vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Choosing an activity class for your child is easy now, as today there is lot of focus and importance given to Pre-School and Activity Centre, these Pre-School and Activity Centre are now in huge demand, these school and centres are now properly looked as profession with more and more people getting into it and putting up a proper management and SOP’s to run the schools and centre, there are few companies backed by corporates and run through proper management.  Parents are constantly looking at more than one way to enroll their kids in some activity class, so as to engage them into activities that can help them become better, healthier and active individuals. As parents now, not only wants the child to be properly educated, they also want the child to be developed with the best extracurricular activities. Activity Centres in Chembur play an important role in the development of the skills of the child, they help the child to horn their skills and showcase their talent.
Source? I saw that someone who shares the name Knopf is wealthy (posted in this thread), but are those actually his parents? Do you have proof of that? Or are you just guessing that since he's made it to an executive position and shares the name of someone wealthy, that those are his parents? Further, *if* those are his parents, how does wealth from publishing transferring into a job at a consumer staples company work? Why is your first assumption when you see someone successful that they had it handed to them? Why do you need to selectively choose a small subset of people (Silicon Valley startups) out of an already limited group (billionaires) to be able to even attempt to make your point?"
Well I'm not sure why someone with an EE degree would choose to work in IT anyways. I'd say neither degree is necessarily as important to IT as certifications and work experience, but I'd worry the EE holder would go find something better and more relevant.
In some stores that is done. When I shop at the Apple store or at the Farmers market the receipt is automatically sent to my email address. Why don't others do it? If the target of the itemized receipt is a credit card company they would be sending data that they spent collecting to another corporation. The grocery store is collecting your data so they can sell it to their vendors. They sell to vendors the info that Gen X shoppers that buy cat food are more likely to use brand X laundry detergent then Millennials. The credit card companies could gather even more Meta data that they could sell. Privacy. Some people don't join the reward program at the store because they don't want a company to know exactly what they buy. Even fewer would want the credit card company to have that information.  The credit card companies would have to want this level of data that would have to be stored, maintained, and protected.
Stocks go down and go back up, that's their nature... Why would you sell on a low point? Stocks are a long term investment. If the company is still healthy, it's very likely you'll be able to sell them with a profit if you wait long enough.
"Pay someone a fee to borrow their private Uber shares, then sell those private shares to someone else, then find someone else you can buy their private shares from for less than the net of the proceeds you made selling the borrowed shares you sold plus the fees you've paid to the first person and return your newly purchased shares back to the person you initially borrowed the shares from. On a serious note, Uber is private; there is no liquid public market for the shares so there is no mechanism to short the company.  The valuations you see might not even be legitimate because the company's financials are not public.  You could try to short a proxy for Uber but to my knowledge there is no public ""rideshare""/taxi service business similar enough to Uber to be a reasonably legitimate proxy."
And rich person is more likely not to choose subpar government services when they can choose something else. Meaning if the were allowed to opt out of this monopoly service provider they would. Meaning the only ones who want government services is those who want someone else to pay for it for them.
But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!
As someone who works on the sell side, I can tell you you're partially right.  Yes, we do make money off of trades (so just getting people to trade gets the company money) but we do try to be right.  We like to look at overall trends with growth projections and earnings estimates, and (as long as the analyst isn't a bad one) will try to get the right answer.  Often, we try to present different angles to the research and aren't afraid to go out on a limb--so that you'll read it. We like being right though.  The reason we like to be right and make people understand that we know what is going on is simple: a company won't respect research if it's bullshit.  And that goes for trading and buy side firms, but also from the companies involved in the research.  For an investment bank, a large chunk (often over 50%) of revenue comes from M&amp;A deals, and often a company will choose to do a deal with companies they know will give a good value-that come's from their first experience with the company-equity research.  So yes, we don't like to beat up on companies, but we do want to be right.    If the analyst has that bad a rate of success, he's probably pretty bad or you're looking at an industry where nobody saw some huge shift coming.  Edit: Oh, and analysts can't buy or sell any company in their sector (I think this is industry-wide, not just my firm)
This is so messed up. One would think that those who choose to farm organically would choose to do so morally. Yet, big business has bastardized the organic conversation. This is why small local organic farms and ranches are still, and will always be the more moral and confident choice for sustainably oriented consumers.
