vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
EDIT: I think it's a fairly straightforward cause &amp; effect.  You tax the transactions, it lowers the incentive to do frequent trading.  So yes, I do think it would limit it effectively.  I'm under no illusion that speculating will end.  But I think we need to dial it back a bit so that investment is the primary driver in the market, not gambling.  I'm not anti speed, but the markets serve a real purpose:  They allow for liquidity &amp; for useful capital allocation.  And liquidity is nothing if all the machines are set to sell, sell, sell.  This is what caused some of the crashes.  Also, we had liquidity prior to all this High Frequency trading.  I'm unsure that the added liquidity makes up for the cons of turning an investment engine into a gambling engine.  You dont' even have to believe me.  There are a few big time investors that say they are out of the market because it is no longer governed by reason.
Naïve?  I imagine I'm a few decades older than you are.  And I'm pretty sure you've never lost your job with a family to feed or you wouldn't be so cocksure that the loss of thousands of jobs was an unalloyed good thing.  I also addressed his point perfectly well in my last sentence.  To clarify it for you, yes, I believe that bad businesses will have to go, and since most of them today are bad, there will be a collapse and millions of people will suffer tremendously.    It's inevitable but it's really hard not to feel for the people who are suffering now and the millions more who will suffer in the future.  My only hope is that some sort of better system will come out of the ruins...
"Benjammin822 gave a pretty good summary of how schools are thought of but I'll add my two cents as well.  Yes, at ""top"" firms you'll see a heavy representation of Ivies, top LACs, and schools like Duke, UVA, Cal, etc.   However, this does not preclude you from going into investment banking. There are thousands of firms out there, and there are a bunch of stories on Wall Street Oasis about guys from non-targets networking their tail off and breaking in (even at big firms). If you want it bad enough, you'll make the necessary efforts to succeed.   And if you fail, you always have a ""redo"" by pursuing a top MBA."
"I have never said anything about liking Obama, so that's pure projection on your part. Classic attitude of wanting to see something so bad, that you see it even when it's not there.   What you fail to realize is that the stories that Fox News (and many other ""news"" organizations, but your demo seems to REALLY love Fox because they tell you all what you want to hear and play right into your confirmation bias) are based a handful of crazy people out of literally billions. There's crazy Muslims, there's crazy Atheists, there's crazy Catholics. Your fear mongering attitude talks about a group of a few people thousands of miles away, while ignoring the fact that nearly all mass attacks, acts of terrorism, etc in this cointry are done by white, Christian, American citizens. I think YOU should be illegal."
That's just a standard legal disclaimer. The company that makes them can't afford to put the devices through all the relevant testing to get it FDA approved.  There are thousands of people who ave these implants without any issues, and similar chips have been injected into millions of pets all over the world.
nearly 30 percent of households headed by someone 55 or older have neither a pension nor any retirement savings. I don’t know what these people are going to do or what our country is able to do about it, but this is a black swan that’s staring us right in the face. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are going to run out of money.  Try millions. We are headed back to the days before the New Deal.
Unless you are buying millions of dollars worth of a stock at a time, your transaction is a drop in the bucket, unlikely to have any noticable effect on the stock price. As Ian says, it's more likely that you are just remembering the times when the price dropped after you bought. If you keep careful track, I suspect you will find that the price goes up more often than it goes down, or at least, that the stocks you buy go up as often as the average stock on the market goes up. If you actually kept records and found that's not true, the most likely explanation is bad luck. Or that someone has placed a voodoo curse on you. I suppose one could imagine other scenarios. Like, if you regularly buy stock based on recommendations by well-known market pundits, you could expect to see a temporary increase in price as thousands or millions of people who hear this recommendation rush to buy, and then a few days or weeks later people move on to the next recommendation, the market setttles down, and the price reverts to a more normal level. In that case, if you're on the tail end of the buying rush, you could end up paying a premium. I'm just speculating here, I haven't done a study to find if this actually happens, but it sounds plausible to me.
We have a global network of over 1,000 certified linguists around the world—the best in the industry. All of our translators are native speakers of the target language and recognized experts in their subject areas. They are rigorously selected professional translators, who have been verified and assessed by Glocale.  Our team have managed thousands of language translation projects encompassing millions of words in every major business language, subject matter and industry for these clients as well as for businesses of all sizes and statures.
