vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Whilst I'm on the last people, perhaps on this earth, to get emotional over the demise of a large corporation, this has me worried. The juggernaut that is Amazon shows no sign of coming to a hault; they already have a complete monopoly in many sectors, what's the situation going to be like in 5,10,15, even 20  years? Give credit where credit is due: Bezos has acheived more in one lifetime than what many of us could do in 10.
"As a rule of thumb, go in the order of proximity to the transaction. This would typically mean: Side note: I own a website that provides an online service that accepts PayPal and credit cards (via PayPal), and I personally have experience with all 3 of the above options. I can tell you from the merchant's point of view that I would also prefer the same order. I've had people contact my customer service department asking for a refund and we always immediately comply. Some people never contact us and just file a dispute directly with PayPal, and although refunding through the PayPal dispute is just as easy as refunding directly, it always makes me ask, ""Why didn't they just contact us first?"" One time we had a customer skip us and PayPal, and filed a dispute directly with their Credit Card. The CC company contacted PayPal and PayPal contacted us. The process was the same from my point of view, I just clicked a button saying issue refund. But my $5 refund cost me an additional $20 due to the CC dispute. Now that I know this I will never approve a CC dispute again. Anytime one happens I would just issue a refund directly, and then notify the dispute that their CC has already been refunded, which should end the dispute."
I received an allowance growing up.  There were stipulations on what I had to do with it that helped instill the values my parents wanted - in their case they were hoping to teach me to give money to my church, so I had a mandatory amount that I had to give when I received the allowance.  To this day I still give money to the church, so I guess it stuck. The allowance was tied to my doing some basic chores around the house - but loosely.  It wasn't a reward for doing those chores, but it would be taken away if I didn't do them.  Before I was of a legal working age I could do larger unusual tasks around the house for more money.   The relationship between chores and some form of allowance is, I think, tricky.  I don't think kids should be taught that the only reason to work is to earn money.  They won't earn money for keeping their future homes clean or by volunteering at the local food bank, but these are both good things to do.  At the same time it is good to teach that work has a reward and that lack of work means lack of a reward. My parents set up a savings account for me quite early.  Largely what went in there was birthday cash from relatives (a great thing to talk to any family members who might give your kids gifts about) and the income from my once-yearly sale of baked goods at a craft fair.  These were bigger amounts of money that I could take pride in depositing, and keeping them in a bank helped prevent me from spending them willy-nilly. I also got a credit card at the age of 16 (only allowed in some states in the US, not sure about internationally).  My parents oversaw my spending habits with it and made sure I always paid in full and on time.  The money I spent was tied to my summer work in high school and college.  I thought it was extremely valuable to learn how to manage a credit card before college when the card companies often seem to prey on young customers.
I moved to England (from the US) for my second half of university, during those two years my tuition in the U.K. was almost the same as in-state tuition in the US, and I had gone to an out of state school the year before so I actually saved money when I moved abroad.   It's actually pretty damn easy if people bother to put in an effort to move to Europe from the United States for higher education, as many institutions here have lower costs even for non-EU citizens, accept US federal loads, have majors in English, offer easy to obtain student visas, and while you're here you have access to their healthcare, get to experience a new culture, might learn a new language, etc.  People think it is impossible or pointless; it is not.
As per Chad's request, I recommend that you keep at least one card in each name  as primary card holder, with the spouse being the secondary  card holder, most easily done by each adding the spouse as the secondary holder to his/her own card. Since credit reporting is usually in the name of the primary credit card holder, this allows both to continue to have credit history, important when the marriage ends (in death or divorce as the case may be). When you travel, each should carry only the  cards on which he/she is the primary card holder; not all  cards. This helps in case of a wallet or purse being stolen;  you have to report only one set of cards as lost and request  their replacement, and you have a set of cards that you can  use in the mean time (as long as you are not in different  places when the loss occurs).
"In California at least a little known secret is you don't have to pay traffic fines older than three years. I had my DL suspended for three years from 3thousand in bad tickets. I went to pay after I saved enough, and the nice lady said ""the law says you don't have to pay the fines over three years old and we can't legally hold your license and we legally can't report it to credit agencies or the DMV"" She got her gold star that day!! She said no one will tell you, but being nice sometimes gets you a long way. I'm sure most people take out their frustrations on her.  So I paid about 1300$ and walked out a happy licenced man. Thanks to that lady!!"
I don't even use change any more unless I absolutely have to. I hate having it in my pocket so it just goes in the jar at home. Usually I just tell them to keep the change because 99% of the time I pay by credit.
