vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Generally, anyone can. Selling them is an interesting point, as the buyer has a counterparty risk that you won't be able to pay at the term of the contract. So, if I was a vendor buying a derivative in my example, I would definitely get that derivative from a bank as opposed to my friend Jim Bob. Especially in cases of bespoke derivatives, it doesn't make sense for anyone except people who have material interest to by it, as the expectation value of the hedge is negative. Essentially, you're more likely to lose money than gain money from a hedge. The exception is when you have information above that of the market, which could allow for a positive return. That is the reason that people advocate for derivatives as mechanisms of price discovery, because large imbalances aren't likely to form when someone could arbitrage or even just take positions when the market goes out of whack. That only really works in publically traded markets, however, bespoke derivatives don't really contribute to better pricing afaik.  Of course, that's the simple explanation to a huge, complex, and varied field. Certainly, speculators exist, particularly in the more commoditized derivatives. Especially in the leadup to the financial crisis, large amounts were spent on exotic derivatives that blew up in people's faces. The easiest thing to say about them is that they are double edged swords. In theory, they're fantastic, as it allows risk to be spread around to people that want it. It should lead to a safer system, as hedged comapnies are less exposed to shocks and are more resilient. But in practice, we've alao seen them used as risk concentrators (AIG). We've seen cases where correlations arise that weren't assumed before, and what used to be manageable positions become lead weights. We've seen the dangers that large systemically important financial institutions have when they are a counterparty to tens of trillions in notional derivatives, as when they fail the risk of failure is over every derivative they are counterparty to, not just the hedged exposure.   Sorry, this is more than you asked for. I tend to get carried away.
I don't know why this is news, it's been possible for quite a while.  A layer 7 firewall which filters certain types of traffic going outbound from the wireless guest network.  A block page upon filtering that contains approved links for which the user can shop.  A DNS proxy or even just the DHCP option to point the wireless network at the internal DNS of the store would point any name that the store wanted at its own domains.  The average user doesn't know enough to not accept that infamous security warning indicating a non-matching certificate to domain name matching.  And that only assumes the user goes to an https connection.  If the company really wants to release themselves of any responsibility or liability, to get on the network they could require the user to accept and acceptable use policy which states, among other things, use of the wifi is at the sole discretion of the store as they are providing a free service.         Really not hard.
NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico. Most of these losses came in California, Texas, Michigan, and other states where manufacturing is concentrated. To be sure, there were some job gains along the border in service and retail sectors resulting from increased trucking activity, but these gains are small in relation to the loses, and are in lower paying occupations. The vast majority of workers who lost jobs from NAFTA suffered a permanent loss of income.  Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits. As soon as NAFTA became law, corporate managers began telling their workers that their companies intended to move to Mexico unless the workers lowered the cost of their labor. In the midst of collective bargaining negotiations with unions, some companies would even start loading machinery into trucks that they said were bound for Mexico. The same threats were used to fight union organizing efforts. The message was: “If you vote in a union, we will move south of the border.” With NAFTA, corporations also could more easily blackmail local governments into giving them tax reductions and other subsidies.  Third, the destructive effect of NAFTA on the Mexican agricultural and small business sectors dislocated several million Mexican workers and their families, and was a major cause in the dramatic increase in undocumented workers flowing into the U.S. labor market. This put further downward pressure on U.S. wages, especially in the already lower paying market for less skilled labor.  Fourth, and ultimately most important, NAFTA was the template for rules of the emerging global economy, in which the benefits would flow to capital and the costs to labor. The U.S. governing class—in alliance with the financial elites of its trading partners—applied NAFTA’s principles to the World Trade Organization, to the policies of the World Bank and IMF, and to the deal under which employers of China’s huge supply of low-wage workers were allowed access to U.S. markets in exchange for allowing American multinational corporations the right to invest there.  Please thank Bill Clinton.
OK, VERY glad you get that idea!  The problem with the ETF is: it's the monkeys-throwing-darts method. If the average (dollar-weighted) member stock in the ETF goes up, you win, but if half of them go under, and half succeed, over some time periods you will lose (and win over others).  I guess my POV is: if you can't do serious research into the expected success of an individual company, maybe it's too risky to even try betting on the whole group. YMMV. The problem with your investment plan is: you are depending on luck, and the assumption the group will increase in value over your investment period. I prefer research over hope.
&gt;During WWII the US government socialized many factories to support the war effort. They took statistics nerds and gave them factories to run. After the war the nerds were offered jobs in the census. Some of them went to other countries to help rebuild instead. There are statues to some of them because they helped Japan become a leading economy in relatively short order.   China is full of nerds. Their maths olympiad's teams are now all but totally dominant and they are kicking the asses of developed countries in PISA tests. My father was a physics professor - whenever he speaks to colleagues in the states they all tell him their best new talent is from the PRC.   &gt;China doesn't have that focus. They succeed out of sheer numbers. Not by refining process. That would require investing in their workforce too much and cheep disposable labor is the way they compete.   I guess that's why they send so many of their best and brightest overseas to study, or why spending such a huge amount of money on education domestically?
