If what it was just about understanding how technology works or even understanding statistics, I think you can totally rely on the team to fill that in.  However, CEO's do need to understand their business. In this context, it is a need thing, not a want thing. If the business weren't transforming in some massive fashion, they could lean on understanding the past of the business and use it to extrapolate about the present &amp; the future. That isn't the case here. Certainly, I wouldn't expect the CEO to match their CTO for technical understanding/skills (if you can't lead people who are more competent then you, you've got no business with the job). It's about the understanding of the business."
So, what effect does a company's earnings have on the price of its stock? You can only say that for some of the people who might buy or sell shares, higher earnings will, all other thing being equal, have them be willing to spend more to buy it or demand more when selling it. But how much more is not quantifiable but depends on each person's approach to the problem. Higher earnings would tend to raise the price of the stock. Yet there are other factors, such as people who had expected even higher earnings, whose actions would tend to lower the price, and people who are OK with the earnings now, but suspect trouble for the business is appearing on the horizon, whose actions would also tend to lower the price. This is why people say that a stock's price is determined by supply and demand."
"I don't think blanket answers are very helpful. You are asking the right question when you are young! You have a large number of investment options and Australia has the Superannuation system that you can extract significant tax value from. I've not attempted to grade these with regard to ""risk"", as different people will rate various things with different levels, depending on their experience and knowledge. Consider the following factors for you:-"
"The problem with these services is that they resell a random assortment of programs at a pretty high price.  Buying the programs a la carte adds up quick, especially when a SD stream of varying quality costs as much or more than the DVD set when it is released (don't get me started on the HD up-charges).  That's per show, per season.  It makes it really expensive to catch up on a season, when you are essentially ""buying the seasons"" to stream them, when all you want to do it ""rent them"" instead.  The way this is not like steam, and the point I think OP is trying to make, is that stuff is all over the place.  People don't want to have to jump between Hulu, CBS.com, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.  Plus, some places have some things for free, some charge a monthly fee, some charge per-view (rent), some charge once per show/season/movie (buy), etc.  Some offerings that are free are actually sold for a fee through other services.  Right now, it's sort of a mess.  I'm not even sure what the right model is (buy, rent, season pass, ad-supported, etc) and I'm sure there will be competing models for the foreseeable future."
"How many of these loans have been rehypothecated and/or chained to synthetic derivatives? That was the ""force multiplier"" in 07-08. Agreed that the impact will be a lot less since it is a much smaller market, but it might be bigger than many assume if these factors are present.  (And if it is bigger you get the risk of a chain reaction beyond that, though I think the Fed &amp; Co. are much more on-guard about that now.)"
"There are a few factors at work here, supply and demand being the main one. The Office for National Statistics has some good information: http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-housing-and-home-ownership-in-the-uk/ Supply has historically struggled to compete with demand in the UK and this situation has been exacerpated since the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. She set up a variety of schemes to encourage people to own their own home, such as tax relief (MIRAS) and since then home ownership in the UK has increased dramatically. The then conservative government also set up the ""right to buy"" scheme (in 1980) that allowed council tenants to purchase their council houses at a discounted rate. The effect of this was to increase the number of home owners whilst reducing the amount of housing available for councils to rent to new tenants. Anecdotal evidence (I can't find a documented source to back this up) suggests that councils did not build sufficient new homes to replace those purchased by their ex-tenants. The population of the UK has also increased, by around 10 million since 1980 (around 20%) and this has pushed up demand for housing. House building in the UK has not kept pace with these factors that has led to a shortage of supply that has pushed up prices. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk--england-and-wales--scotland-and-northern-ireland/2013/sty-population-changes.html There's another factor at play here as well. If you go back to the 1970s around 53% of women would go out to work but in 2013 this figure increased to 67% as it became more common for households to have double incomes. This extra supply of cash also pushed up house prices. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_328352.pdf Your question regards a debt based monetary system is not entirely clear, but there are limitations put onto how much money people can borrow that are potentially limiting how much house prices can rise by.
If we knew for sure that euros are only going to be more expensive in the future, then the answer would be easy: Buy them all at one time, so that we are getting them at the best price.  Of course, we can't assume that to be the case, they could get cheaper, so the answer gets more complicated. Focusing strictly on monetary considerations, there are two factors to examine: Using answers to this Travel Stack Exchange question as a reference, you see that the cost of currency conversion can be as low as 1%-2% if you make the transaction with a debit card, but can be as high as 15%.  So, buying 1000 euros a month would cost between 20 and 150 euros. Examining a two year chart of the Euro-Canadian Dollar exchange rate gives us an idea of how much the currency fluctuates. Over the past two years, a euro has cost has much as $1.54 CAD and as little as $1.26 CAD, a 22% spread. Looking at it on a month-to month basis, we see that monthly changes have been as high as .05 to .07 (4-5%).  As such, buying 1000 euros a month could cost 50 CAD more (or less) on a monthly basis due to variance in the exchange rate.   If we anticipate our overhead cost of currency conversion to be more than 5%, it doesn't make sense to do multiple transactions; the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits. If we can keep them under that amount, then multiple transactions are advantageous when the euro is cheaper. The problem is somewhat analagous to that of someone who wants to make an annual investment in a mutual fund and is unsure of whether to make the purchase all at once, or to divide it over multiple purchases. One can't know for sure which way the mutual fund price is going to move over the time period Dollar cost averaging, spreading the purchase over regular intervals, is the generally accepted solution to this problem.   As such, so long as we can keep the overhead cost of currency transactions low (<5%), doing transactions on a regular basis positions ourselves to take advantage of possible drops in the price of euros and reduces the risk of buying euros when they are most expensive.  If we can't keep the cost low, then currency fees would be greater than potential price drops and we would be better off doing a single transaction.
