vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Maybe so, that doesn't mean every new person is like that.   I personally signed up to yelp to write a review.  A national grocery store chain I visited for the first time, and thought it would be a good objective experience to write.  I had a bad experience at the store, and described in detail the things why I felt that way.  I also sent it to the store themselves, but decided to put it on Yelp also.  I went back a few weeks later to see if anyone replied, and I see there is a new review there, saying how great the store was, while my review was gone.  This was months ago, maybe even more than a year.  I just went onto Yelp to see if they approved my review back, nope still hidden.  Ok, found the review in my own profile, I posted it on 6/28/2011.   I've read stories from businesses and consumers alike for years on how they swindle the reviews, and I also experienced it personally.  Why would i want to be a regular user when they behave like shit?  Fuck yelp.
"&gt; How does Equifax lose sales after a breech? Unless their data has been corrupted or falsified, it's still good to sell or charge for each credit pull.  That might be true (it might not be - I don't know how flexible demand is between the 3 bureau's).  But it isn't true for most breaches.  &gt;all three are above their pre-hack prices.  Sure.  But they lost a lot of money after the breaches  &gt;I don't think the penalty should be ""death"" but considering their total assets is $10B, I don't think any fair penalty would allow the organization to survive. If they were Apple with $820B market cap, then yeah, the $70B would be a harsh and fair, but survivable penalty.  To make it ""fair"" (if there is such a thing) you'd want it to be proportional.  So if it'd be 70B for Apple, it'd be about $850MM for Equifax.  That's how you'd want it done if you want it done by operation of law (as opposed to markets and courts)."
It depends on the asset and the magnitude of the exchange rate change relative to the inflation rate. If it is a production asset, the prices can be expected to change relative to the changes in exchange rate regardless of magnitude, ceteris paribus. If it is a consumption asset, the prices of those assets will change with the net of the exchange rate change and inflation rate, but it can be a slow process since all of the possessions of the country becoming relatively poorer cannot immediately be shipped out and the need to exchange wants for goods will be resisted as long as possible.
Interesting to me.  Index funds are known for hurting active management. Fund flows have been toward index funds, not active funds.  But apparently S&amp;P and MSCI are making hundreds of millions just by licensing out the names of their most popular funds.  Vanguard also had a sweetheart deal at one time:  &gt; Index funds weren't always a big business, and S&amp;P didn't always know just how valuable the indexes it owned really were. Before the first ETF ever hit the market, S&amp;P agreed to a perpetual license with Vanguard that entitled the index owner to a maximum annual fee of $50,000 from Vanguard's premier index mutual fund, the Vanguard 500 Index Fund.  &gt;As Vanguard popularized the index fund, S&amp;P began to realize just how much it had left on the table. By 2001, the Vanguard fund had $90 billion in assets  &gt; To this day, Vanguard's premier S&amp;P 500 index fund is reportedly operating under its perpetual license, paying just $50,000 per year to S&amp;P Global, but subsequent funds based on S&amp;P's indexes are likely paying full freight. For S&amp;P, it was a very costly lesson to learn.
"Every car company does this and its frustrating as hell.    Something much more prevalent -- even commonplace -- is the car you booked not being able... not just car (much more common), but car type.  When I travel I book flights/cars weeks if not months in advance.  I travel on the company dime and they don't care if I get a Mustang convertible, Charger RT, etc., whatever.    Again, booked weeks/months in advance.    I can't tell you how frustrating it is to get off a 5-hour flight, take a 30-minute shuttle ride to the airport rental center (here's looking at you, DFW) and get there to be told I'm getting a Kia Sorento.    I know it sounds snobbish, but I paid for the upgrade, I've still got an hour drive to XYZ, and I want something fun to drive.  And they know, and I know, that bitching and moaning does absolutely nothing.  If X car isn't on the lot, I'm not getting it, unless Jesus Christ himself comes down and brings a Hemi with him.  I always see first timers there -- dads screaming at the desk agent with the wife and kids waiting on the benches, obviously exhausted and embarrassed -- trying to get the Tahoe or whatever they reserved.  ""Let me speak to your manager.""  I have seen this maybe 5-6x, and every. single. time. the wife ends up calming the husband down, wife apologizes to the desk agent, and they take their Hyundai Santa Fe or whatever.  It's like the twilight zone every time I see it.  ""Is this family still here from last time?  Nope, new family.""  TLDR;  Convertible wasn't available, got the moped.  Kind of like a convertible, I guess."
