vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt; Why Are There So Many Women in Public Relations?  because SEX SELLS (buyers)  my first marketing manager position with a good budget, the CEO wanted to help me by bringing in an agency.  he selected an agency where the owner was a friend.  in comes the owner and **5 fabulous babes** dressed in amazing clothing  they were expensive (their work) but they sure were great to look at  a few years later, that first agency owner got into drugs so we got another.  so in walks this next owner and **4 fabulous babes**, even better looking than the first batch  may be anecdotal, but that's what I saw
I wish... the Red Robin here and you'll have the waitress, an assistant manager, and a manager all ask you how everything is two or 3 times a meal, often in rapid succession... like literally 1 minute apart. Leave me the fuck alone!!! All I need is the waitress to covertly keep an eye on the level of my drink, and maybe a quick check 2 minutes after delivering the food to make sure everything is as it should be. I don't need to be asked if everything's ok 9 times a meal.
"Most practices I've gone to use a triplicate paper form called a ""medical encounter form""with the specialty's most common procedure codes and laboratory codes preprinted. (And rarer ones hand added).  The doctor fills this out and the office manager transcribes it. This also has a billing section where in my case the office manager initials ""cc"" for credit card.  You probably refused or threw away your copy, but can ask to review their copy.   Maybe there is a mis transcribed entry indicating payment at time of service."
The sales manager and/or finance manager applied a rebate that did not apply.  It's their fault.  They have internal accounts to handle these situations as they do come up from time to time.  The deal is done.  They have no legal ground.
Gladwell is not a scientist, so you shouldn't expect him to do a study correctly. He has said frequently in interviews that readers want good stories, not the truth, and that is what he provides. Also he is an extremely talented writer, so any argument he makes will be persuasive even if it is wrong.
Make sure you are paid on volume, not people.  Almost all companies have a requirement to recruit a certain number of others.  That's not bad - it ensures the company continues to grow without having to pay advertising and training costs.  That's what the commissions are for.  The largest cost of distributing a product (outside of MLM) is advertising and marketing.  If I remember correctly, this adds up to about 66% of the cost of the product.  If that's true, an MLM has quite a bit of money available to pay commissions and still have their products remain relatively competitive. But, when all is said and done, you should be paid on volume, just like a sales manager position in a company.  A sales manager has to hire and train a sales staff, but once they are out producing, the manager is paid a percentage based on the volume of their sales staff.  If an MLM is setup the same way, then this is good.  If they are setup to pay on recruiting people, then run away as quickly as you can. The biggest problem with recruiting is not whether or not you can do it.  It's whether or not the people you recruit can do it. I have been involved with an MLM of sorts for 10 years.  It pays a nice continual flow of income.  I worked it hard for about 6 years and have coasted ever since.  The problem was attrition.  It was greater than I ever imagined.  It became very disheartening.  I never have and never will be a high pressure person.  I would show them the business and if they were interested, great, if not, great.  The problem was that people became interested, but didn't have the skills to be successful.  I should never have let them join the business.  So, they leave the business and say that MLM is bad.  No, it just wasn't right for them or they weren't right for it. Regardless of what business you join, make sure that you believe that EVERYONE you introduce to the business has the ability to do the same thing you are doing.  If they do, great, otherwise don't even show it to them.
&gt; This could be a good idea. Let's see what they want to replace it with first.  Yeaaaaa, just makes me think of how things with healthcare are going. Originally when they first wanted to get rid of the previous system they had no good new system to take over.
My personal favorites are Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives by John C Hull Thinking Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman Expected Returns - Antti Ilmanen [check out the video : How to Think About Expected Returns] It is a 600 page book … A summary of it: Without a rational expectation of expected returns, investing can lead to severe disappointment and disillusionment.  Making a good model to forecast expected returns is so difficult. Near-term expectation is almost impossible. The key is very very much about focusing on the long-term, and on getting returns that are feasible, not outlandish. There are three pillars that are central: Practically, the work of an investment manager today involves finding many different sources of returns, and diversifying effectively between them, and finally being humble about what returns we can expect today.
dyslexia is tied into being good at math, music, and science. When nasa was in full swing they hired almost exclusively dyslexic people because they always ended up being better engineers.  Aspergers is autism, just a sub in the umbrella. Again, makes them specialize at something so they end up being really good in a specific advanced job.  Adult ADD (again talking about adults not kids) makes it so they can only concentrate on what they want to concentrate on. This makes them excel in a specific skill. ADD does not tie into engineering like the others though. One with ADD tends to excel in anything they enjoy, and not specifically the math, science, engineering, music, ... spectrum.  People who are autistic are often more efficient when it comes to learning what they want. This is why above I mentioned geniuses being able to skip steps: They often can learn it faster and better than the average person.  The only reason it is even thought of as a 'disability' is because people like that are less social than normal people. They would rather be doing something instead of watching TV and zoning out.
