vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt;My point was more that I've seen, firsthand, people not take financial responsibility for their dependents or for themselves, and that they can't be trusted in investing in any future.  I agree. The libertarian in me wants to say ""screw them, they had their chance."" The compromising moderate in me wants to say ""lets find a way to replace social security with something better.""  &gt;Given I'm still in great health and in my 20's I probably ought to look into getting more/real Life Insurance, as well.  For as cheap as a 30 year term life insurance policy would be... you might as well do it. 10x your income for the monthly cost of a tank of gas. It's a no-brainer."
Setting up an entity that is partially foreign owned is not that difficult. It takes an additional 1-1.5 months in total, and in this particular case, you guys would be formed as a Joint Venture. It will cost a bit more (about 3-5000). If you're serious about owning a part of a business in China, you should carefully examine what he means by 'more complicated'. From my point of view, I have set up my own WOFE in China, and examined the possibilities of a JV and even considered using a friend to set up the company under their personal name as a domestic company (which is what your supervisor is doing), any difference between the three are not really a big deal anymore, and comes down to the competency of the agencies you are using and the business partner themselves.   It cost me 11,000 for a WOFE including the agency and government registration fees (only Chinese speaking).  You should also consider the other shareholders who may be part of this venture as well. If there are other shareholders, and you are not providing further tangible contribution, you will end up replaced and penniless (unless of course you trust them too...), because they are actually paying money to be part of the business and you are not. They will not part with equity for you.  I'm not a lawyer, but think you should not rely on any promises other than what it says on a company registration paper. Good luck!
I wouldn't really call it a counterpoint. A counterpoint to this would be to argue that tasks won't be automated just because they can.  That being said there are tremendous risks in taking humans out of the picture in many cases. Unfortunately as this video proves these tasks are still automated despite the risks. Automation can work just fine when it's been thought out well, tested in a sandbox environment, and monitored to prevent mistakes that are made from reoccurring.  Edit: When I wrote this I hadn't finished the article and gotten to the point where he pretty much says all automation is good, period.
I was a involved in this same scam from my Craigslist item.  The buyer texted me & said his assistant put the wrong check in my envelope & please let him know when I got it,cash the cashiers check, keep my part for money of my item & send him back the difference. Well, the check came to me for $1,350.00 for a $100 item.  I immediately suspected something here.  It was for way to big to be a mistake.  I called the credit union in California to ask about this cashier's check & sure enough, they said it was a fake check.  This scammer's phone he texted from was from a San Antonio,TX area code, the check was mailed from Madison, WI, & the check was on a California CU.  They sure cover their tracks pretty good.  So C/L'ers.....BEWARE! don't take checks for more than the amount & be asked to send back the difference. You will be HAD!
"I had a weird arrangement like this in college with a girl. She didn't want a relationship, or sex. She just wanted to sleep with me. So occasionally my phone would ring at 10:30, ""Dave, this is Pam. I'm at the door. Can I come down?"" (My dorm room was in the basement of the graduate/doctoral dorm)  She'd come down, want to cuddle a bit, and go to sleep.  In the morning I'd get dressed, reset the alarm clock for her, and go to class. I'd come back from lunch at the cafeteria and my bed would be made, the room picked up, and clothes put away.   Since I was in between relationships at the time, it was a very cool symbiosis for the two of us."
My friend lent that book to me over the summer, I read it in a few days, I couldn't put it down. The topic and his writing was so provocative that it made me want to pursue a career in finance. If you have other book recommendations I would greatly appreciate it.
Most notably to me, there were photos Mary posted of her time volunteering with a certain maternity support center. Her passion for children and caring new moms was very plain. So of course, I took advantage of it. For this assessment I played two roles. For the first, I spoofed my phone number to make it look like it was coming from the company's headquarters. I called the front desk of the manufacturing facility and was transferred to Mary. ""Hi Mary!"" I said, ""My name is Barbara."" ""I am a project coordinator with facilities management. We are renovating a few of our facilities. We are sending an interior designer out to you tomorrow so she can put together proposals to update your space!"" Mary replied, ""Well that's great! But why the short notice?"" I could feel her getting suspicious, so I pulled out my trump card… *Sigh* ""Well Mary… You really should have heard from me sooner. I've just been so overloaded at work…I feel like I can't catch up, and to top it off the baby is due in 6 weeks. If my boss finds out I messed this up he's going to flip."" I was really getting into this, voice shaking. (Yes, I know, I'm a terrible human being.) She cut me off, ""Oh hunny, hunny it's ok. We will work this out! Tell me about the baby! Is it your first? Boy or girl?!"" Our Mary was committed at this point. Not because she is stupid, but because she is a good person. She wanted to help me. We talked babies and birth plans for a while (never pick a pretext you can't speak about at length.) Mary took down the name of the ""designer"" who was coming by the next day and we said our goodbyes. Mary could have saved her company a lot of heartache by simply verifying that I was who I claimed to be. (Just to be clear here, I would never give out Mary's real identity.
