vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"This question can simply be answered with ""it depends"", but I am sure that is not the answer you want. So here is all of the reasons why it depends... The philosophy behind real time energy pricing is that you pay for what it actually costs for the energy to be produced. Peak times costs the power company a lot of money to produce the power. There are many reasons for this, but the simplest reason is that at some point the company will have to build extra power plants in order to be able to provide for the peak demand, while these plants will be widely underused during off-peak times. In the traditional flat rate charge per killowatt billing, you had to be charged higher then it actually costs during the off-peak hours in order for the power company to make sure they brought in enough money to cover the costs of the peak hours. Technology has now advanced enough that power company can charge you more directly of what it actually costs them. Potentially this could mean that you would pay more in electricity. This can happen if you are a person who loves to use energy during peak hours. Do you like turning on all of your lights when you get home from work in the summer? What about watching TV? Or what about cooking dinner? Or what about turning the AC down colder to overcome the heat produced by cooking dinner? All of those things that you might be used to doing are actually costing the power company more money because they have to plan for those higher peak loads. You can save yourself money if you are willing to shift your usage to other times of day, such as cook later in the evening or decide to grill outside, or wait to watch your TV show until later in the evening. If you are someone who is stuck in your ways and doesn't want to adjust the time of day that you do certain things, doing real time pricing may end up costing you more. Some people could argue that it actually should cost you more. Why should someone who is saving the power company money have to pay extra for someone who is costing the power company more money? All of this is viewed from the short term though.
You are misunderstanding what makes the price of a stock go up and down. Every time you sell a share of a stock, there is someone else that buys the stock. So it is not accurate to say that stock prices go down when large amounts of the stock are sold, and up when large amounts of the stock are bought. Every day, the amount of shares of a stock that are bought and sold are equal to each other, because in order to sell a share of stock, someone has to buy it. Let me try to explain what actually happens to the price of a stock when you want to sell it. Let's say that a particular stock is listed on the ticker at $100 a share currently. All this means is that the last transaction that took place was for $100; someone sold their share to a buyer for $100. Now let's say that you have a share of the stock you'd like to sell. You are hoping to get $100 for your share. There are 2 other people that also have a share that they want to sell. However, there is only 1 person that wants to buy a share of stock, and he only wants to pay $99 for a share. If none of you wants to sell lower than $100, then no shares get sold. But if one of you agrees to sell at $99, then the sale takes place. The ticker value of the stock is now $99 instead of $100. Now let's say that there are 3 new people that have decided they want to buy a share of the stock. They'd like to buy at $99, but you and the other person left with a share want to sell at $100. Either one of the sellers will come down to $99 or one of the buyers will go up to $100. This process will continue until everyone that wants to sell a share has sold, and everyone who wants to buy a share has bought. In general, though, when there are more people that want to sell than buy, the price goes down, and when there are more people that want to buy than sell, the price goes up.
Delaware llc incorporation  When someone want to do some business, but the person want to have some extremely flexible business so that he can able to start up with low cost and with affordable franchise text they Delaware llc incorporation is a very good choice for doing so. It mainly help to customize the corporation and can also help to choose that option which user want to have.
This may not apply in your particular situation, but I think it's important to mention: When a debt collector doesn't act like a debt collector, it may be because they aren't actually a debt collector. It's certainly strange that someone called you to collect money from you, and when you asked for a simple document, they not only got off the phone quickly but they also told you the debt would be cancelled. That just doesn't make sense: Why would they cancel the debt? Why wouldn't they send you the document? My initial impression is that you were possibly being scammed. The scam can take on many forms: Whenever you are called by a debt collector (or someone pretending to be one), it's a good idea to verify their identity first. More info here.
