vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I remember in the 19th and early 20th century was the problem of Trusts set up by the wealthy to avoid taxes (hence the term ""Anti-Trust"") That's not what antitrust means. The trusts in that case were monopolies that used their outsized influence to dominate customers and suppliers. They weren't for tax evasion purposes. Trusts were actually older than a permanent income tax. Antitrust law was passed around the same time as a permanent income tax becoming legal. Prior to that income taxes were temporary taxes imposed to pay for wars. The primary ways to evade taxes was to move expenses out of the personal and into businesses or charities. The business could pay for travel, hotels, meals, and expenses. Or a charity could pay for a trip as a promotion activity (the infamous safari to Africa scheme). Charities can pay salaries to employees, so someone could fund a charity (tax deductible) and then use that money to pay people rather than giving gifts. If you declare your house as a historical landmark, a charity could maintain it. Subscribe to magazines at the office and set them in the waiting room after you read them. Use loyalty program rewards from business expenses for personal things. Sign up for a benefit for all employees at a steep discount and pay everyone a little less as a result. Barter. You do something for someone else (e.g. give them a free car), and they return the favor. Call it marketing or promotion (""Trump is carried away from his eponymous Tower in a sparkling new Mercedes Benz limousine.""). Another option is to move income and expenses to another tax jurisdiction that has even fewer laws about it. Where the United States increasingly cracked down on personal expenses masquerading as business expenses, many jurisdictions would be happy just to see the money flow through and sit in their banks briefly. Tax policy is different now than it was then. Many things that would have worked then wouldn't work now. The IRS is more aggressive about insisting that some payments be considered income even if the organization writes the check directly to someone else. It's unclear what would happen if United States tax rates went back to the level they had in the fifties or even the seventies.
Make him succeed.  Be his mind, be his date book, be his gateway (if he wants that.)  You'll need to filter out the daily noise and get him the most important info he needs. Do things before he asks whether it's getting a bottle of perrier or a list of 5 things his kid would probably want for their birthday.  Key words/skills:  Detail detail detail   Self starter self starter self starter   Mind reader mind reader mind reader
It was a tough call. Here's what I think happened... They needed to use that 2.5 Ghz spectrum for something or risk losing it (FCC mandates on the purchase of that spectrum). LTE was nowhere near ready for deployment, so they had to go with WiMax. It was a good technology, ready to go at the right time, and far cheaper to deploy than LTE but the spectrum wasn't ideal for all environments. They always planned on switching from WiMax to LTE at some point. Unfortunately, the infighting with Clearwire delayed the rollout. WiMax didn't come to market soon enough and not enough people bought into it. Sprint saw this outcome as a possibility which is why the spun off their WiMax assets into Clearwire instead of proceeding with their original Xohm service. They wanted to insulate Sprint which also meant that Clearwire could become a toxic asset. Clearwire probably wasn't very happy with that part of the plan. Cue infighting and rollout delay. Since WiMax launched over a year late and the competition jumped forward, the WiMax rollout was cut short. Verizon pushed up their LTE rollout far earlier than planned (which caused constant Verizon data network outages last year). AT&amp;T secured dominance with the iPhone and their GSM network allowed them to have higher data speeds, so they weren't worried about speeding up their LTE rollout. T-mo's parent company wanted out of the US market but still had high speed GSM and low prices. Sprint had to move forward with LTE or eat everyone else's dust. That's why you never got it. To top that off, they had to reband their 800 mhz spectrum, which meant killing the ability for them to use it for a few years. They also needed to completely rebuild their public image (which was shit thanks to Hesse's predecessor, Gary Forsee and his crew... all of which got shit-canned when Hesse took charge). They also had to deal with a few somewhat bad calls like the Nextel purchase (orchestrated by Forsee and his crew).
Seems like a stupid move to me.  I assume people who don't want to buy a swatch owned brand now won't do so simply because competition is culled.  Movement watches simply aren't necessities but a fashion item much of the time.    It's like a prominent dress manufacturer called, say, Moochi, that owns the supply of thread announcing they will no longer make it available to their competition who then go out of business.  Doesn't mean women will buy more Moochi dresses - some will decide buy just what they need since they Moochi dresses are too plain, and spend more on accessories to stand out.  Worse, they may be leaving open a lucrative parts market where they were still making a little bit on each watch sale.  Perhaps letting a new Chinese start up come in that simply starts supplying and before they know it, start making watches that compete with them.  I think the Japanese steel industry built themselves up this way, after the US steel makers gladly ceded the rebar business to them in pursuit of higher margin business.  Well, the Japanese built on that and started competing on the higher end markets too.