That’s how sellers sell their home fast. It provides extensive listing exposure because hundreds of thousands visit the military rental homes every day. In fact, it is one of the top 25 most visited real estate homes in the U.S. getting millions of visitors looking to buy or sell a military home every month.
You're thinking of general purpose computers. A Mac or Windows box runs millions of applications from millions of sources. That's usually why those computers crash. There are also thousands and thousands of hardware configurations, which compounds the problem.   Tesla has one hardware set and they make their own software. One configuration and one application suite that's dedicated to a very narrow set of instructions with redundant systems and failsafes to stop the car if there were to be a catastrophic failure.  As long as the system is well built and capable, it will have a long track history of safe transportation. Eventually, will something happen to the car to make it fail and kill someone? Maybe, but in the meantime, it's going to save so many lives. You can't dismiss a technology just because it might not have a 100% success rate. If that's your metric, then people would never be allowed to drive.
I think the part that you aren't seeing is that many people earning minimum wage aren't at the start of their careers, where they don't have a lot of financial commitments and are able to move fairly easily.   If someone is earning that sort of wage, but has rent to pay, kids in school, elders to take care of, that minimum wage job can often be 1 of their two jobs they need to stay afloat. Taking time off one of the jobs to go study is simply not part of the equation.   I don't think what you were saying is false, just a very thin subset in a range of possibilities. Potentially, you can't peer outside that range to se that there are thousands of stories that don't fit the bill.
I'm going to offer a contrarian answer. Depending on how big the jackpot is, I would suggest that your best bet might be the annuity over the lump sum. Not because of math, but because of behavior.  Let's say that you are looking at a jackpot of hundreds of millions, and the annuity option is tens of millions each year. For me, even the annual payment of the annuity is more money than I can even comprehend. Do I trust myself to handle the lump sum? No. I have no experience with that kind of money, nor does anyone I know. By taking the annuity option, I allow myself to figure it out a piece at a time. If I make a mistake by choosing the wrong advisor or spending more than I should, I can learn my lesson and do better with next year's payment.  There are too many stories of past lottery winners who blow it all early and end up broke. The annuity option protects you from yourself.  But, you don't have to take my word for it: New York Times, Jan 12, 2016: Dear Powerball Winner: Take Our Advice and Take the Annuity
I do appreciate the explanation.  I was being a bit facetious about hotdogs in that I don't buy the SAME hotdog over and over again.    But seriously, I still don't see why rising house prices shouldn't count towards inflation.   100s of thousands of homes are bought per day affecting millions of consumers per day.  The price fluctuations in housing absolutely affect the spending habits of consumers in every other facet of the economy.  Or put another way, what if in some wacky world everyone stopped buying virtually all other items except bare essentials because they were all focused on buying homes.  A huge construction industry boom ensues. Millions are working building homes.  Home prices skyrocket 1000% and become like 80% of GDP.  Is inflation dead? Or has it just shifted to another asset under our typical inflation radar?  Living costs are still very much affected by housing in this scenario.  They're just affected by millions of separate people at once each day.   To say that because one person doesn't repeat buy housing too often, means policy regarding inflation should be ignorant of housing prices, just isn't right.  That they are bought and sold by millions of consumers each month is just as important to the economy as food, energy, or any other major facet of our economy. In any event, inflation might be lagging, but it sure as hell isn't lagging when it comes to housing.
Thousands of books and millions of hours of research result in different schools of economics with substantive disagreements about key tenets. That is prima facie evidence that economics is not hard science. The scientific economist does not take into account that what he is studying is the aggregate of billions of decisions made by sentient individuals.   Keynesians and monetarists all missed the dotcom bubble. They all missed the real estate collapse that triggered the great recession. Austrian economists predicted both.
&gt; Not to mention that poor people can get into trading  With all that extra capital they have lying around, right?  What reality are you living in?  Even if they could scrape some money together for a few shares, they'll end up getting fleeced by hedge funds trading on insider information and manipulating markets.  What a shitty piece of advice.
