vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Don't be ridiculous. Or in fact, lets be ridiculous for a second. Why can't a software developer make $500k? It's still only a fraction of what one of the executives make.  Now, since realistically they won't get paid as much as you make it out to be, why is it so wrong for people to make a living wage? Why do we have to trumpet and pursue a race to the bottom in compensation? Why do you think that's ok? Is not fair for Americans and is not fair for the foreigners that are forced to come all the way to drive prices down by flooding the worker supply. They deserve as much pay as the Americans they're replacing but because they are looking for the better life and pay that they don't get they have to settle for a sub par pittance.  It's all just one sided. It's appalling that you can even pretend to be so indignant about it.
"Note that it isn't always clear that ""turning it all into an annuity"" is the right answer. Annuities are essentially insurance policies -- you're paying them a share of your income to guarantee a specific payout. If you outlive the actuarial tables, that may be a win. If the market crashes, that may be a win. But I'm increasingly hearing the advice that staying in investments (albeit in a very conservative position) may pay better longer. There are tools which will do monte-carlo modelling based on what the market has done in the past. You give them  your estimate of how much in today's dollars would be needed to ""maintain your lifestyle"", and they'll tell you how much savings you need -- and what form you might want to keep those savings in -- to have good odds of being able to live entirely off the earnings and never touch the capital My employer makes such a tool available to us, and in fact Quicken has a simpler version built into it; it's nice that the two agree."
So this is actually why I never went back to my old job at a movie theater. No one could work more than 32 hours a week or they would have to offer us insurance. I needed the 40 hours a week to pay for rent and food so I never went back. This isn't something new but people might just be bringing it up to blame Obama before the election.
So far there have been two complaints named here, and they both have to do with the service/repair side, which is an area I've never used.  Years ago I took a stereo to Circuit City to be repaired and it took them forever.  I was pissed about that.  I also took a computer to Fry's to be repaired once.  They eventually repaired it, but it took a little longer than I had hoped.  But it wasn't too bad, since they gave us a loaner to use in the meantime.
Well it all kind of depends.   The Realtor is your pro, and you should communicate further with him.  Is this a neighborhood on the decline?  Is there a good reason to make such a low offer?  Are you totally off base when you think 85K is fair, and if so why?  Is he just working his tail off for you (a great thing)? One thing that is a key to this negotiation is financing.  What does your financing status look like?  A reasonable cash offer with no contingencies and a quick close might be less than 70K.  A person with strong financing can get a better discount then a person that is questionable. It could be that the Realtor is testing the waters to find the bottom price.  The home selling season is closed (typically the summer), and the home has been on the market for a bit.  Offering 70K might mean a counter at 82K, so you can work on an offer between 80 and 82.   To me, it sounds like this guy is working for you.  You should thank him.  It is pretty hard to find a realtor that is willing to negotiate his pay down in order to save you money.   Also he can answer the closing cost question better than us as he is more familiar with your particular market.
Their whole plan is to open up a car insurance company, which collects fees but never has to pay a dime because it's just impossible to be I  an accident due to everybody staying at home all the time!
I think the primary reason you're being down voted is because of the way you address people who align themselves with left wing ideology.  Let's either call them all foolish, or none of them.  I prefer calling them all foolish, one stream lined school of thought is rather repugnant.    Anyway, Your points on equality are spot on (theoretically), handicapping applicants based on values that should already be overlooked is introducing a bias to correct another bias, it's a short term strategy and for what it's worth I agree with you.  That is, I would if racism/classism/genderism didn't exist in practice.  The problem is what is actually observed in the real world, all too often better candidates for a job are excluded in favor for those who are of similar religion or race as the employer, when the cast offs would perform better at the job.  It is virtually never the other way around, where someone of a weaker skill set is forced on the job to fill a government implemented quota, and if it is the case, it is also usually done deliberately, choosing a very weak candidate to appeal to the government in attempts to exonerate themselves from those particular laws.    My focus point:  And sure it's your choice as an employer to bring on whoever you want, that's piece of mind for you, the employer, you've created the company that you wanted, but it's not the BEST IT COULD BE in terms of production purposes for society because the employer hasn't assembled the best possible work force with it's available applicants.  It is here that we see there are negative externalities on the public, as inefficiency rises due to class/race/gender favoritism being chosen over ability.  Employing people to help create your master vision fundamentally incorporates compromise, for the betterment of society.
Its not going off at a tangent. You need to be fully grounded in healthcare in order to understand it. If you are grounded in economic abstraction you will never understand it, because it is not like any other economic activity.    If you treat it like a business, it will be very expensive because it deals with the most precious thing that people have, their lives.