Your business can be promoted by its Buy Instagram Followers pendant, but the question is how can you make authentic Instagram pendant for business? For example, if you join Instagram and only have 100 followers, it is not enough because another company offers services similar to the ones you join and you have thousands of followers. It can be pushed aside as people tend to move with companies with a large successor base. They are moving into a business where a great class of people are spinning. Therefore, to get organic trailers, you need to have more trailers.  If you promote the business based in the United States, then you need to search all the companies online with the key Instagram Buyers, name the country and you will see a lot of prestigious companies that can help you buy real Instagram Trailers.
You sound like a 1970's Italian claiming that American cars are bad because they are only fast in a straight line. Literally just fan-boy whining.   But Mustangs never stopped, while Alfa and Fiat were gone a few years later.  I'm looking forward to the all-electric Corvette and Camaro.
I have been renting rooms out of my house for over 7 years now.  When renting to non-family, the arrangement is usually successful.  People leave for various reasons, an occasionally I will ask someone to move out if they are not working out.  In the USA, this works well because by keeping things formal (rental agreements, etc) you actually have a great business with lots of deductions that end up reducing you net income quite a bit. However, US law makes a big distinction about whether or not you're renting to family/relatives, specifically around whether or not they are paying full-market rent for their room.  If not, then you are subsidizing them which could disqualify your property (or at least the portion they are using) from being legitimately rented -- and thus no tax deductions for said activity. The other risk, -- again, in the USA -- is the possibility of a long-term relationship falling under rules of common-law marriage.  This is rare unless children are involved.  A couple who have children, married or not, may have the courts get involved to oversee the division of assets with regards to ensuring the children have a place to live and adequate financial support. For the UK, I would think the laws would be roughly similar.  Check out this website for more a detailed review.  https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/
Here's my solution for income inequality. One guy who makes 600,000 a year (the president at my university makes this) splits it into parcels of 25,000 a year distributed between 24 people including himself. Those people have to give the president a blowjob once a month, or 12 blowjobs a year. The president retains his supremacy by getting more than 250 blowjobs a year and everyone at the bottom of the pool still has to suck dick for a living. Problem solved!  -Umm, how would this not work? It gives 23 extra people a chance to lead happy lives as opposed to **one**. His life is still happier and more fulfilled than the other 23 and they still have to do unpleasant work to earn their keep.   -For business people you all don't really think outside the box.
&gt; The CEO is having the stores sell their property, at a discount, to one of his other companies, then having the stores pay rent. &gt; Except boutique stores actually pay more money than Sears does. So whenever a store closes, his other company can rent the space out for almost double.  And therein lies the way forward for Sears.  The retail side of things is going to inevitably go bust, and Seritage will be the way forward.  Sort of like how Woolworth's became Foot Locker.
the NOTE is only created when a BANK makes a loan to a person, business, or government.  corporations buying and selling debt is simply the transfer of existing debt/notes.  In the current Financial Ponzi scheme, NEW notes must be created to keep the game going due to new interest obligations everyday....if not enough new notes are created, the entire Ponzi Pyramid as depicted on www.openmindedthinkers.com collapses
"So... from a business perspective, this way of building a piece of software doesn't make any sense at all. To take their example of a book trading app... how do you parse out the core function vs. the revised specifications adding features. The core function of most apps are dead-nuts simple. For the book trading app, the core functionality is a forum website, such as reddit. The need for an app which allows you to sell it is the value-add of the software, which is all in the features. Call the ""standard"" way of doing things, from a set specification, a ""top down"" design cycle. Call the ""new"" way of designing a ""bottom up"" design cycle. So now you have a ""minimum viable product"", which is now subject to all the pain of a top-down design cycle and you are back to where you started. Now, every bottom-up design cycle has a goal and its own minimum viable feature improvement... so you are really back to a progression of top-down design cycles superimposed on bottom-up product feature set evolution. Making a real product that people use is always going to be a combination of top-down design driven from the business side, who determines the features that customers want (i.e. the minimum viable product), and bottom-up design cycles where engineering has to communicate what is possible to design in a certain time frame. There is always a tension between the forward looking business side which is trying to project what customers want and pushing engineering to schedule their creativity, and the engineering side which is trying to deliver creative product designs on an externally imposed schedule. This bottom-up design cycle is not unique to software. Where developing software differs from developing hardware is that software allows for this design cycle to be very short and very discrete. Software can be developed in discrete modules and linked together. Hardware is more integrated, thus having longer design cycles, but can still be designed using a minimum viable product with design cycles adding features incrementally. Look at the cell phone/smart phone hardware business for a good case study in this.