The problem is not that someone wants to rent out a spare bedroom and make some extra money, but that investors are abusing airBnB platform in order to control sometimes 100s of units while claiming to use them all. This can lead to entire neighborhoods turning into tourist destinations without any real locals. While renting out a spare bedroom isn't that bad it is contributing to a growing problem where people are getting kicked out of their apartments to make room for a more profitable airBnB. Tourists don't work and don't start businesses. The current hotel model isn't great either due to giant corporations controlling the most of the market, but airBnB is a corporation just the same and is growing much faster.
Welll put. IMO, the best way to dump the Fed is to nationalize it, turning it into a new credit bank. The best recent model for what we need is the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of FDR, which lent $50 billion dollars during the depression in the thirties. Credit has to be directed into real physical wealth, like a new high speed rail system. These kind of investments pay off the associated debt by increasing real wealth, not by what you site correctly, is money for money's sake.
While I agree with your point that 'we are progressively turning into a low wage country,' the rest of the article is talking about how restaurant and hotel worker positions *aren't* being filled because (presumably, lol) those people who would normally work there are instead finding 'better' jobs.   The article is not talking about how those service jobs are good in themselves, but how the availability of them is a good sign 'because of the implication.'  But yes, of course we are 'turning into' a low wage country. That's how the system works.
NYC ban is not the same as the state wide ban. Sorry you can't comprehend the difference between a state and a city.  Also, you might find this interesting as once again your completely and fucking utterly wrong :  https://www.google.com/amp/reason.com/blog/2017/01/02/despite-ban-new-york-city-had-more-airbn/amp  Now, let's imagine a world where you're actually right, and NYC fines and policing some how stopped people from listing their places; this is still one single city amongst tens of thousands where it's illegal, yet there are millions of listings in total in those cities.  So your argument is as dumb as a flat earthier or climate denier... Your one example doesn't event back you up, and even if it did it's counters to tens of thousands of example that prove you're wrong.
One company owns majority of popular freelancing websites (elance included)  Aside from the race to the bottom pricing happening for projects; customer is always right. Lots of stories of even a pip from a client freezing accounts -- not even just a project, your whole account with any ongoing projects. Everything gone. Thousands lost. Not worth it. No recourse.
From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to ""negotiate"" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level.
&gt; can't afford to put the devices through all the relevant testing to get it FDA approved.  That testing is there for a reason, you know.   &gt; There are thousands of people who ave these implants without any issues, and similar chips have been injected into **millions of pets** all over the world.  Is this an ironic way to argue against this idea? Pet issues aside, do you really want your employer to move one step closer to treating you like an animal?
Refined marble tiles accessible at tiles showroom in Kolkata are utilized to give more floor grasp, while cleaned artistic tiles are utilized to give a considerably more advanced appearance; by the by, these could wind up noticeably perilous when clammy and may include the situating of mats to stop mischances. Tumbled marble on the different another hand, is looked for after for its old-world, provincial feel and look, and is fast turning into a noticeable format design for heaps of house proprietors.
Came here to say this. Sure Northrop Grumman et al make a shit ton of money for their shareholders and CEOs, but they also employ hundreds of thousands of people whose income and spending account for millions of dollars of tax revenue (not to mention they're... you know... humans with lives that would be damaged if we just eliminated their jobs).  This is the forgotten factor of defense spending. Real Americans depend on it to live. The American economy may depend on it to live.
Richard Liu gave up a seven-figure salary this month to get into one of the hottest financial instruments around right now: initial coin offerings. The former China Renaissance deal-maker has since backed a clutch of cryptocoin sales that’ve raised millions -- sometimes in seconds -- often without a single product.  From Hong Kong and Beijing to London, accomplished financiers are abandoning lucrative careers to plunge into the murky world of ICOs, a way to amass quick money by selling digital tokens to investors sans banks or regulators. Cut out of the action, a growing cohort of banking professionals are instead applying their talents toward buying or hawking cryptocurrency.