"As /u/Im_In_You replied, you need a lot more capital if you're going to make a difference in your personal finances. Remember to only invest the money that you can risk losing; don't put your emergency savings in the stock market.  As for success, I replied with this to a snarky poster above:  &gt;I started investing with $15,000 in 2009, my first trade being to buy Ford around $2 before the other two got bailed out. That single trade put me in the six figures. I've followed that up with equally successful trades such as shorting Netflix when they announced their new pricing plan, buying Tesla when they first started selling the Model S, etc. So yeah, even benchmarked against the 2009 bottom of the S&amp;P500, I've had ""success.""  Although the professionals have access to far more information than I ever will, there is something to be said for being able to predict major trends. After all, the stock will either go up or down. Even with all the data in the world, your only options are to either go long or short. You have a 50-50 chance of beating the hedge fund crowd. Admittedly, very few people will have the same returns I've had over the past ~5 years."
Oh, I agree that it is very likely to increase how often people go to the movies. I just don't know that, at the $10/month price, it's likely to be profitable for MoviePass....   I think the big difference between my evaluation and MP's of the strategy is that MP thinks it will eventually have enough leverage to get a share of concessions from theaters.   Based on the economics of the situation and the fact that theaters ultimately have more leverage, as well as in-person access to theatergoers and MP customers -- plus the theaters history of specifically not doing what MP hopes they will do -- I think that's a hell of gamble.   **Edit:**   Movie theaters aren't losing at all at this point because MP pays most of them full retail value for every ticket - they'll do very well. I just don't think they're going to ever, essentially, give MP a cut out of the goodness of their hearts.
How frequently do people make the switch from back office to front office for S&amp;T roles like that? WSO says its nearly impossible. I know a guy who went from equity research at MS to trader at JPM; he networked hard and did a huge front office transition. Which is more common out of big front-front transitions and back-to-front on the same floor?
I have trouble getting into the Prime original stuff.  It is in no small part that they refuse to just let me stream shit on my chromecast.  I have to stream it through my Tivo, which in theory should be no big deal, but usually, means an inconsistent and often shitty experience.  I know they want me to use their competing Fire Stick thing, but... no.  Then the actual content usually seems to be slow moving drama.  I watched several episodes of Man in the High Castle (during my multi-year checks of Prime content) and was bored even just having it on while doing other stuff.  I just saw that they have The Tick.  It might be time to check on their line-up again.  Relative to Netflix, I don't feel like Prime holds up.  It is more obnoxious to watch (finding the content seems tougher in addition to the device limitation), and the content is meh.  That said, we love Prime.  We are ordering stuff sometimes multiple times a week so the free and fast shipping is much used and loved.  I even signed up for the Unlimited ebooks thing because I read tons of shitty novels that even at 1-5 dollars a pop were adding up to over $10 a month.
no because the price is still being manipulated by HFT.  HFT are still getting their $$, I'm just saying how much I want to pay. HFT is still likely front-running me, and even if they're not... because of their special access if both I and an HFT system want at $10.00, HFT will ALWAYS get it first.
"Suppose you have a bar of gold and are hungry. I buy the gold from you for cash, which you then use to buy food, clothes and generally support yourself. Would it be fair to say that I paid for your food, clothes etc? I don't think so - I think *you* paid for them, in gold. I facilitated the exchange of gold into money, and without me or someone like me around to provide liquidity for your gold, you'd still be hungry. But fundamentally, it was the gold that was valuable. Now, suppose there is a lack of liquidity in gold - there's a shortage of gold buyers. I take advantage of this distortion to offer to buy your gold for half its free market value. You don't want to accept this deal, but since your only alternative is starvation, you accept. I say this is wrong, not because of socialism, but because of capitalism. The efficiency of capitalism arises from the price system of value. Goods and services command a fair market price, and buyers and sellers have access to both liquidity and good information about the relative value of things. When distortions are allowed to interfere with free market pricing - as inevitably happens under lassiez-faire capitalism - this efficiency is lost. Good government regulation is necessary to keep markets free and efficient, and this is good for everyone. So what does this have to do with David Siegel? First, nothing in my example above changes when you substitute ""labor"" for ""gold."" If I am hungry but I have a skill, and I sell you some of my labor for cash, then use the cash to buy food, *you did not give me the food*. You did not ""pay for my food,"" you did not ""make it possible for me to get food,"" or anything of the sort. *I paid for it myself*, by trading labor for cash in exactly the same way that you could trade gold for cash. Second, the price system of value allows you to earn a ""normal profit,"" which means sufficient profit for resources to remain within an industry. But ""excess profit"" harms market efficiency and thus the price system.
