vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It may depend on the rental agreement you signed, some agreements may include clauses that allow for early termination so check your agreement carefully. Where there is an early termination clause included it will usually have some sort of notice period or financial penalty associated with it.  For example you may have to give a couple of months notice and pay rent up to the end of that period or be able to pay some sort of one-off penalty. As a more practical example I broke a US rental agreement early last Autumn and had two early termination options in my rental agreement: In my case we chose the second option since we were actually moving out of the country and it was easier to have our US finances completely settled. I'm now planning on breaking another agreement because I'm in the process of purchasing a property and the purchase will likely go through before the lease expires.  In this case the early termination clause requires 2 months notice i.e. we will have to give 2 months notice and pay rent for those two months (unless we are less than 2 months from the end of the lease). As @BrenBarn points out you should also check the laws for the jurisdiction your rental agreement is in to understand what your rights and options are if your agreement does not have an early termination clause
Thanks for explaining added value - I do not think professors are much, if any part of the problem, it really does come down to cost in my eyes. Year over year costs go up. As a country we are pricing ourselves out of education. It will continue to create disparity and eventually you will have a large segment of the population saying no way on college (I can get a lot of free courseware on edx.org and other sites).   As numbers drop colleges are going to be hard pressed to really make money.  I often ponder what that money is spent for. I know a chunk goes to sports and other not necessarily academic activities.  I have advocated for years to people who cannot afford to go to a 4yr college to attend community college, get an Associates and make their decision from there.   With exception of the Ivy league schools I do not think there is enough value in 4 yr degree's in the job market. I am in IT and the number of people I have worked with who have had degrees since the early days of my career has dropped greatly. Many of them had non-computer degrees and jumped job fields to fill gaps early on.  Just my two cents. I really believe that most professors are not the problem (unless they are paid huge sums and even that's dependent on a lot of things)
You actually don't need an accountant. They'll be expensive and at this early a stage unnecessary - what you need is a good bookkeeper who can keep track of what comes in and what goes out. You'll need that to know if you're making money or not and to show the government at the end of the year. Get a copy of QuickBooks and pick up Bookkeeping for Dummies to at least get a sense for what's going on.  Have you registered as a sole proprietorship? Make sure you have a vendor's permit so you can legally sell your services in Ontario. You may need to collect HST, in which case you'll need to register for an HST # and submit it on a quarterly basis.   Whatever you do, don't fuck with the government - they can freeze your bank accounts to get money they're owed. You need to keep money on hand to pay for any taxes you might owe on the business, ESPECIALLY if it's a sole proprietorship where you'll be tempted to treat profit as income. You don't want to end up with nothing in the bank at the end of the year and $40k owing to the CRA.  Get a separate bank account - don't mix personal and business, it's messy.  Expense everything you reasonably can.
This doesn't make sense in an economic context. For justice to provide sufficient deterrent, it needs to be rational to avoid a crime. If your probability of being caught is comparatively lower, the punishment needs to be higher in order to remain a deterrent.   Basically,   P(get caught) * Punitive Cost &gt; Profit
The idea of education has never been to make stupid people smarter, but to make uneducated people educated and ready to serve a greater good as an educated worker and member of the political spectrum.  Comparative economics tells us that as the manufacturing jobs that used to be in the US move overseas and equalize the wealth of the world with the people working to receive it. As this happens, jobs in manufacturing will leave the US, and their educated and formerly employed workers with it. My suggestion is that Microsoft takes the already educated, and gives them training to function in a new career in return for guaranteed service in the job they have been trained for. There is no need to revamp any education system here, but only to start a training program which Microsoft would benefit greatly from.
"The reason I don't want to get into here it is because internet debates over these things turn into an absolute shit-show, instantly. In a nutshell, the (sane parts of) argument comes down to very difficult-to-prove assumptions about how perfectly fiat currency can/will be implemented. - The (sane) case for gold is that it is very difficult to get into the kind of money-printing mischief that places like Zimbabwe and Argentina have got into when your currency is based on something with a finite and slow-growing supply. It's hard to print more gold. - The (sane) case for fiat currency is that it is ridiculous to hamstring the entire economy by tying it to one arbitrary commodity with a fluctuating value and supply that does not correlate well with overall economic output. A perfectly-implemented fiat currency, printed and ordained by a perfectly omniscient, perfectly competent, and perfectly benevolent central bank (let's call it ""God money""), is the ideal. That's pretty much axiomatic, and even sane gold-bugs would tend to allow the above, so far as it goes, including all stipulations. In fact, someone inclined to believe in divine intervention might make a case that gold is precisely that: a hard-to-forge, easy-to-detect, easy-to-handle metal placed on earth by God in quantities just right to serve as currency. The problem is that a really *bad* fiat currency is absolutely terrible: leads to nightmare-scenarios; people starving on one side of a fence while tons of crops are being burned on the other side because of runaway price-discrepancies, stuff like that. Again, even (sane) Keynesians will allow as much. The problem is that the crazies, ideologues, and single-issue zealots come out of the woodwork when you start getting into this stuff, and tend to dominate the conversation (if ""conversation"" is a fair word to use). In a sense, the ""sane"" spectrum of debate boils down to an almost ideological divide: - Whether you believe that a sort of permanent, technocratic, central-bank/currency-issuer is possible/plausible.