Long convexity is achieved by owning long dated low delta options. When a significant move occurs in the underlying the volatility curve will move higher. Instead of a linear relationship between your long position and it's return, you receive a multiple of the linear return. For example: Share price $50 Long 1 (equals 100 shares) contract of a 2 year 100 call Assume this is a 5 delta option If the stock price rises to $70 the delta of the option will rise because it is now closer to the strike. Lets assume it is now a 20 delta option. Then  Expected return on a $20 price move higher, 100 shares($20)(.20-.05)=$300 However what happens is the entire volatility surface rises and causes the 20 delta option to be 30 delta option. Then The return on a $20 price move higher, 100 shares($20)(.30-.05)=$500 This $200 extra gain is due to convexity and explains why option traders are willing to pay above the theoretical price for these options.
Amazon to Buy Whole Foods for $13.7 Billion - Whole Foods will continue to operate stores under its brand.  By Austen Hufford - Jun 16, 2017 - Bloomberg News  Amazon.com Inc. said it would buy Whole Foods Market Inc. for $13.7 billion as the giant internet retailer makes a deeper push into the grocery space.  Amazon AMZN, +3.16%  will pay $42 a share for Whole Foods WFM, +29.11% valuing the grocer at a 27% premium to its closing price Thursday.  The deal is expected to close in the second half of this year.  Amazon’s move tanked the stocks of grocery competitors as investors worried that Amazon could do to grocery the same as it did to booksellers.  Kroger Co. shares KR, -11.56%  fell 14%, Target Corp. shares TGT, -7.63%  fell 12%, Supervalu Inc. shares SVU, -12.77%  fell 19%, Costco Wholesale Corp. shares COST, -6.51%  fell 6.2% and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shares WMT, -5.15%  dropped 5.8%.  Amazon’s move into the grocery business comes at a time of change in the industry.  Consumers are buying more of their groceries outside of traditional supermarkets.  Online merchants, discounters and meal-kit delivery services are all grabbing market share.  At the same time, a global commodity glut has pulled down prices for many staple foods over the past 18 months, putting pressure on many retailers to lower prices.  An expanded version of this report appears at WSJ.com.  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazon-to-buy-whole-foods-for-137-billion-2017-06-16-91035726
"I think it's very reasonable to expect a person to back up a claim they've made. Telling someone to ""go to Google"" seems rather lazy to me, or at least promoting extremely poor conversation skills. Or do you not agree that someone should support their own claims?   Your suggestion doesn't even make sense, to be honest. You're telling someone to check someone else's claim using a website that both confirms and contradicts the claim.  &gt;Reading usernames would definitely be a valuable skill for you to practice going forward.  Thanks for repeating what I said, I guess?"
I mean it hasn't really worked anywhere. You don't create wealth with socialism. Incentives are gone for any sort value creation.  You're already looking backwards at 'peak civilization' once you've gone down the socialism path. Everything ahead is fighting over what's left.  &gt;An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.   &gt;After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little ...   &gt;The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.
"If we take only the title of the question ""can the CEO short the stock"": It was probably different before Enron, but nowadays a CEO can only make planned trades, that is trades that are registered a very long time before, and that cannot be avoided once registered. So the CEO can say ""I sell 100,000 shares in exactly six months time"". Then in six months time, the CEO can and must sell the shares. Anything else will get him into trouble with the SEC quite automatically. I don't know if shorting a stock or buying options can be done that way at all. So it's possible only in the sense of ""it's possible, but you'll be in deep trouble"".  Selling shares or exercising share options may indicate that the company's business is in trouble. If the sale makes that impression and everyone else starts selling because the CEO sold his shares, then the CEO may be in trouble with the board of directors. Such a sale would be totally legal (if announced long time ahead), but just a bad move if it makes the company look bad. Shorting sales is much worse in that respect. If the CEO wants to buy a new car, he may have to sell some shares (there are people paid almost only in share options), no matter where the share price is going. But shorting shares means that you most definitely think the share price is going to drop. You're betting your money on it. That would tend to get a CEO fired, even if it was legal."
You need to meet a woman (or man if you are in a state that allows same sex marriage) who has a carried forward loss or other loss that exceeds the $3K/yr they can take against their own income. If they had a loss of $200K some time ago, and are taking $3K/yr, they may still have $100K they can offset with you.  Marriages have been based on less than this.