"There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: ""Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors."""
What are the misconceptions?  And why do you feel the hate is undeserved?  From what I've seen, most people have a pretty accurate impression of what these places are trying to do.  It's a business that tries to skirt the edges of gambling laws while still letting people feel like they're gambling.  Which pisses people off on two fronts - it brings gambling to places they don't think it should be, and it's a often a transparent attempt to get around following the rules.  Both of which are pretty reasonable things to be annoyed by.
"I haven't seen anyone mention it, but everyone here seems to be dumbfounded that Chipotle would start serving queso in the first place. Where I'm from, the main competitor to Chipotle is Qdoba. When I ask people why they prefer Qdoba, the answer has never not been ""queso"". I don't think that they are dropping chorizo in favor of queso, but rather they're making two separate competitive business decisions. Eliminate the opponent's advantage (queso) and mitigate a weakness (non-selling product)."
More money doesn't make people richer in the sense that if the govt gave every citizen a $1 they would all still have the same amount of wealth and purchasing power, but their nominal value in dollar terms would be $1 higher. Money is just the denominator in exchange, so lets say a bicycle is $100 and a scooter is $200, you know that 2 bikes equals 1 scooter. So printing $100 for people to each buy a bicycle will just make the price of bikes go up, and they'll end up costing much more than $100, so no real wealth has been created. The main problem that I think you're trying to identify i that we've had an over-expansion of credit by central banks around the world. The scarcity of credit is a good thing because it forces only the best, most productive ideas to be allowed to be undertaken. If a bank only has $10 to loan, and business man A can use that to have a return of 50%, business man B can have 25%, and business man C can have 5%, then the obvious choice is to give the loan to business man A because he is using the resources most productively, and depending on the details of his business model, is the least risky person to loan to (ie the bank is most assured he will be able to pay his money back). But with central banks controlling interest rates, and reserve requirements for banks, the banks can lever themselves up and lend out much more money than they've taken in. After all if a bank can finance its reserves with low interest rates, but make additional money from increased lending, then they are incentivised to seek higher profits. Especially with the FDIC insuring everyone's bank deposits. So now businessmen A, B and C all get their loans and are able to start their businesses, but they're all in the same line of work and need to utilize the same resources. So now instead of just businessman A buying materials he has two other buyers looking to utilize a scarce amount of resources. The price of those resources is now higher since supply is limited but demand has tripled. So now businessman A can only make 40% through his business, B can make 5% and businessman C loses money in his venture.
For the truck, start out with getting magnetic signs made.  One for the front upper/ sides of the box and doors and potentially for the back door.  You can do this relatively cheap compared to a full out custom paint job.  Another option is just company and contact info in electrical tape.  The guy that commented saying give 5 business cards to every client is correct; I generate a lot of leads this way and get a lot of work.  I just freelance about doing whatever with a few main gigs but it's working for me so far.  Craigslist and simple door to door flyers are also a decent option.
Thanks for the cross-post.  I wrote this in response to a lot of questions on Quora, asking about Segwit and where the market was going. There are a ton of factors that could affect the market, but if I had to bet on the most likely outcome, this would be it.
"Insofar as a 52 week high indicates a peak, yes.  However, the truth is that ""buying low and selling high"" means ""Act a Fool!"" You see, when you buy low, you are perceived to be buying total garbage - throwing your money away and conversely when selling high you are perceived to be a total idiot - selling a winner.  That's how people will see you when you are in fact buying low and/or selling high, right?  It's those people that (mis)value the asset, right?  An asset is worth what the people will pay for it, right? ...And don't forget that holding a loser is MUCH easier than holding a winner. Good luck!"