Oh Comcast. I once asked for just internet and they said triple play would be cheaper than just internet. I asked to confirm if the entire cost of the bundle a month was cheaper than than just the internet and they said yes. Later down the line I called to disconnect a service and see, turns out they flat out lied to me. I just moved last week into a new place (well, not everything yet) and called to transfer my service. They said I needed to have an install person come out. I called them out and was put on hold for 20 minutes (not exaggerating, I watched the timer) before he got back to me and said yes, it looks like you *can* do the self install. Unhelpful pricks.
"What a lovely position to find yourself in! There's a lot of doors open to you now that may not have opened naturally for another decade. If I were in your shoes (benefiting from the hindsight of being 35 now) at 21 I'd look to do the following two things before doing anything else: 1- Put 6 months worth of living expenses in to a savings account - a rainy day fund. 2- If you have a pension, I'd be contributing enough of my salary to get the company match. Then I'd top up that figure to 15% of gross salary into Stocks & Shares ISAs - with a view to them also being retirement funds. Now for what to do with the rest... Some thoughts first... House: - If you don't want to live in it just yet, I'd think twice about buying. You wouldn't want a house to limit your career mobility. Or prove to not fit your lifestyle within 2 years, costing you money to move on. Travel: - Spending it all on travel would be excessive. Impromptu travel tends to be more interesting on a lower budget. That is, meeting people backpacking and riding trains and buses. Putting a resonable amount in an account to act as a natural budget for this might be wise. Wealth Managers: ""approx. 12% gain over 6 years so far"" equates to about 1.9% annual return. Not even beat inflation over that period - so guessing they had it in ultra-safe ""cash"" (a guaranteed way to lose money over the long term). Give them the money to 'look after' again? I'd sooner do it myself with a selection of low-cost vehicles and equal or beat their return with far lower costs. DECISIONS: A) If you decided not to use the money for big purchases for at least 4-5 years, then you could look to invest it in equities. As you mentioned, a broad basket of high-yielding shares would allow you to get an income and give opportunity for capital growth. -- The yield income could be used for your travel costs.
I've heard success stories but personally, I was considering it and I'm so glad I didn't. I ended up hating the atmosphere; left after one semester. To take care of that house I rent out, I'd need to hire someone, or drive 2.5h each way for anything that needed my attention. If you plan to stay in the area, I'd consider the housing prices, the rental market, considering the responsibility of maintenance, your expected margin (trust me, it will be lower. I've never heard a landlord say he didn't encounter significant unintended expenses.) It's such a unique situation, it really requires more detail. After all, you'd be saving rent, have control over the house and who lives there, but you have a whole hell of a lot of responsibility. I met one guy who had basically became the house's mom because he had a vested interest and was always cleaning up spills, preventing staining or damage to the paint, facing awkward social situations as they tried to chase down rent. With the right people I've seen it go very well. Oh, one more caveat. With a live-in super', they can provide notice of any necessary repairs instantly and from there, the clock starts. They can legally withhold rent until the repairs are completed and if you're not too liquid after that down payment and the mortgage payments, plus school, etc.. this could put you between a rock and some hard ass creditors.
"&gt; having to wait around for the delivery  If it is advantageous for you to stay at the house (e.g. you have small children), online groceries will be your friend.  If you have a certain brand that you like, I am certain you will only need to find it once when buying online. Just like I use the ""reorder"" button to place the same online order over and over again on Chipotle.com.  It sounds like you might not be in the target demographic for the service, but that doesn't mean there is no market for it."
My logic for prices was this: S&amp;P500/indexes price is based on the overall market for S&amp;P500, generally. So my thought was that it should be correlated to the price of the Vix because as market volatility occurred, the price of the Vix would go up and vice Versa when the market goes down. However, I just started running these analyses as a side project and am still learning the right measures to make better observations. So I'm all for any advice in that regard.
"Absolutely.  He should stay that extra hour or two, and so should you.  But you should both be compensated for it... that's why we have labor laws in the first place.  There is always a project and always a deadline.  I've put in 18 hours days at 6 days a week, for weeks on end to finish them.  I know exactly what you mean.  But I also clock time in 3 minute increments as well, due to my &gt; selfish mindset.  [I think] He's not saying ""I won't stay that extra hour,"" he's saying, ""You pay me hourly.""  Probably spelled out clearly at the job negotiation.  You probably wouldn't *have* to work with a guy like that because companies would likely laugh and say, ""thanks for your time.""  I'd like to think that one day I'll be in a position where I can say no to a reasonably salaried job again, and instead insist on hourly.  I will if there's any way I can afford it."