"&gt;Generally-speaking, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about strictly seniority-based pay and strictly seniority-based firing; it doesn't seem to make a tremendous amount of sense.  It wasn't supposed to ""make sense"" -- just as with other political things, the older, longer term members tend to participate more in union activities (having a significantly more *vested* interest); and medium term members can easily look forward to the day (not too far off) when they too will be in the position of seniority -- it is an inherently biased system.  Any pressures to end the seniority-based system are coming from outside the unions and -- bar an influx of a demographic ""bulge"" of new teachers of high-merit (which is unlikely) -- the unions are likely to continue to oppose any change (as they have so desperately tried in Wisconsin)."
If your goal is to work in the U.S. then it would make sense to attend a U.S. university. American companies are going to recruit on american campuses after all. Or you could stay in Europe and target a U.S. multinational after graduation. Fluent English and another European language would be a big plus. (it's not much of an 'international' business degree if it doesn't include a language)
Having people that work directly with the software/hardware or those who actually created it provide support is an amazing thing. It's more expensive than hiring people to read a script, but the quality of support will be very high and if there is an issue with the program it's going to get fixed so they get fewer support calls.  Support should be about fixing the problem as correctly as possible. That may not make sense, but think of it like this. Every day somebody calls in to complain how a program keeps losing it's settings, the person on the other end explains how to export and import the settings so if it happens again they can get back to where they were. They could just keep telling people how to import their settings, or they could develop a fix for it and never have any calls about this issue again. Both fix the issue (in my mind the first one does not really), but the 2nd one is the correct fix, making it work every time and reducing support costs.
"I don't see how this concept takes off. First and foremost, BankSimple is NOT a bank but a tech company masquerading as one. BankSimple leaves industry regulation and treasury management -- the CORE of banking, to outside parties.  Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to have as few stops between me and my money as possible. If not for a fear of losing it in a robbery and inability to earn interest, I'd shove it under a mattress. So why would I want to bank with an intermediary, who admittently doesn't understand how the process works? How is that ""looking out for my interests""? And how is your security better than other institutions that offer 128-bit encryption and multiple security questions to test a customer's identity?  I'd like to add that not charging overdraft fees and providing lines of credit to help customers out in the event they spend more than they have is nice in concept, but what happens when those same customers do not make deposits to cover their shortfalls? When it comes to money, people will take advantage of any opportunities they have to circumvent the system. Especially if funds are tight."
Source:  Business owner for 13 years.  Unfortunately you may be hard-pressed to get that money back.   You can try sending him to collections, but at that point it often starts to cost  you more than what he owes you, in my experience.   In the worst instance I lost $2100 on a single invoice that I never received a dime for.   Nearly 20 hours of my time wasted for nothing!  A bit of unsolicited advice:  I've found that when working on a service-basis, obtaining billing and payment info up front and taking a deposit makes sense.   I take 1 hour's worth of deposit and bill the rest after.   Not only does it verify the payment method works, but it also gives you a way to confirm the customer's ability to pay in the future.  If the customer balks at this, just walk away.  It's not worth the risk.   As a business, your goal is to make money in exchange for goods or services.  If your customers don't understand that and aren't willing to front a bit of money to secure your services, you'll likely going to lose time and money.
"The most important thing is not to tell yourself ""I'll save more later in my career when I have more disposable income,"" because of two factors. 1) You will get raises over your career, but unless you make it big, it will never really feel like you have extra money. You may double or triple your salary over a career, but it usually happens in small increments which your lifestyle tends to adjust upwards to meet even though it doesn't feel like it. 2) Later in your career you may have more money to save, but now the commodity you have is time. Your total savings at retirement are going to be influenced in a massive way by both of these factors. A good strategy is save SOMETHING early in your career even if it feels like an insignificant amount. Then save larger amounts later in your career when you are earning more, but have less time for your investments to grow and less tolerance for high risk/high growth investments."