The most important lesson is never lend money to friends, unless you are willing to forget the lent amount, if the need arises to save your friendship. Money and relations/friendship is a dangerous cocktail. Your friend may assume, as you are his friend he may get lenient treatment while treating the money. And if you harangue about the money your friendship may suffer. So be careful while lending money to friends. If you make up a contract, your friend may ask why, if he isn't reasonable, as you are his friend. From personal experience, I forget about the lent money but jot it down somewhere. And when I am repaid I strike it off. I never discuss about the money or bring it up. People don't like to be reminded by a friend that they owe them money.  But refusing also isn't a viable option either. You probably have to take a middle path.
It's pretty simple - the less money you owe the less interest you pay.  Paying down debt  gives a guaranteed return of the interest rate of the debt. So paying off your starter loan is equivalent to a 4% return.  That's not a bad return in the current environment so it makes sense to do it unless you can find an investment which you think is likely to pay significantly better. (Note this is a general answer, not Netherlands-specific.  There may be other considerations, around tax for example, which have to be factored into the calculation).
It can be argued that it is easier for people to get good paying jobs or get a better education is they can expect a minimum income from the government.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income  The main argument being that almost all of the money given out will be spent instead of saved and will quickly make it's way back into the supply side of the economy.  Also students can devote their college time to studying instead of working a job and going to school.
&gt; Economics will generally be more respected if it is a Bachelors of Science. The BS will have (in general) more quantitative coursework as compared to a BA.  What kind of nonsense is this? My school offered a BS/SB in Economics and the other major school in town offered a BA/AB. There's little difference between the two.  The exception is going to be when schools offer both degrees. You could argue that a BS Economics at Penn is better than a BA Economics, but that's only because Wharton is seen as more competitive and prestigious. It has nothing to do with the intrinsic qualities of a BA compared to a BS.
Stephen's answer is the 100% correct one made with the common Economics assumption, that people are rational. A company that never has paid dividends, is still worth something to people because of its potential to start paying dividends later and it is often better to grow now and payoff later. However, the actual answer is much more disapointing, because people are not rational and the stock market is no longer about investing in companies or earning dividends. Most of the value of a stock is for the same reason that gold, stamps, coins and bitcoins, and Australian houses are worth anything, that is, because enough people say it is worth something*. Even stocks that pay dividends, very few people buy it for dividends. They buy it because they believe someone else will be willing to buy it for slightly more, shortly after. Different traders have different timeframes, ranging from seconds to months. *Houses and stock are of course partially valuable due to the fundamentals, but the major reason they are purchased is just to resell at a profit.
Paying this off early is robbing yourself of the extra earning potential for this money.  Think of it as an interest free loan from your future self.  If you can otherwise use that money to get a better rate of return then you are better off putting it there.  Best options would normally be to use it to buy additional regular RRSPs, RESPs, or TFSA because of government benefits but even puting the extra into a GIC for a year is better than paying back home buyers plan early.
"seems like a dumb idea to me. Will these people know what to do with $1000? Will they know best how to invest it or will it be squandered on booze, or just plain living expenses? It might be better spent giving it to them with a string such as ""buy a cow or chickens that can produce"" or seed for a patch of land. I expect some will fall in each of the three catagories. Question now is what will be the distribution?"
If I understand your question, you're misunderstanding the buy/sell spread, and at least in this instance seem to be in an unfortunate situation where the spread is quite large. The Polish Zloty - GBP ideal exchange rate is around 5.612:1.  Thus, when actually exchanging currency, you should expect to pay a bit more than 5.612 Zloty (Zloties?) to get one Pound sterling, and you should expect to get a bit less than 5.612 Zloty in exchange for one Pound sterling.  That's because you're giving the bank its cut, both for operations and so that it has a reason to hold onto some Zloty (that it can't lend out).  It sounds like Barclay's has a large spread - 5.211 Buy, 5.867 Sell.  I would guess British banks don't need all that many Zloty, so you have a higher spread than you would for USD or EUR. Other currency exchange companies or banks, particularly those who are in the primary business of converting money, may have a smaller spread and be more willing to do it inexpensively for you.  Also, it looks like the Polish banks are willing to do it at a better rate (certainly they're giving you more Zloty for one Pound sterling, so it seems likely the other way would be better as well, though since they're a Polish bank it's certainly easier for them to give you Zloty, so this may be less true).  Barclay's is certainly giving you a better deal on Pounds for a Zloty than they are Zloty for a Pound (in terms of how far off their spread is from the ideal).
To be fair, Trump doesn't wear a hairpiece.  It is, in fact, his real hair.  That's why it looks so hideous - it's a combover.  With his money, if he wanted to buy fake hair it would look a heckofalot better than that.