"That's incredible! I'm a second-year college student taking Macro-Economics class, a lot of these technical things are all news to me.   Thank you for the wealth of information!   1) That's an interesting thought. Does that basically translate to ""less tax on poor/wealthy (since there are a lot more of them in numbers) to promote entrepreneurship?   2) Someone pointed that very thing out. Rich using money to grow their own wealth. But wouldn't that mean as a byproduct, jobs will be made? I probably made another dangerous assumption here.   3) I don't think I understand this one at all. What is compensation? Will you rephrase it for me?  4) I hear that ""effective,"" tax rate can be very misleading to the general public. (I learned how to calculate the average tax rate a few weeks ago and understood what the folks were talking about!) I did hear from my professor and the educational videos he had shown us that the capital  tax is one of the highest among the other OECD nations. My question for that would be, why can't we just close loop-holes instead of choosing to slash capital tax? I feel like the majority will be more than okay with closing the loopholes.  5) I think citizens of the country aligning with the county's companies without asking questions is a terrible, and a dangerous idea. (Asian Depression in the mid 90's really showcased it for me, since our family was practically evicted from Korea) Major conglomerates held all the power and the federal government was really just a puppet. I think it's in each company's best interest to further their own agenda, and that agenda usually means bad for the majority. Let me know if I'm way off base here but ""one person's spending is another's income."" So using that logic, the company can't make money unless I spend money. So we have a conflict of interest here, because as a consumer, I want to get the best deals, be thrifty. Company wants to charge me as much as they can, to maximize profits.   Thank you in advance for your time."
"I have the same problem. The people above are right to an extent. You have to be more disciplined. But there is no reason why you can't get there in stages. If you try to do too much too fast you'll just give up. You need to find a system that removes some of the passive barriers affecting you. You need to think what in particular is overwhelming you. For me it was sitting down at the end of the month to write it all down. Writing it all down at the end of the week or even each day didn't work either because it was too much and I had forgotten what stuff was. I'm like you. The bank account is a record so why do I have to retype it or worse, hand write it out? Bleh. What I ended up doing was divide my expenses into four categories: food (to include all medical) shelter, transportation, spending -- with the first three being needs and the last being wants. Eating out is spending. I have four checking accounts with four debit cards. I saved up some money. I put a paycheck's worth of money in each because I didn't know how much I spent each month in each category, but knew I didn't spend an entire paycheck in any one category per month. Voila. No more work. At the store you just put things in the basket by category. At Target you pay for the food and toothpaste with the medical card and the DVD with the spending card. The cashiers don't care that you pay separately. And if you are buying so much crap that separating items by category is a problem, why the heck are you buying so much crap? At the end of the month you will now have a record of how much you spend on transportation, housing (electricity would be paid online from this account for example), medical and fun. That's all anyone needs to help you get started. You can then see if your housing is 35% or less (or whatever percentage you feel is right). The person trying to help the author above is right.
I don't get why a section of people are getting better pay or benefits, be they public or private, is a problem. They're performing a service for the public and the public pays for that service through their taxes.   Complain about government workers, refuse to maintain or raise pay rates in order to attract better workers.   Also, there are pay freezes in sectors of federal and lots of state governments. Who's wages are getting higher?
What about non-financial benefits of a bank robbery? I'm sure there are some people out there who just like the adrenaline rush of being in that type of situation, regardless of whether or not it will be worth it in the long run.
what kind of grades did he have after graduating? because a decent (3.0ish definitely 3.5ish) gpa and middle of the road school gave a lot of people I know their pick of the litter when it came to consulting or analyst roles.  That on top of the fact that accountants are always in demand and if all else fails a feeder role for a bigger company as a call center tech also allows a potential career path.  That being all said, direct MBA is certainly an option, although it is more expensive up front and may or may not pay off after all is said and done.  I still plan on getting one due to a non finance schooling background, but I will probably wait 8 or so more years to figure out exactly what mba would help me the most
"I've been listening to Dave Ramsey a lot lately, and he encourages (encourage might be too light of a word for him) this priority list for budgeting: I would strongly advise you to tackle this list before you start to think about any sizable ""fun"" spending.  If you don't have #1, set that aside first. The options you mentioned: New roof: You should ask yourself ""what is the potential cost of not getting a new roof?"" If you can save up for it a little at a time, while putting most of the rest of your money to paying off debt, that's what I would do.  Unless, of course, there is damage or risk of damage to your house by not doing it now. Then, you need to do the same measurement (of doing the roof now) against the goal of saving three to six months of expenses.  Especially in your case, with your mortgage underwater, you want to be sure you are prepared should anything happen (for example, losing a job, and potentially being forced to move for a new job). Cars/student loan: (Refer to #3 above — in other words, yes)."