I think you're a little confused about taxes. First, I'm guessing that you feel your lack of home ownership makes your taxes higher.  That might be true, or it might not.  The main tax break you would get from home ownership is the mortgage interest deduction, and that is a fraction of what you're paying in interest.  So, yeah, your tax bill is lower, but 3-4 times that amount is going out the door in interest.  Plus, when you buy a property, you may have substantial taxes on that property that your landlord is paying now. Secondly, yes, you can deduct expenses on a business, but that only can be done without income for so long before the IRS begins disallowing your deductions.  But if you're making money, the expenses come right off of your income. Third, owning a business means that you get the privilege of paying a self-employment tax, which is the same thing that your employer now pays into Social Security on your behalf.  More taxes! So in short, owning and operating a business has the potential to be more rewarding than holding down a job -- and I recommend starting up a side business just to get another income stream going -- but the tax savings really aren't that appealing to do it just for those.
I don't think actual variety is a bad thing.  Idk if this is a business lesson from Apple Stores of the late 90s/early 00s or comes earlier...  I think they teach the paradox of choice lesson badly.  What's lousy is a ton of options of nearly the same exact thing with no clear delineation between them.  That's what confused the average person in consumer electronics and Apple was offering a bunch of overlapping computer lines with no clear distinctions and stuff that simply wasn't selling in numbers to justify the expense.  Of course, if you're a shop, and 10% of your shelf space makes 90% of the sales, then cutting down on some of the 90% of shelf space or replacing it would have merit.  But people come for variety, just look at clothing boutiques.
"If you're ready to start your project, or are just shopping for a quote, Universal Steel of America is here to serve you. You can e-mail, phone, or click ""Get a Quote Now"" to use our convenient Contact Form. We look forward to working with you!"
Yeah I know, but it is only a local monopoly. It would be a silly reason to move, but you could conceivably move a town over and get a different provider. I just mean none of them have a majority share of the total market.
Yeah, and when they succeed humans will be displaced by robots. But it's going to happen to office workers before it happens to fast food workers. It's already happened in a big, big way on Wall Street--my field (finance) has seen headcounts crater much more than fast food, on an absolute or relative basis.
"It sounds like you are isolated and in a small town.  Without the true ability to bank, perhaps you should move. As an alternative you could do some kind of online banking.  Most banks offer the ability to deposit via mobile phone and you could obtain cash by using remote ATMs or writing checks for an amount over your purchase at the grocery store.  How are you paid?  If via direct deposit, that makes mobile banking even easier.   Did your read your premise out loud?  Using Game Stop as a bank is just silly. Are you banned from banks because of not paying child support or some other legal obligation?  If so just ""face the music"".  I know people that are over 40 and owed a relatively small amount of child support and the result of they lost out on order of magnitudes greater income.  It was just a short-sighted move that cost them far more than if they just obeyed the court order. It would be smarter to use a check cashing store, like AmScott, to do your banking.  They will cash checks for a fee, issue money orders, or even allow you to pay some bills directly through them.  Never, ever use them to cash a hot check or for short term financing but using them or Walmart, or the Grocery store is a much better option than Game Stop."
I wonder that if one of us were going to start the next SoundCloud (even though many great independent artist streaming sites already exist), how would we succeed where they failed? was it an issue of not monetizing early? Charging for memberships? Getting in bed with the record companies from the jump? Buying hot startups in music like Genius? Expanding into video content game like Buzzfeed, or physical products like Majestic Casual? This would be a great case study. What would you guys think?
In general, just make sure you are on the same page as them. For example, are they supplying the antlers at cost? If their product manager asks for too large a cut of the profits of the product line, they may decide it makes sense to sell the antler to the side business at a higher markup. Or they may find someone else willing to take the product manager job for a lower ownership stake.  Either way, good luck and be sure to get your agreement down on paper somewhere.
Let me ask you something else: If you knew about a company that makes $1 million of profit per year and growing, with costs that are half that, would you not be interested to have a stake in this company?  Of course you would. And because the shares can be publicly bought, you can. I don't think you'd care if it's an asset manager or some other company.  An asset manager can do a lot with the capital it raises. It could get bigger and better offices, invest in a better computer system, maybe get faster access to exchange information, better information terminals, have more money for marketing and road shows. But the really big cash usually goes to acquire new talent. You might not need that much money for support staff, but a sales manager can be expensive, and a good fund manager can easily cost a high 7 to 8 figure number per year.