Can I give the bank the $300,000 to clear the mortgage, or must I pay off the total interest that was agreed upon for the 30 year term? This depends on the loan agreement.  I had one loan where I was on the hook regardless.  Early payment was just that, early payment.  It would have allowed me to skip months without making payments (because I had already made them).   Most loans charge interest on the remaining balance. If you pay early, it reduces your balance, decreasing the interest.  If you pay it off early, there's no more balance and no more interest.   I'm curious why the bank would let you do this, since they will lose out on a lot of profit. But they have their money back and can loan it out again.  If they maintained the loan, they aren't guaranteed of getting their money.   Interest is rent that you pay for the loan of the money.  Once you return the money, why pay more rent?  While some apartment leases require paying through the entire term, most allow for early termination with proper notice.  You give back the apartment; the landlord rents it out again.  Why should they get paid two rents?   Another issue is that if someone with a mortgage switches jobs to a new location, that person will likely prefer to sell the current house and buy one in the new location.  This is actually the typical way for a mortgage to end.  If the bank did not allow that, they would essentially force the family to rent out the mortgaged house and rent a new house.  So the bank would go from an owner-occupied house that the inhabitants want to keep maintained to a rental, where the inhabitants only care to the extent of their legal liability.   Consider the possibility that the homeowners lose one of their jobs.  They can't afford the house.  So they sell it and close out the mortgage.  Should the bank refuse to allow the sale and attempt to recover the interest from the impoverished homeowners?  That situation would almost guarantee an expensive foreclosure.   Once there is any early termination clause for any reason, it makes sense for the bank to structure the loan to include the possibility.  That way they don't have to investigate whatever excuse is involved.  Loan regulators may require this as well, particularly on mortgages.
And how is that abuse, those are their benefits.  If they choose to use them to do drugs or eat food they would still get them either way.  These people are NOT entitled to them.    If they bought the food and didn't eat it, is that abuse too?  I fully understand that's not the intent but at the end of the day how you choose to use the benefits you are entitled to is on you, land of the free right?
"Ex-Apple Store employee here. I didn't read the article, but then again I didn't need to. Apple is a great company, blah blah blah. Here's the bottom line: If I sell $15,000 of computers in 6 hours (something that's not so terribly hard to do), I still get paid the same $11.5/hr. Why the fuck should I work harder to sell? Pressure from above. Also they print a list of how much everyone has sold by day, week, month, quarter and YTD. You want to be in the top 5 of that list.  Now, I worked there from 2008-2010, so things could be a lot different there now. But I suspect they're not. There's a huge amount of churn, as someone said, and I'd argue that it is entirely to keep happy smiling dumb faces there all the time. The ""Lifers"" are huge tools who suck big ones.   I still love Apple. Just glad I don't work for them."
&gt; Second, ensure your product experience is outstanding, creating ongoing repeat from happy consumers.  TiVo's customer experience IS outstanding. I have been a loyal TiVo DVR user since 2003 and their interface and feature set is greatly superior to the junk DVRs that the cable companies provide.  The problem for TiVo seems to be overcoming the convenience and cost benefits that the cable company provides with their inferior product.    What would have been an ideal business model for TiVo would have been to get cable companies to offer TiVo boxes - or cable boxes with the TiVo interface, perhaps as an upsell product from ther basic DVR. I honestly believe that if a user tried a TiVo for a short period of time they would choose to pay a little extra for it.
"&gt;There is no obvious reason why, even in a perfect world, we would go looking for a malleable, highly-conductive, corrosion-resistant metal as something to peg the value of our banknotes to.   If this were true, why force citizens to use a specific central bank's paper money via ""legal tender laws""?  ;)  &gt;I will leave it to others to argue over whether a return to the gold standard would be a good idea, but the argument has nothing to with the intrinsic utility of gold. I'm sure we can all agree that gold is a fine metal with many good qualities.   Then what was the point of your post?  If you don't want to use gold as money, I would never force you to use gold.  It is the contention of the Austrian economists that there should be free and open competition in the money industry.  Allow people to choose their money.  Allow entrepreneurs to create systems to simplify the communication of prices across various monies.  The root of the problem is force and monopoly."
The best thing to do to avoid this is not to sell as you've described. What purpose does it solve? If you're speculating, set a price at which you want to cash out and put a limit order. If you're a long term investor, then unless something fundamental has changed - why would you sell?
The company may be real though the returns do have some fine print to note. Pacific Tycoon – Investor Red Alert notes in part: I see that some unscrupulous financial websites are taking money to   send out promotions today for Pacific Tycoon. DO NOT RESPOND. DO NOT   INVEST. You are being treated with utter contempt as a reader of these   sites and should unsubscribe at once. And here is why. While some people may be happy with them, that isn't the same as someone that wants more assurances as to the returns on their money.