I worked at a university that provided BYOD access to students and staff. There were never any issues. It may not be trivial to design your network in such a way, but it certainly isn't impossible. Some employees carry a two phones, but many only have one.
looking over some historical data I cannot really a find a case where a stock went from $0.0005 to $1 it almost seem that once a stock crosses a minimum threshold the stock never goes back up. Is there any truth to that? That would be a 2000X (200,000%) increase in the per-share value which would be extraordinary.  When looking at stock returns you have to look at percentage returns, not dollar returns.  A gain of $1 would be minuscule for Berkshire-Hathaway stock but would be astronomical for this stock,. If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up? Not necessarily.  The price of a stock is a measure of expected future performance, not necessarily past performance.  If the earnings had been more that the market expected, then the price might go up, but if the market sees it as an anomaly that won't continue then there may not be enough buyers to move the stock up. looking at it long term would it hurt me in anyway to buy ~100,000 shares which right now would run be about $24 (including to fee) and sit on it? If you can afford to lose all $24 then no, it won't hurt.  But I wouldn't expect that $24 to turn into anything higher than about $100.  At best it might be an interesting learning experience.
Dollar cost averaging is a method of regularly investing money as it is available.  For example, $100 from each paycheck.  It has been shown to bet better, on average, than collecting the money and investing it all at once.  It is not intended to be used when you have the entire amount up front.  See this link. Dollar cost averaging a lump sum would only be beneficial if the market was just as likely to go up as is to go down.  Since, over time, the market (historically) has always gone up, your best bet is to invest all of your money right away.  Anything else is just trying to time the market.
23  international flights is about 3000 people.   It is also 23 other flights cancelled because the plane never made it to its destination - so there is no plane to bring New Zealanders home (or continue on the next leg). This affects people in cities all over the globe.   If the pipeline is leaking, that means it is ongoing. So there will be more.   It is a big pain in the ass and a lot more than “just some hotel stays”.
I'm a farmer and it'll be interesting to see what impact this has on the fresh aisle. A lot of farmers get into the organic market because the margins are better than conventional, but the costs AND risks are a lot higher.   If the hit is solely on the Whole Foods/store side, it'll all be fine. But if they come back to the growers that [typically see less than 10% of the dollar spent at the grocery store anyway](https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/58353/food-prices_fig03.png?v=42835), it'll be interesting to see who is willing to stick it out in the organic sector.
Dude, pitch deck is a hygiene factor. You need it. They're really hard to do right. It's hard to get the op to 'sell' without the deck in the first place. You might not get meetings.  Yes, if you have the connections and massive energy then you 'can' hustle through... but you need to follow the rules of the game if you want to win. Front's deck is one of the best. I've the largest public collection online (~90). It's easily the most common one I recommend to people (yes, it can be better). Linkedin with Reid's commentary is of course the most informative.   Do you know what the search volume is on pitch decks? Mine get literally millions of views a year according to slideshare and I've never marketed them. Founders want to see these decks
"I always enjoy reading the comments on these articles talking about how great Europe is compared to US. And maybe for some portion of society it is better, but there has to be a reason why so many people immigrate here.   The US healthcare system is a toilet, but you get high quality care if you have good insurance or can afford it otherwise.  I think the ""positive"" of the US system is if you take advantage of all the opportunities it affords and you have a little luck you can be very successful. The sky is literally the limit.  I have very little frame of reference but it seems a large number of Europeans I have met are content to make an income that allows them to live a very basic lifestyle."
If you're a market timer it's difficult to argue that now is not a very risky time to be in stocks. Just based on the PE we're in the second richest market in the last 100 years. Also, the Fed is about to start tightening on a weak economy. That's never good for stocks.
I would never consider such an offer. As has already been mentioned, there are likely to be hidden costs and the future is never certain. If you feel that you are missing out, then negociate a lower purchase price now. People often forget that something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. With any significant purchase it's always worth bargaining.
I worked at MB for 4 years, ending back in 2008. I loved that place, it was a great job for high school student to have, it shaped a lot of my character. I'd hate to see a store and company so beloved by the public to disappear but it seems that the Demoulas family can't get their shit straight. They'd rather watch it all burn down than admit defeat and allow their legacy company to thrive as it once was. And I fell for my former co workers, who are risking everything to stand for what the believe in, it's remediable to say the least. Honk if you see them, letting them know they are still supported is important even to the bitter end.