That's the RFID readers.  We're talking about the cards with the chip on the surface of them, kinda like a SIM card but on a credit card.  So far, use is still contained pretty exclusively to Europe.  Another European thing that I'd love to see in the US, why the hell in the 21st century the waiter/waitress has to take my CC back to the cashier station?  Europe's had wireless card swipers/receipt printers for YEARS.  Swipe the card, print the receipt, server goes away so you can put in your tip in privacy, and everyone goes home a little faster.
Next, if you are only working part time then you need to do one of two things. Either get a full time job or go find a second part time one. The preference is obviously on the first, which you should be able to do in your spare time. If, for some reason, you don't have the tech skills necessary to do this then go find any part time job you can. It took us about 3 years to finally pay everything (except the house) off - we owed a lot. During that time everything we bought was paid for in cash with the vast majority of our money going to pay off those accounts. Once the final account was paid off, I did go ahead and get a credit card. I made very minor purchases on it - mostly just gas - and paid it off a few days before it was due each month. Every 4 months they increased my limit. After around 18 months of using that one card my credit score was back in the 700+ range and with no debt other than the mortgage. *note: I echo what others have said about ""Credit Repair"" companies. Anything they can do, you can too. It's a matter of cutting costs, living within your means and paying the bills. If the interest rates are killing you, then try to get a consolidation loan. If you can't do that then negotiate settlements with them, just get everything in writing prior to making a payment on it if you go this route. BTW, make sure you actually can't pay them before attempting to settle."
I cannot speak specifically to the Netherlands or the UK specifically, but my prejudice has me believing that there would be more consumer protection in those two countries than that we have here in the the US, certainly not less. Debt collectors mostly do their job by bullying.  Here in the US they are mostly toothless and typically obtain payments when they invoke an emotional reaction.  In your case they are attempting to invoke fear.  Legal action over €400?  Get real.  It will cost them 20 times that to bring action, and they are equally likely to get a sympathetic judge to toss out the case. Now you very well know you should have returned the box, please don't be coy.  If you still have it, you should attempt to return it.  If not you should attempt to settle.  Offer them €80, going no higher than €160.  Get it in writing, that this satisfies the debt and use either a one time use credit card or a bank check/money order.
I can't believe anyone in their right mind would put US health care above most 3rd world healthcare.       The lowest quality care I ever receive is in the US.  It feels like hospitals are constantly trying to upsell me, and doctors are trying to squeeze treatment into my insurance coverage, instead of doing what is most medically appropriate.      In the developing world, I can go to the best private clinic, typically full of western educated doctors, and pay cash for first class medical treatment.  Then pay cash that is less than a deductible in the US.
Where was it reported that it was six figures per month? It isn't clear from the article what Mandiant's scope was that they were brought in under. I'm not even sure the way it reads that Mandiant found the Apache Struts-based breach while investigating the breach they were brought in for. Also, companies with an emphasis on IT like Equifax vary greatly in how they handle out-of-budget projects, and so far as I've read, it wasn't revealed how Mandiant's project was procured.  Equifax is going to be a case study in business schools on the handling of this incident, and what not getting in front of a crisis looks like (for comparison, see how the Tylenol tampering was handled). Equifax should have reached out to all affected and said they automatically put a freeze on their records, and all affected now have an account created if they didn't already have an account, 7 years of free 100 freeze/unfreeze requests per year, 52 free credit report requests per year, and credit monitoring. If I was on the board, I would have told the CEO to make a generous offer to buy out LifeLock and put all affected onto their most comprehensive plan while working behind the scenes to revamp IT and information security, as well as rethink the industry.  It would have been expensive as hell to do, but this is starting to grow into a Wells Fargo-scale career ending and industry-defining incident, and whatever cost savings they thought they got by cutting so many corners that enabled this breach and the weak response might get wiped out for the next 100 years of potential savings as odds increase weekly they'll be forced to adopt more regulatory oversight in the future.   If they quietly get LifeLock's most comprehensive plan for all US federal and state legislators though, then they probably will escape real reform and might skate by on the weak response.
Volatility typically decreases when stocks rise except pending news events or fast markets.  It has a great impact of the premium of the option.