&gt; Most would prefer to go to the toy store so their children can try the bicycle or riding car and choose the one they like.  Precisely why brick and mortar stores are going out of business.  Hard for them to stay in business when people use them as Amazon's showroom floor to try stuff out before they ultimately buy it on Amazon due to better pricing and return policy.
We partnered with BarkBox, a popular pet toy and treat service, and our residents can choose it with their move-in gift. We have several different types of move-in gifts too such as the live healthier fitbit move-in gift, or an interior design option with an outside company called Laurel &amp; Wolf. Or they can choose their move-in gift to go to their pet, such as BarkBox
"Others have covered this pretty well, but as someone who once worked for the company that allows Stansberry to publish, let me confirm that their business is about getting you to buy into the financial worldview they promote so that they can sell you more and more ""newsletters"" and ""services"". Nothing else. It's a marketing company, and Stansberry is nothing more than a copywriter."
Who are the enforcers? That sounds like a government.  So we have to wait until someone gets murdered at a house before we then ostracize that house from society? That's seems horribly inefficient. A bad company could just change their address and name over and over to avoid being ostracized.   And how is a company's brand going to be hurt when it's private security company disputes every crime that company commits? Why should a company care about its brand so long as its making tons of money (think about Comcast, for example)?
... can someone explain to me why vanguard of all companies would be asking for this? If they're a company based on broad index funds, then whether or not exxon or Chevron or whoever else has climate change risk is irrelevant to that model, right?
&gt; yeah... thats a little hard to believe   Why? What's harder to believe is that Equifax *would* tell all their officers. The way to keep a secret is to tell no one, and Equifax desperately needed to keep it a secret while they investigated, applied bandaids, and thought up a moving-forward strategy. (I don't like how long they waited, but announcing it immediately would be even worse from a security standpoint.)  &gt; I dont think a single person buys that these guys all just decided to sell stock at the same time right before a story hits that will tank the value of the company  That's a very disengenuous account. They sold at different times, not immediately before the story hit, and officers of major companies sell shares all the time. It's the equivalent of me thinking it's suspicious that you put 10% of your credit line on your credit card *just one month* before someone stole your identity. People do use credit cards. One month before isn't that close. It might be fraud, but it's just not that clear. It's not even likely, given how small the amounts were.
Before, you just had to make cymbals - now, you have to make cheaper, better cymbals than a 400 year old cymbal manufacturer.    Oh, and you now have to get into musical instrument stores (who might have deals already in place allowing the other company to be their sole supplier of cymbals).  And, then, when you do find someone willing to sell your small line of cymbals, you have to compete with a company who mass-produces dozens and dozens of different lines (and who can offer the store owner much better discounts and freebies than you can)...  Ask Amazon Auctions what it's like to be a second mover...
Source, see if you have access to it Convertible notes are often used by angel investors who wish to fund businesses without establishing an explicit valuation of the company in which they are investing.    When an investor purchases equity in a startup, the purchase price of the equity implies a company valuation.  For example, if an investor purchases a 10 per cent ownership stake in a company, and pay $1m for that stake, this implies that the company is worth $10m. Some early stage investors may wish to avoid placing a value on the company in this way, because this in turn will affect the terms under which later-stage investors will invest in the company.  Convertible notes are structured as loans at the time the investment is made.  The outstanding balance of the loan is automatically converted to equity when a later equity investor appears, under terms that are governed by the terms set by the later-stage equity investor.  An equity investor is someone who purchases equity in a company. Example:- Suppose an angel investor invests $100,000 using a convertible note.  Later, an equity investor invests $1m and receives 10% of the company's shares.  In the simplest possible case, the initial angel investor's convertible note would convert to 1/10th of the equity investor's claim.  Depending on the exact structure of the convertible note, however, the angel investor may also receive extra shares to compensate them for the additional risk associated with being an earlier investor The worst-case scenario would be if the issuing company initially performed well, meaning that the debt would be converted into shares, and subsequently went bankrupt. The converted shares would become worthless, but the holder of the note would no longer have any recourse. Will twitter have to sell their offices and liquidate staff to close this debt? This depends on the seniority(priority) of the debt. Debt is serviced according to seniority. The higher seniority debts will be paid off first and then only the lower seniority debts be serviced. This will all be in the agreements when you enter into a transaction. When you say liquidate staff you mean sell off their assets and not sell their staff into slavery.
