vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It would seem that the best method of bank robbery involves an inside man or woman, someone in the bank who can provide information about where the largest amount of cash is and when to hit the bank. $20,000 does not seem to be worth the risk of jail time. I'd say anything south of $100,000 per bank robber probably wouldn't be worth it, and getting that amount of cash would require more than a simple walk-in, pull a gun, empty a register robbery.   The trick would either be proving an iron-clad alibi for the inside person or the group of robbers collectively contributing to the cost of that person disappearing. At the very least, that individual should get the largest share of the score.   Escape is undoubtedly the biggest issue. One would need immediate transportation from the scene of the crime which could leave the area, then be dumped (fully scrubbed for prints, DNA, etc.) then the group would all go their separate ways.   Regardless, I don't think it's worth the risk or the effort. First off, when you rob a bank the greedy bankers doesn't lose the money, it's paid by the FDIC, which is founded by taxpayers, so what you're doing is taking money that might otherwise be spent on social services for people who need them. Moreover, it's expensive and time-consuming to launder large amounts of money. If you manage to get $120,000 out of a robbery, which is hugely optimistic, that number would take years and a significant fraction of the take just to clean for personal use. And the risk of not only prison but possibly death seems rather extreme when compared to the admittedly more dull alternative of finding and holding down career.   I think there are probably more efficient criminal methods of obtaining large quantities of money/wealth, too. Illegal narcotics, for example, are a $300 billion a year industry. While it's not the easiest business to get into, one imagines, the potential for someone who isn't just some moron off the street to climb the cartel ladder could be significant and could lead to a high income. There are significant risks, of course, and there's a serious moral question as to whether selling illegal drugs is acceptable or not, but if you're morally flexible or have the opinion that illegal narcotics are not something that should be prohibited, it could work.   And there's always money in the banana stand.
"&gt;The fact of the matter is, if someone is sketchy enough to help you rob a bank, their character and judgement is suspect.  That's a massive generalization and a value statement you cannot possibly back up. What if one is robbing a bank because the bank stole from him/her? What if there's a sick kid and the only option is to either rob a bank or allow the child to die? What if someone's family is being held hostage, and the hostage taker is forcing them to rob a bank?   &gt;This sentence is a bit of a fallacy in of itself after reading the linked article above.  That's not what fallacy means. A fallacy is a logical misstep, like arguing against a person instead of their argument (ad hom), arguing against a different argument than the other party is making (strawman) or arguing that something is true because most people believe it (ad populum). If you think someone is wrong about something, you can say so and demonstrate it, but not everything you disagree with is a fallacy.   &gt;We just read about how the return on bank robbery is complete garbage, so anyone who would think it a good idea is de facto stupid.  No, we read about how the average return on a bank robbery isn't worth it. Average. Not all.   &gt;And if you think there's any loyalty among criminals, you are incredibly naive...  ""There's no honor among thieves"" is just a fun turn of phrase. It's not some philosophical or psychological law."
I've seen a lot of long and complicated answers here so here is my simple and short answer: Let's say the economy consists of: 10 apples and 10$. Then an apple costs 1$. If you print 10$ more you have: 10 apples and 20$. Then an apple costs 2$. That is it! It's not what Kenshin said:  Over time, prices go up! However I would like to add something more on the topic: inflation is theft! If I hack the bank and steal 10% from each account it's obvious that it is theft. It's a bit less obvious when the government prints out money and people loose 10% of the value in their bank accounts but the end result is the same. Final note: some may disagree but I do not consider inflation when 5 of the apples rot and you have: 5 apples and 10$ and an apple now costs 2$. This is a drop in supply and if the demand stays the same prices will rise.
I would definitely seek advice from professionals or others with more experience. A lot of times the wording can be changed and it will drastically alter the perception of a work. Shop it around to people who are well-spoken or very good at that business-style of language. The more professional and well-written it is the better it will be perceived.
"A financial engineering degree will help you get your foot in the door, and IEOR is a pretty good background to start with, but you should also just try applying to interesting-sounding things right now.  If you get lucky, you'll have saved yourself a lot of time: work experience trumps financial engineering. I don't know quite how to say this politely, but there's a chance that if you do a full-time Fin Eng masters, you'll bump yourself out of the ""smart junior guy who we'll train"" category into the ""this guy is supposed to know something"" category.  For my own group, the just-out-of-college people we've hired have been people who did internships with us before, which is no help at all. The interviews that I've done have been mostly looking for people with significant industry experience, and the FE degree won't help with that.  It's a bit of a crapshoot. I'm not sure what to suggest, but I'll happily answer questions."