The FDIC has been pretty good at recovery lost money from failed banks. The problem is the temporary loss from immediate needs. The best thing for anyone to do is diversify in investments and banks with adequate covered insurance for all accounts. Immediate access to available cash is always a priority that should be governed by the money manager in this case yourself.
Hmm didn't expect downvotes for stating that QNX is technically one of the best.   It is used in Nuclear power stations, the shuttle robot arm , in Ciscos top of the line carrier grade router (CRS1 using IOS XR),  amongst many other applications especially within infotainment in the automotive sector.   http://www.qnx.com/  It's a great asset that they bought at a good price. I have worked in embedded computing for 20 years in the corporate world, I have specified and used pretty much any OS you care to name, this is a great one with its transparent IPC, high availability manager, user mode drivers,  etc.  Please don't connect QNX with what you see on the blackberry phones because it's not the same OS.
I think a labor management issue explains the high cost of popcorn. Some weeks theaters are loaded with patrons and other weeks there are many fewer patrons. If popcorn were priced so that most patrons bought some the theater manager would have to have lots of employees to sell popcorn on the really busy days. The manager would have to cover the cost of wages on the slow days. A simple solution would be to adjust employee hours. To a certain extent I suspect this is done. If you look at the situation from the standpoint of the employee being sent home early or being told not to work tomorrow or, perhaps for the next week because the theater has a bunch of bombs, is not a good situation. A job in popcorn sales is probably not a high paying job so the employees may just quit and they may do this, not by giving notice, but rather by not showing up for a scheduled shift. The result of this is that managers determine the maximum number of employees they can hire if there theater has low drawing movies and they set the price of popcorn so that when the theater is filled this number of employees will not be overwhelmed by patron buying popcorn. At least not to the extent that the start of the movie has to be delayed.
Its dismissive because it's in reply to the absolute nonsense that makes up Trump support and Trump's own words. At some fucking point, it's ok to put a line in the sand without writing a dissertation about the line. What needs to be said has been said. Provide some real substance or fuck right on off. Good Day sir.
I will add:  1. We need a Business Analyst to evaluate this / we need more data / we need more research, etc...  2. The color, system name, etc are not a good choice and it should be blue / AGURSX system.  3. We need this to meet the deadline of [some made up required date/goal despite the manager having no prior clue about this current proposal]  4. We need changes to meet our limited resources...  5. I will work on selling it to top management, but I need a simplified description of this.  I am in a rush... but I can easily think of 100 more management tricks...
Although the article makes a good point I can't help but think their blame is slightly misplaced.  Employers wouldn't be able to take advantage of workers if the workforce didn't come from a generation that has been taught since infancy that doing what they love is more important than money.  We all think we're entitled to our first career choice and so a lot of markets are flooded with eager applicants.  Supply and demand says that employers would be idiots pay someone a lot of money to do what thousands are lining up to do for free.
This was basically what I had figured but I've read pieces from a few people saying that it's going to have no effect at all which makes less than no sense. Do you know of any good writeups that would back your side?
I used to sell electronics at sears.  Let me tell you something about the sears I worked at.  At the time, sears could not figure out how to keep track of how many TVs we had.  So whenever a customer wanted a tv, we had to dash across the store, go into the backroom, get a manager to open the tv cage, and physically check if we had the tv in stock.    This was a colossal waste of time, and we never really had more than 2 or 3 of any given TV at a time.  I lost sales all the time because we didn't have tvs in stock.  Turns out people don't want to wait a week to pick up a TV they bought.  My coworkers and I complained to our manager about this but nothing was ever done.
Fire your fund manager. There are several passive funds that seek to duplicate the S&P 500 Index returns. They have lower management fees, which will make returns lower than S&P, and they have less risk by following a broadly diversified strategy (versus midcap growing stocks). There's also ETFs, but evidence is growing that they're not as safe as hoped. But here's the deal: the S&P has been on a tear lately. It could be overvalued and what looks like a good investment could start falling again. A possible alternative would be one of the Lifetime funds that seek to perform portfolio adjustment with a retirement decade target; they're fairly new which mostly means nobody knows how they screw you over yet. In theory, this decade structure means the brokerage can execute trading cash for stocks, stocks for bonds, and bonds for cash in house.