"&gt; Why should I have to pay someone more to do a shittier job just because they're in a members only club? Uh, you might not have to pay more, since many employers can just take a modest hit to their profit margin to treat their workers better than cattle. And, given the puny amounts they're paying their workers to begin with, I doubt your wallet will scream in pain if prices inch up a tiny bit to pay these plebes so they may live lives of regular poverty, instead of grinding poverty. Getting beyond the liquid bullshit your sentence has been marinated in, I'll assume you're merely asking why you should have to pay someone more to do the same job. Essentially, the answer lies in the collusive power employers usually have to conspire to lower wages, because there are always fewer, usually far fewer, employers in any industry than there are employees. So the employers are always in an ""exclusive, members-only club."" The examples of employers combining to lower wages and salaries are so numerous that it's an embarrassment of riches as to which to choose, but I'll pick the refusal of major-league baseball to sign free agents in 1979, just to teach the players a lesson. This ended Rod Carew's career, among other things, even though the owners were later punished in court, so it does not please me. In some industries, unions are unnecessary - medicine and law come to mind - but these workers still have wage-hiking and incompetence protecting mechanisms: consider the AMA's efforts to close teaching hospitals and limit doctor supply, or the seeming inability of state bar associations to investigate anything less than the grossest incompetence of their members. It's just that the AMA and the bar association are not called ""unions."" But back to the issue of Walmart unionization: unions, though prone to excess when they are too strong, have been the only means of leveling the playing field between ownership and employees in ways that have made life livable for all of us today. Want an example? The 40-hour week, which would never have become customary, let alone been given legal force, if it were up to the employers and the free-market fairy with her magical market pixie dust.
The strategy has intrinsic value, which may or may not be obstructed in practice by details mentioned in other answers (tax and other overheads, regulation, risk). John Bensin says that as a general principle, if a simple technical analysis is good then someone will have implemented it before you. That's fair, but we can do better than an existence proof for this particular case, we can point to who is doing approximately this. Market makers are already doing this with different numbers. They quote a buy price and a sell price on the same stock, so they are already buying low and selling high with a small margin. If your strategy works in practice, that means you can make low-risk money from short-term volatility that they're missing out on, by setting your margin at approximately the daily price variation instead of the current bid-offer spread. But market makers choose their own bid-offer spread, and they choose it because they think it's the best margin to make low-risk money in the long run. So you'd be relying that:
You are correct, kids are entitled, they don't know what hardwork is like. All they want to do is open their hands and receive. I told my 16 year old cousin what would he do if I've given him 1000dollars. He said buy video games. I mean for an 11 year old I can accept that. But for a 16yr old going to be 18 soon? It's not even about blue collar or white collar jobs, is work is work in general. Bad parenting + entitlement = decrease financial &amp; social status. Also, for those who doesn't understand about health insurance. People only need health insurance hoping that they get sick. Insurance companies are not charities. They are here for profit. Why would insurance company sell insurance to sick people. I don't know why people down vote your logic when is pure reason.
Yeah, the more I think of it, the article had a feel of trying to garner sympathy for Swatch for some reason, but why in the hell would they choose to cut off a good revenue stream unless they had a contingecy plan?  Either it's not profitable anymore, or management screwed the pooch.  Possibly both.
One way to look at a butterfly is to break it into two trades. A butterfly is actually made up of two verticals... One is a debit vertical: buy 490 put and sell the 460 put.  The other is a credit vertical: sell a 460 put and buy a 430 put.  If someone believes Apple will fall to 460, that person could do a few things. There are other strategies but this just compares the three common ones: 1) Buy a put. This is expensive and if the stock only goes to 460 you overpay for it. 2) Buy a put vertical. This is less expensive because you offset the price of your put. 3) Buy a butterfly. This is cheapest of the three because you have the vertical in #2 as well as a credit vertical on top of that to offset your cost.  The reason why someone would use the butterfly is to pay less upfront while capitalizing on a fall to 460. Of the three, this would be the better strategy to use if that happens. But REMEMBER that this only applies if the trader is right and it goes to 460. There is always a trade off for every strategy that the trader must be aware of. If the trader is wrong, and Apple goes to say 400, the put (#1) would make the most money and the butterfly(#3) would lose money while the vertical (#2) would still gain. So that is what you're sacrificing to get the benefits of the butterfly. Also helps to draw a diagram to compare the strategies.