When you get a loan (car, home, student) the lending company (bank) give the (auto dealer, previous home owner, school) money. You as the borrow promise to pay this money back with interest.  So in your case the 100,000 you borrow requires a payment for principal and interest of ~965 per month. After 240 payments you will have paid the bank ~231,605.  So who got the ~131,000 in interest. The bank did. It was used to pay interest to the people who made deposits into the bank. It was also used to pay the expenses of the bank: salaries, retirement, rent, electricity, computers, etc. If the bank is a company with investors they may have to pay dividends to them to.  Of course not all loans are successfully paid back, so some of the payment goes to cover the loans that are in default. In many cases loans are also refinanced, or the house is sold long before the 20-30 year term is up. In these cases the amount of interest received for that loan is much less than anticipated, but the good news is that it can be loaned out again.
On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out. But nobody's buying houses anymore, because prices are on their way down; the only people who'd buy a house now versus a year from now (or two or three years) are the people who have no choice, and if you have no choice you're probably in a financial situation that would mean you'd never be approved for the loan anyway. In order to get rid of them, the bank has to sell them at auction for pennies on the dollar. That further increases the supply of cheap homes and further drives down prices, making even the nicer homes the bank's willing to keep on the books worth less (there's a reason these distresed homes were called ""toxic assets""; they're poisonous to the banks whether they keep or sell them). Meanwhile, all this price depression is now affecting the people who did everything right; even people who bought their homes years before the bubble even formed are watching years of equity-building go down the crapper. That's to say nothing of the people with prime credit who bought at just the wrong time, when the bubble was at its peak. Even without an adjusting ARM to contend with, these guys are still facing the fact that they paid top dollar for a house that likely will not be worth its purchase price again in their lifetime. Even with a fixed mortgage rate, they'll be underwater, effectively losing their entire payment to the bank as if it were rent, for much longer than it would take to have this entire mess completely behind them if they just walked away from the whole thing, moved back into an apartment and waited it out.
&gt;Ingratiate yourself, build up a history  Why do people think this is necessary? Nobody is going to care what your reddit history is unless you are one of the very few accounts with actual name recognition.  If I see a post about a product I'm not going to check the poster's karma to see if it is worth checking out. Who does that?
"Hmm, that's quite a claim, that these people are so well-informed.  In my experience most people who say ""The United States is the best country in the world"" are just advertising their parochialism.  People who are genuinely aware of all the issues you raise are less likely to make such a dogmatic claim."
You need to protect from two types of disasters. You need to set a goal. In 5 years I will have X months of emergency funds. Then start building it. You can also make sure that any found money (birthday check from your grandmother or bonus check at work) goes into building the fund.  While is seems a waste to pay all that interest for the student loans, you may decide that having an emergency fund is more important. Note: don't mix the two types of emergency funds. It is less confusing to have two sub accounts, because it avoids the double counting of the funds.
"Wealth is not distributed equally in any economy.  And, even if it were, differentiation between people would lead to different interests being expressed in different ways. As people either attempt to earn more (to improve their situation) or different people express those interests in different ways (saving money to go on a skiing holiday, or to put a downpayment on a house) people invite new products and services to be created to satisfy those demands. In addition, there is the problem of uncertainty.  People save money today to cope with uncertainty tomorrow (healthcare, pensions, education, etc.). Those savings don't remain idle, but are lent to others who believe that they can make a return through investing in new businesses or ideas. The point being that any dynamic economy will experience change in the amount of goods available to the people within that economy. From an economic perspective ""growth"" is just another permutation.  From a political perspective, ""growth"" implies that people are getting wealthier.  If that growth is asymmetrically distributed (e.g. the poor don't experience it and the middle classes don't feel they get enough of it) then that is a problem for politicians. The emerging markets of the world are trying to raise millions of people out of poverty.  Growth is a way of measuring how quickly they are achieving that end. Growth, in and of itself, is meaningless.  There are some people who believe that ""we"" (as some proxy of society) have enough stuff and growth is unnecessary but that implies that everyone is satisfied.  For as long as some people wish to have more wealth/stuff, and have the means to achieve this, there will be growth. And for as long as there is uncertainty growth will vary."