Toward the philosophical side of your question, it seems to me that what is most important is knowing how well your fund is performing versus it's benchmark. This is an actionable piece of information that can help you get out of an under-performing fund, although if you're already using Vanguard it's likely a low cost and broadly diversified fund. Ultimately, what you want to avoid over the long term is under-performing the market due to high fees, market timing, poor fund selection etc., and selecting a fund that closely tracks the market seems to be the best way to achieve this, assuming that you intend to be a passive investor. I don't see a clear benefit to calculating a personal rate of return. If the fund is performing well versus its benchmark, you are likely to stay with it, and if it is performing poorly, you  are likely to pull out. At the end of the day, the complicated accounting won't actually change the amount you've got in your account, so I'd recommend picking a good fund, checking up on it once in a great while, and putting your time to better purpose.
In some ways this makes the adjustment harder, because debts can't be inflated down. All of this obviously causes a lot of economic turbulence so you can expect house prices to fall, share prices to gyrate, unemployment to rise. If you can afford it and come stomach the risk, it may turn out to be a good time to buy assets for the long term. If you're reasonably young the largest impact on you won't be losing your current savings, but rather the impact on your future job prospects from this adjustment period. You never know, but I don't think the Weimar Republic wheelbarrows-of-banknotes situation is likely to recur; people are at least a bit smarter now and there is an inflation-targeting independent central bank. I think gold can have some room in a portfolio, but now is not the time to make a sudden drastic move into it. Most middle class people cannot afford to have enough gold to support them for the rest of their life, though they may have enough for a rainy day or to act as a balancing component. So what I would do to cope with this is: be well diversified, be sufficiently conservatively positioned that I would sleep at night, and beyond that just ride it out and try not to worry too much.
a free $50 looks too good to be true. As others already pointed out, these offers are common to many cards that want you to build loyalty towards a particular company (e.g. airlines cards give lots of mileage for a decent initial spend). Should I get this card for the $50? Why and/or why not? How much do you spend on Amazon, or are planning to do so in future? This offer has been around for ages (earlier they used to offer much smaller amounts of $20 for signing up) and you never saw it. So probably, you won't be really using the site frequently. In that case, its just a matter of whether $50 is worth the hassle for you to sign up and then later cancel (if you don't want to manage another new card). The hit to credit score is likely to be minimal unless you do such offers often. As such, for a person who rarely buys on Amazon I wouldn't advise you to sign up for this card, there are better rewards cards that are not as tied to a particular site (such as Chase Freedom, Discover etc.) If however, you are a regular shopper but just never noticed this prompt earlier; then it is worthwhile to get this - or even consider the Prime version, which you will get or be automatically upgraded to if the account has Prime membership. That gives 5% back instead of 3% on Amazon.
It is my perspective that white-majority nations seem to be 'nicer' than black-majority nations.  But it isn't sufficient information to conclude that either:  * Races are distinct and important  or   * Racial traits are reason that the 'niceness' of nations divide along racial lines.  Your evidence cannot prove that one race is better at anything, it's just confirmation bias.  Edit: just to be clear, it's a 'yes' answer.
Ultimately all these will pale in comparison to the cost of choosing a place where Amazon cannot get talent to move.. I work in the field, and I'd never move to a city for Amazon.  I love to cities for the industry presence, but never one company.  If you moved to Baltimore, took out a 1 year lease and took a job for Amazon, how fucked would you be when Amazon fired you in a month? Very fucked.  Almost anybody you'd go work for would be a significant step backwards.  Now imagine doing that in San Jose.  You'd get a raise on the next job and they'd invariably treat you better, because Amazon is a meat grinder that consumes youth and enthusiasm and outputs misery, isolation, and competitiveness. Recruiting is a massively expensive endeavor and tax breaks are nice, but it takes a large ecosystem to generate the candidate pool and attract an outside one. Tax breaks are awesome but I'll bet Amazon doesn't pay any anyways.
The value of money is not only in the earning and saving of it but also in the discipline in spending it.  Any approach to teaching children about money must ensure a balance between the two otherwise they will either become fearful of spending (and so never actually learn that money is but a tool and can be enjoyed) or irresponsible (spending with abandon with all that concomitant misery): Teaching kids about money is a wonderful opportunity to instil discipline and values.  Any strategy must be structured to suite the child's age and abilities as well.  Trying to teach compound interest to too young a child will just become needlessly confusing and worrying for them.  Hope this gives a few ideas.
"That was a little longer than five minutes, more like twenty. Fire isn't really a ""product"". Wireless capabilities - be more specific.   Theft implies that you didn't implicit mean for it to be taken. The fact that you live here, and are a citizen relays *implicit* concession to *give* that money to the government.   So, let's hear it - what is this ""better way to collect revenue""?"