&gt;The question is more like, do we want it?  I agree that's the issue, and without doing more research, I think it would be a good thing. Currently it makes almost no sense to hire a woman over a man, other things equal, due to pregnancy risk. Reducing some of maternity leave and making some paternity leave mandatory would reduce the disparity between sexes. Obviously women can breast feed and are more crucial to baby rearing than men in most cases, so they should still have more leave time, but men can play a part sometime after pregnancy.  Men taking leave currently doesn't make as much sense since they generally make more than women. However making leave mandatory can also help reduce wage disparity (if it exists, which is debated), nonetheless I don't see a way in which it can possible increase disparity.   Increasing equality isn't done just for the sake of equality. It is actually beneficial for the economy. Women are probably underutilized in the work force, and eliminating biological differences, makes the other factors much more important for them (intelligence, competence, etc.). In addition, women may focus more on their careers if they know a pregnancy doesn't completely stall them, relative to men, and that they are less expected to be primary children caretakers. This creates a more competitive and productive workforce as a whole.  However, making men take time off obviously reduces productivity a certain amount as they can't work, so you would have to weigh the pros and cons here carefully, which would be quite difficult. In addition, it would be quite lame to force a healthy, willing individual to stop working simply because his spouse has a child, even if his spouse wants to be the primary caregiver. That too can be harmful for mens careers and may possibly reduce the birthrate. Imagine a CEO or manager having to take forced paternity leave when his wife has a baby, that can be a career KILLER in upper management.
"This article reads like a puff piece for unions. With that, it makes one fatal assumption - that unions are good.   It also provides cherry-picked ""proof"" to support the positions and spouts of numbers that make no sense - ""the largest 300 co-ops together constitute the ninth largest economy."" What a meaningless, non-supporting comment to end with."
One such place where you can sell your photos is iStockPhoto.  They are pretty picky about the photos they allow, so you should be a pretty good photographer and have good equipment.  It can take a while to build up an interest in your photos, but once you do you can make some decent money off it.  My sister is a semi-pro photographer and makes about $500 a month off photos she sells there.
Though I did answer the linked question, I thought to quote parts of this article. Source: The RRSP advantage, by David Hodges, February 6th 2015 [John] Storjohann ['the 58-year-old Calgary project manager'] is keenly aware of the two main advantages of RRSPs: the tax refund when you make a contribution, and the tax-deferred growth until you make withdrawals in retirement. These make RRSPs ideal for those who expect to be in a lower tax bracket when they stop working—which will be the case for most Canadians. For those in the highest tax bracket today, the RRSP is a no-brainer. That’s why Storjohann’s always surprised when he meets people pulling in good incomes who think TFSAs stack up better than RRSPs. “People just don’t understand how these accounts work.” This is the most common objection to RRSPs: people simply hate the idea of paying taxes on the withdrawals. Money taken out of a TFSA, by contrast, is tax-free, which sounds far more appealing. But that logic ignores the fact that you receive a tax refund when you put money in an RRSP, while TFSA contributions are made with after-tax dollars. So for the Fosters and other Canadians weighing this decision, it comes down to whether it’s better to pay tax now or later. And that’s not an easy question to answer. Both Hamilton and Kirzner say that anyone earning more than $50,000 is usually better off prioritizing RRSPs over TFSAs. While both accounts allow your investments to grow tax-free, the tax refund makes the RRSP more attractive for high-income earners. ... That, in a nutshell, is what makes RRSPs better than TFSAs for higher earners: Not only are you taxed on your money years later, but because you’re in a lower bracket when you retire, you’ll pay less tax too. When your income is between $35,000 and $50,000, the long-term tax differences between RRSPs and TFSAs become negligible, says Malcolm Hamilton.
To me, it depends. How much are their total assets?  Having 10% of your money in something like that isn't crazy.  having it all in?  That IS crazy. Can they reduce their exposure to this account without paying a penalty (say pull out 10%?) The Manager should be taking direction from them.  If they aren't able to get the manager to re-allocate to something more suitable, under your friends direction, they should then pursue whether or not the manager is operating lawfully.
It's good that you can still use the area solar panels are placed because the space requirements will be extremely large compared to nuclear.  Recycling solar panels makes a lot of sense though.  Not saying they are a bad idea. Energy storage is a tough problem to crack though.
"No country or place will be heaven. No matter how good a place is, heaven is partially defined as what is unattainable. This is also why ""the golden age is never the current age.""  Part of what makes this country good is the free market and its capitalistic greed. If workers don't like what they're offered at Walmart, they are free to leave to a better paying competitor such as Costco.  I do agree with some of your statements about tax reform and political financing. However, people lose sight of what this country offers and bashing the US is a popular pastime on Reddit. If any of these people actually lived in some of the countries they often idolize (China), they would gain a newfound appreciation of the US.  As for the insults, they don't particularly help your case."