Your plan sounds quite sound to me.  I think that between the choices of [$800 for Loans, $300 for Retirement] and [$1100 for loans], both are good choices and you aren't going to go wrong either way.   Some of the factors you might want to consider: I like your retirement savings choices - I myself use the admiral version of VOO, plus a slightly specialized but still large ETF that allows me to do a bit of shifting.  Having something that's at least a bit counter-market can be helpful for balancing (so something that will be going up some when the market overall is down some); I wouldn't necessarily do bonds at your age, but international markets are good for that, or a stock ETF that's more stable than the overall market.  If you're using Vanguard, look at the minimums for buying Admiral shares (usually a few grand) and aim to get those if possible, as they have significantly lower fees - though VOO seems to pretty much tie the admiral version (VFIAX) so in that case it may not matter so much. As far as the target retirement funds, you can certainly do those, but I prefer not to; they have somewhat higher (though for Vanguard not crazy high) expense ratios.  Realistically you can do the same yourself quite easily.
"Dividend-paying securities generally have predictable cash flows. A telecom, electric or gas utility is a great example. They collect a fairly predictable amount of money and sells goods at a fairly predictable or even regulated markup. It is easy for these companies to pay a consistent dividend since the business is ""sticky"" and insulated by cyclical factors. More cyclic investments like the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Gold, etc are more exposed to the crests and troughs of the economy. They swing with the economy, although not always on the same cycle. The DJIA is a basket of 30 large industrial stocks. Gold is a commodity that spikes when people are faced with uncertainty. The ""Alpha"" and ""Beta"" of a stock will give you some idea of the general behavior of a stock against the entire market, when the market is trending up and down respectively."
&gt;Go live with your beloved poor for a year Hahaha... there is a housing project directly across the street from me as I write this. You keep making assumptions! Yes there absolutely is a culture of laziness and irresponsibility. There are a lot of reasons that the poor remain poor, and this is only one of them. Other reasons include the drug war, which disproportionately targets minorities and creates a vast unemployable population due to their criminal records. The school systems are shit--how can you raise yourself out of poverty without a decent education? Unions have declined, meaning working class people no longer have a living wage and must rely on food stamps and other government programs just to survive. There are a lot of reasons the poor stay poor. Blaming it all on bad choices is rather short-sighted. There are public-sector, private-sector and cultural factors contributing to wealth inequality. I will admit to all of these, but the Libertarian ideology only allows for one. Plus, what are you going to do about it? Does society have any responsibility to help people who are trapped in a cycle of poverty and bad choices to better themselves? What about the newborn child who has made no bad choices but to be born poor? Fuck 'em? &gt;any actual assesment of Reality Make one. You state no facts, only that if there were some facts they would agree with you. Not a proper argument. &gt;The rich are rich for a reason and the poor are poor for a reason. The rich are rich for many reasons--personal achievement, inheritance, luck, connections and simply reaping the fruits of a prosperous, harmonious society. There just as many reasons the poor are poor. To take any one reason and say that is the only reason is just like taking the idea of property rights and saying that is the only right worth consideration. &gt;Deep down inside you don't think you've earned it so you want to sacrifice all the rest of us on the altar of your limp wristed weakness.
At least if anyone is around who has either a correct idea what luxury cars cost (or don't cost) or will look that up in the internet. Also, people who know such things may also have the idea that the probability that such a car was downright paid (wealth) is small compared to the probability of meeting a leased or (mortgaged) car. Which means, the plan to show off doesn't work out that well with the people you'd want to impress. As for the other people: just a bit of display you can get far cheaper: If you really want to drive the SLK, rent it for an occasion (weekend) rather than for years. I met a sales manager who told me which rental cars they get when important customers from far east are visiting. The rest of the year they drive normal business cars. You may want to choose a rental company that doesn't write their name on the license plate. Apply the same ideas to the decision of buying a house. Think about what you want for yourself, and then look where you can get how much of that for how much money. Oh, and by the way: if I understand correctly, the average UK CEO wage is £120k, not £200k."
Public dividend sounds good, but not the way you are writing about it.  How about you campaign to get people working together to build and patronize businesses that will support a public dividend.  Maybe buying something from the business could give you some share.  The more you buy the more shares you get and the larger your dividend, and the more influential your vote.
That's a bold statement. Lots of people work hard, but traveling constantly, training, having to be a public figure, all are a lot of work that factors into the high salary. Not even mentioning how competitive a loving it is to even make it and maintain a career doing it. You could work two jobs to get by and bust your ass, but I don't think that's necessarily comparable to being one of the top athletes in the world.
With regards to buying timber bifold doors perth  for your home, there are really various contemplations that you should consider to guarantee that you are settling on the correct decision for your necessities. Neglecting to consider even one of these contemplations could bring about the buy of a door that is unsatisfactory for your home, causing a wide range of issues down the track. All in all, what are these contemplations?
If the company is stable. I like to recoup losses by buying in the valley and selling it all at the plateau and then learning as all beginners do, don't  buy stocks because there's a feeding frenzy...or because Joe told me too. Pick your strategy in stocks and learn to stick with that. If you have no strategy, buy land.
It's amateurish to expect Facebook to do anything other than what Zuckerberg wants. His shares give him control over the company. This was known before the IPO. People that thought he would change and take actions that would benefit them, instead of himself are learning an expensive lesson.