I'm not sure why she's blaming Yelp for her 2.54 star rating.  Yes, her handpicked reviewers are getting demoted.     But all those negative reviewers who did business with her AND are regular Yelp reviewers should be considered perfectly representative of her overall quality of service as is.    You redditors need to be honest with yourselves...even knowing that Yelp indiscriminately cuts out new reviewers, would you choose her 2.5 star company over a 5 star rated competitor?  Of course not.   **She wasn't handicapped or at a disadvantage with respect to her rivals whatsoever.  Every Yelp businesses gets same Yelp treatment.**
I mean they can be, if you have simple enough tastes and roommates.  I don't understand why people feel like their first should give them everything.  Every entry level position shouldn't have to pay enough to support a family.  Spouses and teenagers should have the right to work as well, and their skill/pay level isn't going to be equal to someone supporting a family.
That's because they literally could not help you. It's not that they were just unwilling to. A hedge fund manager might be able to do it, because the person who bet on Facebook would be willing to let him borrow their shares.  An IPO in explain like I'm five:  A bank helps underwrite the shares pre offering. This means they buy the shares wholesale. They buy a large majority of the company in order to offer them to the public when the stock goes public. The bank does this for profit, the company does this become it helps raise their price. The bank that underwrites the stock is legally prohibited from short selling that stock for ***at least***  30 days before the IPO. This is to prevent the bank from trying to commit fraud by selling stock out the front door and betting against it out the back.   ***  So, now let's jump forward to the day of the IPO. The bank is offering stock to everyone who wants to buy it (other banks who will cut it up and sell it to more people). In order to short the stock someone must be willing to let you borrow their shares. Only the bank that underwrote it prohibited from short selling. It's possible but hard. The underwriter has the majority of the shares for the first thirty days anyways. They're just going to release enough of them to raise volume on the ticker symbol (volume is the amount of people buying and selling). The others the underwriter sold to are unwilling to let someone borrow their stock because they want to ride the price hike and shares are in short supply. So while it's possible to short shares, it's very hard. The underwriters limit the supply of shares to prevent that from happening. The underwriters can't just let you short their own shares because they are legally prohibited from it.   Basically, you're left with the fact that the only person who has enough supply to let you short, is prohibited by law from letting you do it. I'm sure Morgan Stanley would have been happy to let their customers short Facebook (as long as you did it through them) to hedge their bets. But they can't.
I think people would probably buy it more if the brand didn't have so much negative buzz... It's like, someone recently asked me why I bought a BB (hadn't I heard how much financial mess they were in?), and I had to explain that despite the company's poor stock performance, the keyboard still works just as great as ever, and I still really like the interface (personal preference). The company may appear to be sinking, but even worst case I think there's a few years left in them.
The real value of a share of stock is the current cash value of all dividends the owner will receive, plus the current cash value of the final liquidation if any.  Since people with different needs may judge the current cash value of an income stream differently, there would be a market basis for people to buy and sell stocks even if everyone could predict all future payouts perfectly. If shareholders knew that a company wouldn't pay any dividends until it was liquidated in the year 2066, whereupon it would pay $2000/share, then each share would in 2016 effectively be a fifty-year zero-coupon bond with a $2000 maturity value.  While some investors would be willing to trade in such an instrument, the amount of money a company could charge for such an instrument would be far lower than the money it could charge for one with payouts that were more evenly distributed through time. Since the founders of most companies want their companies to be around for a long time, that would mean that shareholders would have no expectation of their shares ever yielding anything of value within any foreseeable timeframe.  Even those who would be more interested in share-price appreciation than dividends wouldn't be able to see share prices rise if there wasn't any likelihood of the stock being bought by someone who wanted the dividends.
You could in theory buy it from someone else, but the same principle holds: if the stock price has just gone down, people who have it may be waiting for it to go back up. This is doubly true if anyone suspects you have been trying to manipulate the stock price, because they will then suspect that the price drop is artificial and it will soon go back up. Fourth, even if someone did sell it right back to you at the price you sold it for, then what? You now hold the stock at a lower price, but you don't gain unless it goes back up. If it wasn't going up before until you took action, there is no reason to suppose it will go back up now. In fact, if you had enough shares to significantly influence the price, other people may have been fooled into thinking the value is actually lower now. The basic problem is that, in order for you to buy it at a low price, someone else has to sell it at that low price. It is easy to sell someone a stock for less than it's worth, but it will be hard to get people to sell it back to you for less than it's worth. If you engage in deceptive practices to get people to do this, you may be guilty of securities fraud."