"&gt;However, they must be willing to accept it. If you attempt to pay them in USD, however, they can't refuse.  And this is precisely the problem.  People should be allowed to contract in whatever money they want to.  If someone changes his mind and says ""oh I want the dollar-equivalent instead of Francs"", that change shouldn't be honored.  Forcing people to accept dollars creates an artificial demand for dollars.  &gt;So why not start attempting to pay for things in semiconducters?  If people voluntarily choose to, what's the problem?"
This is what everyone said about music circa 1999, that the record labels would never agree to sell their songs online because it would devalue selling albums, and a bunch of archaic thinking etc... and then the iTunes store showed the industry a better way to distribute their content, conviced the labels to play along, and Apple is now the most profitable company in the world.   There's no reason this can't happen for TV, it's clearly heading there and the first person to do for TV what Apple did for music will make a fortune, hell it might even be Apple that does it, yet another reason why Apple stock is severly undervalued right now
"I think the best advice you could get would be to find a lawyer. If that foreign company has any presence in the US, they should be the ones signing off as the successor, otherwise you may find yourself in a limbo that would require some legal assistance. Generally, in most States a Corporation cannot be dissolved without resolving issues like this, which is probably why they told you ""the plan is terminating"". Someone asked them to terminate it. You need to find that someone."
So in your screenshot, someone or some group of someones is willing to buy 3,000 shares at $3.45, and someone or some group of someones is willing to sell 2,000 shares at 3.88. Without getting in to the specific mechanics, you can place a market buy order for 10 (or whatever number) shares and it will probably transact at $3.88 per share because that's the lowest price for which someone will currently sell their shares. As a small fish, you can generally ignore the volume notations in the bid/ask quotes.
&gt;I was referring to earlier whose large legal department said we were legally safe to hire only christian salesmen and board members.   Safe until someone decides to challenge them with a lawsuit.  Which they may or may not win.  But Title VII is pretty thin legal protection for an insurance company given that they, as you noted, primarily sell insurance.  I would think much of the safety comes from economic incentives, or the lack there of for a non-christian salesman.  Assuming they are operating in their own interest, no salesman who earns off of commission would want a handicap right out of the gate when dealing with christian customers.
Friend, there is a difference between following the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.  Because something is legal doesn't make it the ethical choice.  If I'm walking behind someone and they happen to drop a $100 bill without noticing, I can certainly pick it up and put it in my pocket legally, but its hardly the moral thing to do.    Taken to the extreme, if it was legal to buy and sell slaves, I still wouldn't do it even if it provided a monetary benefit.  Or, if I drove by a person dying and bleeding on the street, it would be legal for me to drive home and do nothing (I think...not so sure as I write it).  While I agree with you that tax laws are at fault, its reprehensible to me that corporations making huge profits using the infrastructure of the region choose tax avoidance as opposed to doing what is not only right, but better in the long run for all parties.  Keep in mind that these favorable tax laws were lobbied by corporations with the intent to avoid taxes in mind.  I fully respect your perspective and you're entitled to make choices based on whether they are legal or not, but I choose to live life differently.  Best of luck.
"An ideal option for you would be to use as many or as few as you choose, but have all of them available to you. The service desk guy told you you can do exactly that. Problem, though: you have no proof that a representative of the company told you that. Get proof. Recording, written statement, whatever. If writing a letter, make it clear you expect a response. The time you spend ""being a good guy"" is not free, you should get something for it. No idea how to go about that - mentioning the service desk guy in a letter might give him trouble. Maybe suggest that you could allow your image to be used in a short advertising campaign, as thanks. But whatever you do get, enjoy it. Consequences? Any number of things can happen, from lifetime free meals to court cases, negative points and being banned, regardless of who is right, legally or morally. Someone in Management there might still choose to burden you with responsibility even if their own CEO declared you a saint and lifetime customer of honor. But you might never get to that bridge. For now, get proof, and use what points you know are yours anyway."