"&gt;Basically interest rates are near 0 and the banks are very risk adverse right now, so they sit on reserves instead of lending them out.  There is a very significant reason (actually a couple) that the banks are ""sitting on reserves"":  1. The large banks have HUGE derivative exposure and HUGE potential losses (and anyone who denies that has apparently been hiding under a rock and missed the news of JPMorganChase) -- while the reserves held are not enough to cover ALL of those potential derivative losses (nor do they have to), the bankers are uncertain of what their REAL exposure is, and so they want to (and indeed are probably being told to) hold onto enough to prevent a catastrophic ""insolvency"" situation.  2. The Fed is paying interest on excess reserves (likewise, this is no secret). This serves a two-fold purpose of making the banks *appear* to be solvent (even in the face of potentially HUGE derivative exposure); and secondarily it is a way to ""gift"" the banks with money -- known as ""recapitalizing"" them.  What Krugman is engaging in is simple misdirection. Now whether this is because he actually believes his own bullshit, or whether he is being intellectually dishonest... is anyone's guess. (Hanlon's razor would tell us it is the former, rather than the latter; but that isn't really dispositive in a single case and is rather a general principle. Occam's razor doesn't tell us anything in regard to this, since either is a fairly simple and straight-forward explanation; and given the history of ""economists"" as being professional apologists &amp; apparatchiks in service of the financial &amp; government establishment, the latter is at least as likely as the former.)"
The rich pay more in taxes. It would be hard to cut taxes in a way that *didnt* help the rich. I'm more concerned with what it does for the middle and lower classes. I don't care that much if it helps the rich.  EDIT: Okay, so let's say you give the top third of the population (by income) a 1% income tax cut. The middle third got a 5% cut, and the bottom third got a 10% cut. In dollar value, the rich are still getting a larger cut, simply by virtue of how much they pay in taxes.  Someone made a point about property tax. Speaking very generally, poor people rent and rich people own. So a property tax inherently benefits the wealthy, because they own more property. Certainly any kind of corporate or capital gains cut would benefit the wealthy, since they own the corporations and are more heavily invested. Even a sales tax cut would benefit the wealthy more than the non-wealthy, simply because they spend more money.  But what frustrates me is how hung up people get on the fact that something is good for the wealthy, (such as with the headline of OPs article) as if we should actively try to avoid helping anyone rich. As I stated above, I don't care that it helps the rich, as long as it's helping the rest of us, too. And if the rich are getting a bigger benefit than I am by virtue of being rich, I'm not bothered, because I can do math.
Audating Sites provide the best Offer and Wide Variety of believable Partners. In the world,  people have different tastes and at our website is a wide variety of potential partners to choose from. If you are looking each other for Sex meet in the Australia, then you can get more of registered contacts. Getting your choice and a perfect match for yourself becomes easier. When you are signing up on our website.
A *licensed* electrician is pretty much guaranteed to have the skills. A union electrician is almost guaranteed to fuck a project schedule  up.  &gt;Unions also fought for and got us a 40 hour work week and overtime pay. Benefits and disability insurance.   Snore. Clichés are getting tiresome. You pay for disability insurance. Benefits came about as a way to get around WWII pay freezes. Look it up.  &gt;currently politicians are rolling back those protections  No, they're not.  &gt;the work to get those benefits will be that much harder  With this self-contradiction, you have proven my point: Unions were once needed, but now it's just abusing for the benefits for union workers only.  Perhaps you got confused by what is happening in Wisconsin.  &gt;Police are pepper spraying old grandmas and people sitting down not doing anything  You are just full of tiresome clichés. If OWS wasn't violent and unruly, this wouldn't happen. Nobody got raped at a Tea Party event. No shitting on cop cars. No Teargas. OWS is responsible for those things that you cite.  The right to peacefully assemble does not mean you can encircle and block the police from doing their lawful job, which is what happened at UC Davis. The old lady got trapped in a protest that got out of hand thanks to OWS idiots.  Stop whining. Stop being violent. Get permits and do the right thing and you might be just as effective in electing change as the Tea Party has been. I doubt it though. OWS children are just plain ignorant.  The 1st Amendment doesn't mean you can build tree forts in the park. That was the final nail in its coffin.
&gt; In the modern age it's much more profitable to be a copier than an innovator   In all ages it is more profitable to be a copier. History of full of examples of the same thing being invented over and over again, only to discarded or ignored after the creators death. It doesn't matter if you are talking about fur pelts in stone age or modern super-computers, the benefits of a innovation only happen when it becomes widely available.