"If you assign preference to one race over another, you are a racist plain and simple, there are no two ways about it.  I really couldn't care less what you or Marc Faber think about that (""so be it I am a racist"" yada), you are a bad person and you deserved to labelled with every such label that follows. For example, if someone would call you a piece of shit I would agree with that person.  Your points about ""culture"" making an impact are complete BS, so is saying that you want to ""encourage the efforts of people who made our country great over the actions of people who make our country not so great"" (where have I heard that one before? hint: he recently met with the President of the Virgin Islands...)   ""People"" and ""culture"" don't make a country great - consequences do. These consequences could come from a human foreigner's actions (look at the NHS in the UK), or maybe not even from humans, perhaps from the actions of mother nature (look at the Gulf Countries).  If you want humans to make their country great, teach them the actions that have the right consequences. The fact that you don't understand this concept makes you an idiot. The fact that you then attribute a country's greatness to race makes you a racist. Together, these facts makes you a racist idiot."
What effort did you exactly put into this lawsuit?  The lawyers spent years working and millions of their own money pursuing a massive case on behalf of the general public.  Class actions are insanely complicated and fee like this ought to put large companies like Ticketmaster on alert to ensure their policies are legal and fair.  Why does it bother you that people are paid for the work they do?  Maybe you'd rather companies include small fees and charges in their transactions.  By the time you realize you'd been screwed out of $5, $10, $50 it would be gone.  You could go to court and probably get it back but that requires time and probably cost you more than it would be worth.  That is exactly why these types of cases are adjudicated as class actions, the individual wrong is too small to pursue but grouped together make a big impact.
"I mean the scripture was written and incorporated long after Roman adoption by Constantine.  Just because the republicans say that is their motivation doesn't mean it is objective. Policy research, the impact of Reganomics shows, and Kansas' own failed tax experiment over the last six years show that belief in ""free market"" is not a sound basis to make decisions which impact people's health and welfare. Actions have impacts and their belief and explanations do not align with reality."
For example, maybe Oil and Iron Ltd. has no currently producing Oil rigs, but it has just made massive investments which expect to drill Oil in 2 years - and the market expects Oil prices to return to a high value in 2 years. In that case, a drop in Oil would impact Oil Inc. severely, but perhaps it wouldn't impact Oil and Iron Ltd. as much. In this case, for the particular share price movement related to the price of Oil, the two companies would not be correlated. Iron and Copper Ltd. would be unaffected by the price of Oil [this is a simplification; Oil prices impact many areas of the economy], and therefore there would be no correlation at all between this company's shares. It is also likely that competitors face similar markets. If consumer spending goes down, then perhaps the stock of most consumer product companies would go down as well. There would be outliers, because specific companies may still succeed in a falling market, but in generally, there would be a lot of correlation between two companies with the same market. In the case that you list, Sony vs Samsung, there would be some factors that correlate positively, and some that correlate negatively. A clean example would be Blackberry stock vs Apple stock - because Apple's success had specifically negative ramifications for Blackberry. And yet, other tech company competitors also succeeded in the same time period, meaning they did not correlate negatively with Apple."
The relationship between the two events are so far removed from each other, that this kind of reaction from this CEO is only for show. By the time he realizes any kind of bottom line impact from changes by the executive branch of government, it will be the next election.
&gt;Why would any customer (we aren't customers, credit providers are), use Equifax moving forwards  This incident doesn't seem to have had any impact on Equifax' ability to provide the service for which credit providers pay. I could have missed it, but I also haven't read/heard anywhere that customer (i.e., credit providers) data was compromised or that there's any push to limit Equifax' ability to gather data needed to provide their service.
Weather events and aging infrastructure.  Cash will buy gasoline, food and water when there is no power or telephone connectivity to process ATMs and credit cards.
"&gt;When corporations have as much impact and power over our lives as a government should we really just let them walk over our civil rights?  Maybe we shouldn't have let corporations get that much impact or power in the first place, then. Oh, but that would be anti-free market...  &gt;If I can't get a credit card because of my political ideology how am I supposed to function?   You do realize that there's an entire ""unbanked"" population that can't credit cards or even bank accounts, yes?  &gt;Governments shouldn't be able to oppress and neither should corporations.  Where did you fall on the whole bakery can't/can refuse to make a gay wedding cake spectrum?"
Diversification is a good method of risk management. Different types of investments do better in different situations and economic climates. Invest all your money at the wrong time in a single product and you could lose everything. You could also technically make a great deal of money, but actions such as these are the actions of speculators, not investors.  Spreading your investments appropriately lets you maximize your growth opportunities while limiting your risk.
Can I ask you to restate that in a less 'soundbitey' manner? What principle justifies the right of government to label a firm as 'too big to exist'? What actions should a government be able to institute in these cases and what principles justify these actions?