"Target Date Funds automatically change their diversification balance over time, rebalancing and reassigning new contributions to become progressively more protective of what you've already earned. (As opposed to other funds which continue to maintain the same balance of investments until you explicitly move the money around.) You can certainly make that same evolution manually; we all used to do that before target funds were made available, and many of us still do so. I'm still handling the relative allocations by hand. But I'm also close to my retirement target, so a target fund wouldn't be changing that much more anyway, and since I'm already tracking the curve... Note that if you feel a bit braver, or a bit more cautious, than the ""average investor"" the target fund was designed for, you can tweak the risk/benefit curve of a Target Date Fund by selecting a fund with a target date a bit later or earlier, respectively, than the date at which you intend to start pulling money back out of the fund."
&gt;The problem I have with this line of logic is that it's pretty much the anti-net neutrality argument.  I think there is a key difference here, at least for me. I view internet access as a utility, like water or power. Companies shouldn't be able to arbitrarily decide who gets access to those utilities. Some people may not see it the same way and that is fine.
Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, ""timing"" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, ""to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks"". Furthermore, the prospectus states that ""the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds."" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems.
You should talk to a bankruptcy attorney local to you.  While bankruptcy laws are federal, there are a variety of local rules.  As an example in CA, I've heard of a trustee going after a debtor's IRA account.  Retirement accounts are generally off limits, but not always. Additionally, structuring your assets for the purpose of shielding them from creditors after the start of foreclosure proceedings may constitute fraud.  At the very least that may open those assets back up to your creditor(s).
If I may echo the Roth comment - The Roth is a tax designation, not an end investment, so you still need to research and decide what's appropriate. I recommend the Roth for the long term investments, but keep in mind, even if you feel you may need to tap the Roth sooner than later, all deposits may be withdrawn at any time with no tax or penalty. Roth is great to store the emergency money for many if they aren't 100% sure they have enough cash to save for retirement. As you get further along, and see that you don't need it, change how it's invested to longer term, a mix of stocks (I prefer ETFs that mimic the S&P)
On Friday morning, Amazon shares open with a bounce of 8 percent against Thursday’s closing. This increase added $ 7 billion in the net worth of the company’s head Jeff Bezos. But on the other hand, Microsoft’s shares increased by just 7 percent, due to which Jeff became the richest person in the world once again, surpassing Bill Gates.Registration Begins Nov 7  current business news - wikifeed  According to a Forbes report, the increase of 2 percent in Ajman’s shares increased the total assets of Bezos by $ 90 million and became the world’s richest man. Their assets increased to $ 90.6 billion, which is slightly higher than Bill Gates’s assets ($ 90.1 billion)
Of course, there is no way for us to know whether or not the clerk is trying to rip you off $1.29 at a time, but I can't understand the possible motivation for doing so.  I would imagine that most people would catch this at some point, so for a store to consistently overcharge for something like this is really bad for business. They would be risking upsetting a customer all for the potential gain of $1.29. I have to assume that it is not malice, but incompetence.  We don't know what caused the clerk to be confused, but it is not really our concern. From what I can tell, you've gotten the right price in the end.  You were ultimately charged for two drinks, and the extra $1.29 that you were charged was refunded. Since it happened three times, you have to decide how badly you want these drinks in the future.  If you choose to return, you'll just have to expect the possibility that it will ring up incorrectly, and you'll have to get it fixed.  If that seems like too much hassle, then don't return to this store.
This is an alternative solution and it will depend where you live as to how you will have to make it work.  I am in the UK and there are a number of ways that I can use to access my money from anywhere in the world without high transaction fees. Internet banking takes care of everything else.
These new block chain coins with their smart contracts seem to be heading in that direction but I'd like someone to walk me through how two or more people with varying amounts of contributions to the organization can keep it all organized.  One partner contributes money while the other contributes time and assets. How do you determine a value of each persons contribution?  Do you convert each persons contributions to shares or coins?
I get where you're coming from, but wouldn't it make your life easier to post the salary range you're looking for so that you don't have to waste your time interviewing those who believe they're worth more?  Having a stack of resumes means nothing if 60-70% of that stack would never consider working for the salary you have in mind for the job you're looking for.