Good question, very well asked! The key here is that you need to find a solution that works for you two without an overt amount of effort.  So in a sense it is somewhat behavior driven, but it is also technology driven.   My wife and I use spreadsheets for both checking account management and budgeting.  A key time saver is that we have a template sheet that gets copied and pasted, then modified for the current month.  Typically 90% of the stuff is the same and each month requires very little modification.  This is one of my problems with EveryDollar.  I have to enter everything each and every month. We also have separate checking accounts and responsibility for different areas of the family expenses.  Doing this risks that we act as roommates, but we both clearly understand the money in one persons account equally belongs to the other and during hard times had to make up for shortfalls on the part of the other. Also we use cash for groceries, eating out, and other day to day expenses.  So we don't have a great need to track expenses or enter transactions. That is what works for us, and it takes us very little time to manage our money.  The budget meeting normally lasts less than a half hour and that includes goal tracking. We kind of live by the 80/20 principle.  We don't see a value in tracking where every dime went.  We see more value in setting and meeting larger financial goals like contributing X amount to retirement and things of that nature.  If we overspent a bit at Walgreens who cares provided the larger goals are meant and we do not incur debt.
I think we are arguing the same side of the coin here from different perspectives.    Let me re-phrase what I'm saying here:  I'm arguing that wages should be higher; that business takes advantage of the social safety net to keep wages low, pushing the balance of what they should be paying off to the taxpayer.    I'm not arguing to get rid of the social safety net.  It's there for two reasons:  First, people who have no income (as per your argument).  Second, people who have *insufficient* income.  My argument is meant to address the latter.
"She is laundering money for criminals, either knowingly or unknowingly. There are lots of ways to make fraudulent money transfers like credit card fraud, direct debit fraud or online banking trojans. Unfortunately (for the criminals) banks usually reverse such transfers when informed by their customers and inform the police, so criminals can not directly wire these transfers into their personal accounts. That's where so-called ""mules"" come in. Mules are people who are hired by criminals to receive such dirty money and move it to a different account controlled by the criminals. When the transfer gets reversed, two things happen: Your ""friend"" is either one of these mules or in the business of recruiting mules."
"&gt; There are more types of ads than banner ads you see in the margins of websites, and they can't be blocked by ad blockers. Its a huge industry, saying it's going to die is pretty naive. It's difficult to formulate a polite response, my message inbox is flooded with people who obviously have no idea what they're talking about, telling me about how my ad blockers aren't blocking the ads which I know they are blocking. And this account is new which means I can't respond to everyone without waiting unreasonable numbers of minutes.. so I want to make one response that's really good instead. I am willing to bet that I have more knowledge and experience with the internet, technology, and computers than everyone in this thread combined. So you go on thinking I'm naive or whatever, but really you are the naive one for underestimating my expertise on the subject. I am absolutely aware of what sort of ads are blocked by my ad blockers and what sorts arent. I belong to the class of people who taught you all how to use this stuff. All of the advertising that Google and Facebook use for their revenue is blocked. When you pay for ads on reddit, I don't see those. When you pay for adwords links on search engines, I don't see those. When you pay for video ads on youtube content, I don't see those. The only things that get through are things which cannot be detected such as spam posts posing as real content. But because I am a smart person I am capable of recognizing when an article is trying to sell me something. That is what you are getting at, unless you're completely wrong and just being stupid, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. And while that tangent is true, it's irrelevant to the meat of the conversation, which is that the traditional methods of advertising, things like pay per click and number of impressions, things like adwords and facebook's ""boosted posts"", all of that is going away. If you rely on those things for your revenue stream you better start looking for other sources of income today because in a few years those streams will be completely dried up.
&gt;I am no fan of how Uber is run, but the concept is here to stay. Taxis will never be able to compete with the traceability and accountability. Whether it is Uber or a competitor, that is what the world will use. But cab companies already do, I can see who my driver is, what the registration is with my local cab company, moreover I can call the cab company, schedule a pick up for two weeks time for a trip to the airport and know what I'm paying. In short, there is nothing that makes uber particularly special, they are essentially a minicab company with a technological edge that has already been, or is being eroded. &gt;The hijacked the term ride sharing, however the generally accepted definition today is an Uber type service. Uber is trying to hijack it because it suits them to try and distance themselves from the vehicle for hire definition that means they have to comply with licensing, vehicle and employment regulation. Moreover, it's a real shame shame because there is value, both economic, social and environmental in actual ride sharing, it's part of the 'sharing economy' that is actually realisable. &gt;Typically the only people who defend taxis, either very rarely take them, or are drivers themselves. Well, I don't drive a taxi and use them regularly enough, but I'll happily defend some of my local firms because they are pretty decent. I do however understand why people in areas with poorly regulated taxi services might see uber as a positive in that it will disrupt an unnatural and often inefficient monopoly.