And you have yet to explain how it would matter how they use the benefits they are entitled to.   If they didn't spend any of the money they were given it would stay on their card.  If they bought food and didn't eat it, it would sit on their shelves.  What if they bought food and let someone who was hungry eat it at their house?    Are these people abusing the system as well?    What you don't seem to understand is ITS THEIR ENTITLEMENT.  They can do with it as they please, it would be smart to use it to eat food but guess what some people have drug problems and or likely a mental issue.  Apparently in your worldview poor people don't get to have freedom?  These people would get it either way if they spent it on food or drugs.  Not to mention we are talking about a very small percentage of people and an even smaller pittance of money.    We have THOUSANDS of tanks we paid hundreds of millions of dollars for each just sitting in the fucking desert that replaced the already working tanks we already had that we do not need.  Yet here you are concerned about some person at the lowest rank of society trading 15 dollars on a snap card for cigarettes.
"Who are all the failing female tech CEOs?  Meg and Carly?   And now Marissa that inherited a company that has had ALL past male CEOs fail at turning it around?   Meg who came aboard a ship that the past male CEOs failed at turning around, and that I do think Carly mismanaged HP into the failure it is now.  Yahoo and HP won't fail _because_ of Marissa or Meg.  Unless we absolve the previous male failures as blameless because of their maleness.    Turning around either of these companies is going to take something very very elaborate and hard to implement, and I don't see any gender of CEO really having an easy go of it.  Maybe the problem with females is they accept jobs guaranteed to make them look bad?  ;)  Or perhaps the real problem is that it's easier to pin the blame on their femaleness.   The previous Yahoo guy was just considered incompetent, his ""maleness"" wasn't the issue.    (I think he had a hard road, and that's the biggest issue,  the second issue is he didn't have the vision necesarry.  This may hold true of Marissa as well.)"
Except customers were already sold before these designs apparently materialized.  That's what China does, shows off a prototype and then changes materials and build.   Also, we're not talking about a car, albeit uber expensive, like Rolls Royce, we're talking about an airplane that costs hundreds of millions of dollars that needs to work within very small tolerances over thousands upon thousands of operating hours. Any school child can see the dangers in outsourcing too much of that.
Losings tens of millions of dollars but winning a bunch of awards - I'll leave it to others here to decide if that would make them feel that they are running a company that could really be called successful. I'd rather make even a few *thousand* dollars in profit, from scratch, while losing every possible award category my product could be eligible for.
get into the 21st century. there are millions of artists willing to make videos, music, and other forms of entertainment for FREE. the music and hollywood industry are NOT entitled to profits. they lose money because of bad business models that don't evolve to a changing entertainment paradigm
"I'm afraid you have missed a few of the outcomes commonly faced by millions of Americans, so I would like to take a moment to discuss a wider range of outcomes that are common in the United States today. Most importantly, some of these happen before retirement is ever reached, and have grave consequences - yet are often very closely linked to financial health and savings. Not planning ahead long-term - 10-20+ years - is generally associated with not planning ahead even for the next few months, so I'll start there. The most common thing that happens is the loss of a job, or illness/injury that put someone out of work. 6 in 10 adults in the US have less than $500 in savings, so desperation can set in very quickly, as the very next paycheck will be short or missing. Many of these Americans have no other source of saved money, either, so it's not like they can draw on retirement savings, as they don't have that either. Even if they are able to get another job or recover enough to get back to work in a few weeks, this can set off a desperate cycle. Those who have lost their jobs to technical obsolescence, major economic downturns, or large economic changes are often more severely affected. People once making excellent, middle-class (or above) wages with full benefits find they cannot find work that pays even vaguely similarly. In the past this was especially common in heavy labor jobs like manufacturing, meat-packing, and so on, but more recently this has happened in financial sectors and real estate/construction during the 2008 economic events. The more resilient people had padding, switched careers, and found other options - the less resilient, didn't. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, many people affected by large losses of earning potential became sufficiently desperate that they fell heavily (or lost their functioning status) into substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs (cocaine and heroine being especially popular in this segment of the population). Life disruption - made even more major by a lack of savings - is a key trigger to many people who are already at risk of issues like substance addiction, mental health, or any ongoing legal issues.
No, it doesn't.  It's been at play in a very strong way for the last century - and, even on smaller time scales you can easily see where there are differences in nations that grow / shrink.  My statement isn't over the course of thousands of years, it can affect things on the span of just a few decades even.