&gt; Contingencies such as losing your job, being unemployed, or working for lower salary are excluded of course.  Why?  Lower education increases your likelihood of being unemployed for a prolonged period.  Even during this Great Recession, [the unemployment rate for those with a bachelor's degree and older than 25 never exceeded 5%.](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4jIlyJ10uJU/TP1rTP2Me3I/AAAAAAAAKp0/JbKB1WQWVLE/s1600/UnemploymentEducationSept2010.jpg)    Edit:  &gt; 90% of the people will not reach 300-400K more in their lifetime.  The difference of the median of those with a bachelor's compared to those with high school diploma in [2009 was 15K per year](http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77) for full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 25–34.    At 15K per year for the 40+ years of work from 22 or so to 65, it will be 600K.   But the gap will widen as the employees age.  Professionals will have career advancement with resulting increase is salary.    For all ages, [the difference between median salary for a bachelor's degree holder compare to high school diploma is 19.5K \($46,930 compared to $27,380\)](http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_392.asp)
Interesting to see that Amazon is blamed for gentrification in Seattle.  That means more people with more money to put into real estate in previously cheap neighborhoods.  The alternative is to not pay your staff as much.  I would think that paying employees enough to buy and fix homes is a good thing.
Let us be candid! In this period of economic hardship many individuals just cannot afford to acquire technology best coffee maker on the market place. Nevertheless that is no cause to deny yourself one of life’s small delights, a mug of hot and alluring coffee to help you pick up your day or start off your early morning. In this video we are going to look at an alternative solution means for somebody even within the tightest of budgets in order to have the funds for a coffee machine.
The cost to you for selling is 3/8% of a years salary, this is what you won't get if you sell. Tough to calculate the what-if scenarios beyond this, since I can't quantify the risk of a price drop. Once the amount in he stock is say,10%, of a years salary, if you know a drop is coming, a sale is probably worth it, for a steep drop.  My stronger focus would be on how much of your wealth is concentrated in that one stock, Enron, and all.
Obviously you don't know the full extent of our company, but I'd be forgoing my salary for a year. Is that worth it to get 10%? I mean assuming it becomes a 1 Million Dollar Idea, I'd get 100k while he gets 700k, working the same amount of time. Then i'd get put on salary.
I only worked there for all of three months, but I thought it was fine.  Nice, friendly people and it's in a great location.  However, both of my bosses actually left the company when I was there.  To my understanding, there wasn't a whole lot of room for advancement in the company.  There are a few divisions where the bulk of employees reside (sales/investor relations, collections, customer support), typical business departments consisting of a couple employees each (accounting, HR, IT), and then a couple of managers plus multiple executives.  The company isn't too large, I believe there were around 70-100 people when I was working there.  However, I would do a google search and see if you can find someone who worked there more recently or for a longer period of time.
Whatever the supply of labor and demand for labor set.   If tomorrow suddenly the American economy took off, unemployment dropped to almost 0, Walmart would have to start raising wages in order to fill cashier slots. Does this mean that suddenly Walmart employees are giving more to Walmart? No, of course not, it just means the supply and demand of labor had radically changed.
Opportunity cost is the term you're looking for. I.e. (quoting from link) Definition of 'Opportunity Cost'   1. The cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have   received by taking an alternative action.
For alternative financing, pursue a line of credit or a Home Equity Line of Credit.  (From the comments of @ChrisInEdmonton and @littleadv on the original question)
My question is what is the average income of those people who are driving into the core of the city for work. I am assuming that they probably make a much larger salary than $1.1k, though they are still getting screwed on transportation.
Well, if you did not vote for Hillary/Democrat, I applaud you!  I always voted for democrats: Obama twice, Al Gore (idiot), Kerry (much bigger idiot), and Bill Clinton twice.  Last election I voted for the first time for a Republican. I would not vote for the other 2 alternative from smaller parties - don't agree with them, they are idiots, and it's a waste of my vote.  Anyway, back to Trump, not my ideal for a president, he's doing very good job in many areas. Don't agree with everything he does, but the majority of what he did I agree.
"This is an old question, but a new product has popped up that provides an alternative answer. There is a website called stockpile.com that allows you to purchase ""stock gift certificates"" for others.  These come in both electronic and traditional physical form.  This meets my question's original criteria of a gift giver paying for stock without having any of the recipient's personal information and thus maintaining the gift's surprise. I should note a few things about this service: Despite these limitations I wanted to post it here so others were aware of it as an option.  If no other alternative will work and this is what it takes to get a parent interested in teaching their child to invest, then it's well worth the costs."