"What is even more disturbing is the loss of navigational ability. People who dont ever have to drive without the aid of a machine lose their sense of direction. Everyplace in some parts of the country just stops having any deeper, contextual meaning. ""This is where so and so lives"" or ""This is where I skinned my knee in that bike accident when I was 12."" to them its might as well be basically a procedural landscape that was generated in a video game.   If people ever watched the Truman Show where every two miles everything- all the stores on the corners, they just start to repeat. In the land of stripmalls, since everything looks the same everywhere, they have no sense of where they are. People might ""go home"" and even go into the wrong house."
Will 2 millions dollars check to be cash? Will a bank convert a check to cash?  In my experience, no.  Even for small checks.   Unless you happen to have a VERY good relationship with your banker (read as: have an existing large bank balance.)   The exception is if you go to the bank the check is drawn on.   But even then, I doubt they'll cash a $2M dollar check. Can you deposit a $2M dollar check?  Most definitely. How long will 2 millions dollars check to be cash? Depends on your bank's policies, relationship with you, and the origination of the check.  You'll need to talk to the exact bank in question to find out.  Some guidelines from my own experiences: Out of country checks will take quite awhile, say 4 weeks, even for trivial amounts.  I'm not sure what a $2M size would do.   Beyond that situation, it will likely depend on whether you have more money than the check's worth in your bank accounts.  If so, they may be willing to give you cash in a few days.  Or if you only want some of the money as cash in a few days, that might be possible. If the bank couldn't cash for him, will the bank give him some of cash   for example, $500,000 for now, and the rest wait to be cash at later   time like 24 hours or 1 week? Unless you already have a lot of money in your relationship with the bank, I think it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY they will let you have ANY of the money in 24 hours.  You MIGHT get some of it in a week.   The issue will be that such a large check will be viewed as having a high chance of being fraudulent, so they will want to be exceptionally conservative.
Now use this one example and multiply it by hundreds of millions of people around the world who have a very remote access to a ‘bank’, but have an access to a basic smartphone – imagine the possibility of connecting people like Razaq to the ‘internet’ world and having a seamless cross-border trade finance transaction using currency that is not controlled by any government. Like many others, I am keen to see the developments of cryptocurrency in the coming years, but for now I remain sceptical. That said, I am more interest in the countless opportunities that will be unlocked by the very technology that is fundamental to all the cryptocurrencies; the Blockchain. Crytocurrency is one branch of Blockchain technology which has proved useful. There are million other possibilities which I'm sure will benefit many industries in the coming decade, and I, for one, am very excited.
The simple answer is that you have to read the terms and conditions when you sign up for a checking account at the bank. The process of fraud investigation varies from bank to bank.  Ultimately most banks will refund the money if you are not deemed negligent. Some banks offer quick reimbursement during fraud claims, but many will not refund the money until the investigation is complete (which can take several weeks). Checking accounts are terrible security problems. If you're looking for ways to avoid a hassle, stop writing checks and using ATM/Debit cards. If you must send checks to pay bills, use the bill-pay system that is now common with most banks (they use a service to send checks on your behalf and don't even charge you for postage unless you ask for expedited processing).
"Those are just a form of ""rent tax"" on real economy - that is, people that work in those non-productive sectors of economy are just using the fruits of labor of all the others.   But only the real economy actually matters - and having a few extra zeroes in the bank accounts of the rich don't really affect it as long as those money stay there.  Money that are not exchanged for real world goods and services don't really exist for the real economy."
There are lots of credit unions that are insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) through the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) instead of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Both cover individual accounts up to $250,000. If you are looking for non-trivial returns on your money, you should consider a brokerage account which is insured by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SPIC). In the case of SPIC insured accounts, what you are insured against is the failure of the broker (not against loss on your investments if you choose to invest poorly). SPIC insurance covers up to $500,000 in losses from an insolvent broker. You have already indicated your lack of interest in using other investments, but I am not aware of any non-insured accounts that offer higher interest than insured accounts. You have also indicated your lack of interest in investment advice, but it sounds like what you are looking for is offered by a stable value fund.