So you're saying it doesn't make economic sense to mine? That is very much already the common consensus within the Bitcoin community, it is too late for most to get into the mining game at this point. It is still a necessary process though because the proof of work is what secures the network against attacks. That said, Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency, and there are other coins are mined in more efficient manners.
"&gt; With about 10 minutes in front of google you could probably answer everything you just asked.  So after reading a vague, rambling blog post, my immediate reaction should be to google some of the vague points for 10 minutes in order to make sense of it, rather that just dismiss it as badly written blogspam and ignore it?  &gt;The value of anyone's opinion should be weighed in regards to what they've done as a person or professional up to that moment in time.  I've no idea what she's done and I don't particularly care. It appears she sells training materials (though exactly what is a bit vague) and it's not really my industry so I don't really feel like looking into it further.  But the OP about start-ups being a ""long con"" is way off. I can only make a judgement from there.  Who are you? Her fucking cheerleader or something?"
Definitely the wrong sub to ask this in, for two reasons:  a) That is going to be specific to the player base of the game and how they will react. Without understanding the value of the chests to the players it won't make much sense to respond.  b) /r/economy is mostly just a place to read posts by dipshits who don't know anything about the economy or the field of economics. Any actual economic information you may want in the future is best found at /r/economics.
Now I have been trying to figure out how to split the money that we both earn. From what I can see there are several concepts but none of them really seems ideal to me. There is nothing fair or unfair in such arrangements. It is what you both agree. You can try and make this as scientific as possible. But then there is no golden rule.  For example, your girlfriend makes 2200 now and due to child, she is making 1100. The child is both of your responsibility; so you need to compensate half of her salary loss. 550 and she takes the other half. If you hire a nanny to look after you kinds, it would say cost you 500. But your girlfriend is doing that job, so she should get additional 500 from common pot. Plus due to loss of few years in looking after the children, she has a lost opportunity in career growth. i.e. she may indefinitely make less money than she can... So one gets into all kinds of theories and analysis and any arrangements will have some or the other gaps.  So my suggestion, don't get too scientific about it. Just talk it out as to what you both feel how this should be and arrive it. It is something every individual has to agree. It also make sense to have the large assets [or assets that matter], like house, car etc in clear title and who gets what in case you decide to separate. Other should be incidental.
"My answer is that when confronted with the obvious, the most common human reaction is to seek reasons for it, because things have to be right. They have to have a reason. We don't like it when things suck. So when finding out that you are being ripped off every day of your life, your reaction is ""There must be a logical reason that perfectly explain why this is. After all, the world is fair, governments are working in our best interest and if they do it this way, they must have a very good reason for it."" Sorry, but that not the case. You have the facts. You are just not looking at them. Economics, as a subject, is the proper management of resources and production. Now, forget the fancy theories, the elaborate nonsense about stocks and bonds and currencies and pay attention to the actual situation. On our planet, most people earn $2,000 per year. Clean water is not available for a very sizable percent of the world's population. Admittedly, 90% of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of the most wealthy 10%. A Chinese engineer earns a fraction of what a similarly qualified engineer earns in the States. Most people, even in rich countries, have a negative net value. They have mortgages that run for a third of their lifetimes, credit card debts, loans... do the balance. Most people are broke. Does this strike you as the logical result of a fair and balanced economic system? Does this look like a random happenstance? The dominant theory is ""It just happened, it's nobody's fault and nobody designed it that way and to think otherwise is very bad because it makes you a conspiracy theorist, and conspiracy theorists are nuts. You are not nuts are you?"" Look at the facts already in your possession. It didn't just happen. The system is rigged. When a suit typing a few numbers in a computer can make more money in 5 minutes than an average Joe can make in 100 lifetimes of honest, productive work, you don't have a fair economic system, you have a scam machine.
If you really want to decrease inequality in a sustainable way, the solution is to make energy cheaper. The rate of median household income growth started flattening in the 1970s, and it isn't coincidental that it happened when fossil fuel prices sustained significant rises. If we can't make energy at least as cheap as it was before the 1970s, we have to adjust to a much slower rate of NGDP growth. The government targets a straight line upward moving rate of NGDP growth through massive debt spending and loose monetary policies. If it doesn't pull back on these, the increasing divergent rates of growth of the NGDP and sustainable economic growth puts us on track for a future correction that will be bigger than the Great Depression.