I am in the same boat as this guy. Laugh all you want, but I am not racist either. I love what African-Americans have done for our country. Their culture has made a HUGE impact on our country. But to suggest there aren't MAJOR issues facing their community and to suggest America would be same if Anglo-Saxons had not been running the show for the last 200 years, is naive. While we try to figure out how to solve the problems that plague our African-American community, we need to be careful. Let's encourage the efforts of people who made our country great over the actions of people who make our country not so great
Comparing zoning laws, which have a real effect on property rights and values, not to mention permanent alterations of the landscape, to ridesharing companies who negatively impact the taxi industry, are not comparable.    I'm not sure what industry is comparable,  but not zoning.  Again, if laws are stupid, counter productive, and a drain on society, I fully support busting them up.  Without a company like Uber, Taxis would still be the best mode of transportation around NYC.  Taxis would have no real incentive to innovate because they have been in their protective cocoon for the last 60-70 years.  If Uber would have tried to do it legally, it would have backfired monumentally on them.  The taxi industry would have fought them tooth and nail, and consumers wouldn't have weighed in because they wouldn't have known any better.  Uber has shown passengers what service can be like and now virtually no one wants to go back to the days of smelly yellow cabs.
&gt;  My town has less than 150k people and for the eclipse we are predicting a million visitors in the area.  On past history this estimate could be right (although 1m seems like a lot) or it could be wildly inaccurate.  During the 1999 eclipse there were areas in Cornwall that were gridlocked with traffic and planned events that saw hardly any attendance; visitors to Lake Balafon in Hungary had to watch it from a traffic jam.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_August_11,_1999
Insurance is mostly for covering against catastrophic events, it's not something that must be helpful to you every day. Sounds like you health is okay and you don't mind paying some cash in case of minor events. You could try to find a policy where coverage kicks in only once an incident is big enough (high deductible) - in such cases you payments will be significantly lower because you'll be unable to apply with minor incidents and that saves money to the insurance company and you're still covered against catastrophic events.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but I agree completely.  To me, this decision should effect their stock negatively but who knows what the market will do.  They effing love a company that hasn't made a profit yet.
Yes, neat way to say it.  One thing which also occurs to me is about the level of perception of the participants.  Even in the same model space, with the same rules, people could pursue different actions, one's actions are a function of one's perceptions.  If you don't see the red light up and stopped cars up ahead because you are focused on the cars in your immediate vicinity, you may be making maneuvers relative to them such as jockeying for position, unaware you are speeding towards a crash.. if you saw yourself as separate from others, then merely seeking your personal immediate benefit might be all you could understand to be an option.  What I'm getting at, is the more one understands the overall nature nature of the system, the less one is apt to pursue local maxima.
I think I have been on Reddit for 2 years and I was a huge steak and meat fan until recently: my wife suggested we go vegan and after doing some research on environmental impact and practices I couldn't in good conscience continue to eat any animal products.
&gt; What principle justifies the right of government to label a firm as 'too big to exist'?  When a Business entity is so large and powerful its failure threatens the safety and well being of the nation it is based / present in.  &gt; What actions should a government be able to institute in these cases    The government should be able to forcefully break up the company into smaller groups, or instate laws and regulations that promote competition and allow smaller businesses the ability to compete.  &gt;and what principles justify these actions?   National preservation. Your business will never ever be more important than the well-being of the country, and every government of every nation of the world has the full and unquestionable right to make decisions and take actions that safeguard the safety and stability of themselves.  Wow, that was incredibly easy to answer
It is what it is.  My gripe about it is there was a massive amount of fraud committed and no one was punished except for a few scumbag mortgage brokers who in the grand scheme of things were bit parts in one of the biggest financial events in modern history
Always be aware of dividend dates and earnings dates and if your contract is going to cover one of these events. Interest rates have an effect as well but since the Fed has near 0 rates there is little impact at the present. Though this could certainly change if the fed starts raising rates. Research the Black Scholes Pricing model. Whenever you trade always think about what the other guys is thinking. Sometimes we forget their is someone else on the other side of my trade that thinks essentially the exact opposite of me. Its a zero sum game. As far as choosing strikes you can look at calculating the At THe money straddle to see if the options are ""cheap"" [stock Price * Implied Volatility (for 30, 60, 90 days Depending on your holding period)* Sq root of days to expiration] / 19 (which is sq root of days/yr) Add and subtract this number to the current stock price to give you an approximate 1 standard deviation of expected price movement. Keeping with our example. AAPL at 115, lets say your formula spits out a 6; therefore price range is expected to be 109 to 121 for the time period. Helpful for selling options, I would sell the 122 call or the 108 puts. Hope this helps. Start small and get a feel for things."