But sexual orientation is not a protected class in Mississippi as well as the majority of states...Again I do not agree with it but these people truly think it is a choice and is against their religion. I think it should hurt their business to make a choice to be bigoted, but why is it ok if reddit praises PayPal to do the same thing for something they believe in. It is the same case on opposite sides of the coin and should be treated the same. If you give them that kind of power because it aligns with your thoughts then you shouldn't be surprised when someone else uses the power against your alignments, ie, Bigoted ms businesses. You cannot have it both ways, either you can choose whom you do business with, or you can't.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:  - [/r/bestof] [\/u\/rawketscience explains why people choose to go to Applebee's.](https://np.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/6tftwb/urawketscience_explains_why_people_choose_to_go/)  [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*  [](#bot)
"&gt;The homeless should stand in lines,   This would only artificially create LONGER lines, and LONGER wait times.  &gt;then sell their spot in line to others who need it.  In order to give the ILLUSION of being able to ""jump"" to the front of the line.  Basically you have recreated (yet another fraudulent) ""frontrunning"" system.   *Granted that wouldn't apply to renewing a passport, but to just about everything else.* **Why not just HIRE someone to do your errands for you** *if you are so overflowing with extra cash? Heck you could then have your ""personal servant"" do a lot of other things for you as well -- iron your pants, draw your bath, wipe your arse, etc.  A Jeeves for your Wooster.*"
Although it seems almost no one here understands that you're advocating for personal liberty rather than discrimination, I just want to say that you're not alone in feeling the way you do.  I personally would choose not to patronize a business that carried out its affairs in such a way, but I would also fight to protect their right to be able to operate their private property (lol like that exists anymore) in the way they choose and see fit.  I disagree with the civil rights act protections applying to private businesses and property.
&gt;I say better to distribute cash to the shareholders who can then choose for themselves whether to reinvest it in the company or elsewhere.  Why shouldn't Apple (which I agree with you is butchering its shareholder's returns) reinvest the money in the company or in other ventures that produce returns for shareholders?  My argument was simply that dividends diminish the earnings potential of firms' future cash flows. Now, if they are unable to find or invest in positive NPV projects, then I would agree a dividend payment is the best route to go.  However, I find that highly suspect for firms like Apple, Microsoft and GE. They may not be able sustain double-digit growth rates, but given strong balance sheets and cost of capital, they surely should be able to find positive NPV projects that would contribute more gains for shareholders than stocks, which have been struggling for momentum.   The only reason to invest in a company like GE these days is for the dividend cash flow, rather than the company's earnings and future growth prospects. That seems sad to me. But, hey, what do I know?
Eh, Five Guys just isn't that good.  Of course it is better than places like McDonalds and I haven't stepped foot in a McDonalds in at least 10 years. But why would I go to Five Guys when I can choose from at least 10 other burger joints in my area that make a much better burger for the same price or cheaper.  If anything Five Guys appeals to the people that don't know what they want and have been going to McDonalds their whole lives.
Ask your accountant about convertable preference shares.  This would permit you to loan money to your company and then convert the debt to equity, should you so choose, at a later stage.  As with the answer by bstpierre, these are all contractual arrangements conducted at arms-length.
"Being ""long"" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process:  1) buy 2) sell Being ""short"" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process:  1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)"
&gt;Currency has value because it can be used to pay taxes.  It would be very hard to do something such as sell a car without currency. You would have to find someone who not only wanted your car, but who had enough stuff that was directly useful to you, that they could trade for the full value of your car. Like, you can't sell one car to a bunch of people who have smaller things that you want, you can only sell it to an individual who has exactly that collection of stuff that you want.
Their argument is mostly nonsense. Take someone like Tim Cook, CEO of Apple. He has a not very large salary, and makes a lot more money through stock bonuses. You would never, ever expect him to buy Apple shares. And assuming that he doesn't want to end up one day as the richest man in the cemetery, you would expect him to sell significant numbers of shares, independent on whether he expects Apple to go up or down.
"Why would there not be a bid and ask?  Dealers make their money in the spread between what they buy it from one entity for and what they sell it to another entity for.  This doesn't mean they have to do it auction-style, but they'll still have a different buy price from a sell price, hence ""bid"" and ""ask""."
And I don't blame them for doing so. They get bonuses based on the bottom line and stock price, why not pump it as much as they can then when it starts to fall apart just go to another overpaid CEO position with another company start again, meanwhile someone else is more than willing to take the current overpaid CEO job and try to rescue/rebuild. Nowadays most CEO's didn't start the company they are at so they don't feel as attached as they should. Knowing this the only thing we can do make ourselves invaluable to the company so they have to give you more or go someplace that will.