"&gt; I didn't say she was qualified for the job;   Good! You realized the real story here. Great!  &gt; merely that her undergraduate degree doesn't determine her qualification. Again, reading comprehension, please.  And I said the same!  &gt;&gt; But with my doubts, yes there are few cases of somebody with one background and studies becoming a real expert and leader in a totally different area. It's rare!!!!!  &gt;&gt; For lower level jobs, yes, a music major may become a descent programmer or project manager. I doubt they will become experts and best in the field.  I also said that for a CHIEF Security Officer, and other high level roles, these are serious responsibilities, only real experts with real background should be chosen. No ""diversity"" and ""nice person"" is even a factor here.  As for HR, you probably haven't been long in the corporate world.  HR is all about minimizing costs of employees and weeding out any ""troublesome"" employees that managers don't like.   I want to see the first HR department that will go to defense of a long term loyal and good employee against their managers, also when ""position is eliminated"" or ""reorganizing"". HR reports to management and not to employees.   Don't pay attention to HR's desperate attempts to promote their image among employees.  ... and as a manager with many people reporting to me, I waste so much of my time on HR nonsense pretending that I care about HR views and policies."
The commenters who referred you to the prisoner's dilemma are exactly correct, but I wanted to give a more detailed explanation because I find game theory quite interesting. The prisoner's dilemma is a classic scenario in game theory where even though it's in the best interests of two or more players to cooperate, they fail to do so. Wikipedia has a simple example using prisoners, but I'll use a simple example using Fidel and Charles, who are fund managers at Fidelity and Charles Schwab, respectively. To make the table shorter, I abbreviated a bit: INC = increase fees, KEEP=keep fees the same, DEC=decrease fees. Here is the dilemma itself, in the table that shows the resulting market shares if each fund manager follows the course of action in question. While this example isn't mathematically rigorous because I completely fabricated the numbers, it makes a good example. The most profitable course of action would be both fund managers agreeing to increase their fees, which would keep their market shares the same but increase their profits as they earn more fees. However, this won't happen for several reasons. Because economies of scale exist in the market for investment funds, it's reasonable to assume in a simple example that as funds grow larger, their costs decrease, so even though a fund manager decreases his fees (betraying the other players), this decrease won't be enough to reduce their profits. In fact, the increased market share resulting from such a decrease may well dominate the decreased fees and lead to higher profits. The prisoner's dilemma is highly applicable to markets such as these because they exist as oligopolies, i.e. markets where a relatively small number of established sellers possess considerable market power. If you actually wanted to model the market for donor-advised funds using game theory, you need to take a few more things into account. Obviously there are more than two firms. It's probably a valid assumption that the market is an oligopoly with significant economies of scale, but I haven't researched this extensively. There is more than one time period, so some form of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is needed. The market for donor-advised funds is also complicated by the fact that these are philanthropic funds. This may introduce tax implications or the problem of goodwill and institutional opinion of these funds.
&gt;Nearly 20 years ago in the book Market Wizards, hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt said the term hedge funds is a misnomer because most funds don’t hedge, and a new name is almost 2 decades overdue. The more apt titles such as Alt In or absolute return funds haven’t seen any traction, so hedge funds seems here to stay. Besides, consider how misnamed mutual funds are. Vanguard is one of the only mutual fund names that remains a mutual ownership structure, so what’s in a name anyway.
i have experience in retail, but not warehousing.  but a close friend of mine drives some forklift-ish thing at a home depot warehouse.  warehouse workers make a good bit more than retail workers.  he makes around 15/hr, whereas the people running around the floor of retailer would be happy for 10
Not saying it is bad, just saying they put a positive spin on it when in fact it just something that makes good business sense.   Both you and I know that Reddit is filled with people complaining about minimum raise and earning a living...etc. This article paints Costco as the good guy, but overall it means one guy gets a well paying job while another one gets no job at all.
I am trying to learn about Collateralized Loan Obligation (CLO) and I was wondering how the tranches are created in terms of priority. When an investor comes to CLO manager to buy a stake or a tranch, do they get to decide what type of tranch they want? Less risky one that gets paid first or higher risky one that gets paid last but more? Or is it like first come first serve basis?
Had a guy, out in a store in Plymouth I was at, try to steal a case of crab legs.  Manager stops him in the vestibule, gets bitten.  Was about twice a month that we'd have people in the office waiting for the cops.  Nevermind how many times the bank there got robbed at gunpoint.  Affluent neighborhood too.
For any android device you can try: Daily Expense Manager - to track your expenses and a host of other apps to suit your specific needs.
I work for a boutique recruitment firm as a Marketing manager and I love it. I used to work as a back-end developer but later transitioned into front-end which led me into Digital Marketing.   I still get kicks when I read code. I am a programmer at heart and I love tech but I don't see myself ever pursuing it professionally. Programming is a chase down the rabbit hole.