Non-addictictive in the physiological sense, as in you won't suffer withdrawal symptoms with cessation of cannabis use, but that doesn't mean you can't mentally be addicted to it and/or suffer consequences from its use e.g. your life becoming unmanageable  Use opioids long enough and you will become addicted to it physically, that is a medical fact.
money can make people do some odd things, it makes otherwise nice people stab other nice friendly people in the back for a decent paycheck. now i'm fresh out of school with the intent of finding a job that is going to make me want to get up in the morning with a smile across my face, it could be minimum wage and it would not bother me in the slightest as much as the media and the government would like you to think, it really does not cost that much to live a simple life and be happy about it, consumerism has really fucked people up and it is a shame, i'm in it for the memories and fun times not spending countless hours breaking my back for a company that would fuck me over in an instant.
I learned this from a business book on managing people, but I think it applies equally well here.  You can't put in what God left out of people. I know several people with this mentality about money and you simply have to make your sculpture out of the clay you have.  In this case, however, it seems that ship has sailed, considering it is your ex and you aren't on speaking terms. That would make it even harder, and it is debatable about whether it is your prerogative to even try. Just focus on the kids and make it clear to your wife that she needs to be providing the basics (food, shelter, heat, etc.) and don't escalate that unless it becomes a danger to the kids.  In a non-judgmental way (towards your wife) I'd use it as an opportunity to teach your kids about financial responsibility and the dangers of overspending and get-rich quick schemes. It sounds like they have an example in their lives of the consequences of two very different ways of managing one's finances.
"If the market is reasonably efficient, why wouldn't this become a self-defeating prophecy, with the eventual recovery priced in throughout the whole recession? Eventual, but when? That is a big unknown. In fact, even a recovery is not guaranteed. Japan's long deleveraging process is brought up often enough with regard to our current long and painful economic downturn. Given that the business cycle isn't predictable This is one of the big issues. If things were predictable, investing would be easy and there probably wouldn't be as much money to be made in it. owning stocks with a short time horizon is generally a bad idea Agreed. However, it does not mean that this does not happen. In fact, it happens every day. It's called day trading. Also, it is possible to make money that way, else it would not occur. So, strictly speaking, whether it is a good or bad idea comes down to specific situations. why would anyone buy stocks in the first place if they weren't prepared to ride out a recession if one happens? These things tend to happen at the worst times and they have a way of compounding or piling-up. E.g. you overextend yourself, the economy goes south, you find yourself jobless and unable to pay the mortgage, you are forced to liquidate some of your positions because you need cold, hard cash. Benjamin Graham is widely quoted to have stated that the stock market is a voting (opinion) machine in the short term and a weighing (fact) machine in the long term. This may not feel very satisfying to you: but, it is just the way it is. While the dissemination of information may be relatively efficient, the interpretation of that information is quite variable. It is not easy to put a number to most events. (By ""put a number"" I mean determine the impact to the balance sheet.) It is a complicated system, with many inputs and many actors, which have varying goals. While there may be an effective, Zen-like approach to investing, the markets cannot actually be simplified to ""buy low, sell high"" in practice.
"Rich people use ""depositor"" banks the same way the rest of us use banks; to keep a relatively small store of wealth for monthly expenses and a savings account for a rainy day. The bulk of a wealthy person's money is in investments. Money sitting in a bank account is not making you more money, and in fact as Kaushik correctly points out, would be losing value to inflation. Now, all investments have risk; that's why interest exists. If, in some alternate universe, charging interest were illegal across the board, nobody would loan money, because there's nothing to be gained and a lot to lose. You have to make it worth my while for me to want to loan you my money, because sure as shootin' you're going to use my loan to make yourself wealthier. A wealthy person will choose a set of investments that represent an overall level of risk that he is comfortable with, much like you or I would do the same with our retirement funds. Early in life, we're willing to take a lot of risk, because there's a lot of money to be made and time to recover from any losses. Closer to retirement, we're much more risk-averse, because if the market takes a sudden downturn, we lose a significant portion of our nest egg with little hope of regaining it before we have to start cashing out. The very wealthy have similar variances in risk, with the significant difference that they are typically already drawing a living from their investments. As such, they already have some risk aversion, but at the same time they need good returns, and so they must pay more attention to this balancing act between risk and return. Managing their investments in effect becomes their new job, once they don't have to work for anyone else anymore. The money does the ""real work"", and they make the executive decisions about where best to put it.