They are not? McKesson basically holds independent pharmacies who do business with them at gun point. Contracts are structured in such a way which states a pharmacy must spend 90 - 95% of their monthly drug expenses on McKesson. Meaning, they are free to inflate the prices as much as they want and the pharmacies can't do anything about it as they are contractually obligated to buy from them.  Furthermore, the savings incentives they offer independent pharmacies are through rebate spend, and they introduce really convoluted rebates. Further masking their actual price for cost of goods and also discouraging spending outside their website. Often the pharmacist does not have the time to keep track of what is on rebate and shopping around may put them in serious risk of loosing out on money or fines.  You may wonder why pharmacies sign such unfavorable contracts. The answer is there aren't many players in the industry who can provide all the drugs required to run a pharmacy. The much cheaper alternate suppliers do not have the inventory and drug selection. A pharmacy can shop around, and there are some that do, but the vast majority do not have the manpower to do so. I will state, I am no pharmacist, but being around pharmacy owners, they blame the wholesalers for how corrupt the system is.
In reality, what happened is that people who never had health insurance before were forced to get it, and started to realize how expensive it is when it actually covers what it was intended to cover - preventative care as well as emergent care. The GOP has been on a steady march to undermine the new law as much as possible since it passed, because it made some of their biggest donors (HMOs, and Health Care Insurance providers) uncomfortable the fact that they HAD to share their cost information, and that the health care exchange required them to do a line item by line item comparison with other companies out there. So, here we are. The ACA is going to be cut, and millions of people are going back to be uninsured or underinsured. What you are going to see is the rate of costs growth start to increase again after decades of slowly decreasing rates. Why? Because of the renewed ability of insurance providers to hide the costs, to hide costs increases. It will also cause hospitals to greatly overcharge the uninsured, as they were doing before, but there will be many more of them. The goal being, that the uninsured are unlikely to pay for the (very large) medical bills. So, knowing this, hospitals artificially inflate the bill in the hopes of getting a larger portion of that unpaid bill liquidated through Medicare. Uninsured populations also lead to more unhealthy people. You would think that not having health insurance would make people want to remain more healthy. However, studies show [the opposite to be true](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2011/07/does_health_coverage_make_people_healthier.html). In actuality, people stress more about their health, and avoid periodic checkups. Both of which lead to bad health results.
"Ah, gotcha.  That would be moving the country towards a more socialistic or communistic system where the government controls more of the means of production.  I think there would be a problem. Successful companies need to be disruptive and the larger you are the harder it is to try a different approach. I think if the government did try to offer a competing product, the beauracracy would weigh down the offering.  The only way the government could be assured a profitable business is to compete unfairly.  Consider one of the big government companies, the Post Office.  UPS has always been seen as the higher-quality delivery serive. Overnight shipping was considered impossible until FedEx did it. Even today the USPS is in serious financial trouble even though it is granted a monopoly on letter delivery (it is illegal for UPS and FedEx to deliver letters). The Post Office is too inefficient to make money on package delivery so they subsidize that side of their business selling stamps.  &gt; so we could abolish income tax and lower taxes over all  IMO, the taxes will be paid one way or another. If you cut income tax then it will be replaced with a payroll tax, or sales tax, or property tax, or tariff, or passed to you in the form of higher prices. The only question is the definition of a person or group's ""fair share""."
So you have to go four, five months with these people living in your property but not paying any rent. On top of that, some tenants do serious damage to the property. It's not theirs: they don't have much incentive to take care of it. If you evict someone, they may deliberately trash the place out of spite. One tenant I had to evict did over $13,000 in damage. So I'm not saying, don't rent the place out. What I am saying is, be sure to include all your real costs in your calculation. Think of all the things that could go wrong as well as all the things that could go right."
In the Rocky Mounttain, for security purpose, it is important to check all the baggage. It is also important to find the best escape routes in case of any emergency, look for the two nearest emergency exits. Static Balancing of aircraft is also very much important as having extra baggage and extra weight can able to create many problems for the aircraft. It sometime also happens that while carrying extra luggage can lead to have some unconditional accidents while landing or take off of the aircraft. For doing the deice form the surface of the aircraft a machine is used for spraying the chemical and  the machine works very fine to remove the ice from the surface of the aircraft. For further more information about Aeroprop, visit to our website.
You understand that inhalation/smoking isn't the only route of administration for THC (active drug in pot), right? Pseudo-Pharmaceutical grade cannabinoid extractions are already used as medication for those with excruciating GI issues, glaucoma and seizure disorders.   The only reason smoking the buds is the preferred method of consumption is because it's the base form and easy to come by. It's (typically) too expensive for one to refine the drug themselves, too risky legally or too dangerous without a controlled laboratory setting. Due to the length of its illegality, extensive research is prohibited to even determine what benefits it could even have in these forms.   You have no idea what therapeutic dosing or high grade cannabinoids could even do because no one is allowed to do it. Especially not doctors trying to keep their medical licenses.   Also I disagree that the benefits of opioids outweigh the side effects. That's why we're having the opioid crisis in the first place. Highly addictive and can lead to overdose. While there is no single case of THC overdose.   (Forensic drug chemist here, not talking out my ass)
"So the ""Win state"" for the America is that Trump made up a nick name. I really don't think Trump is going to win that game because the come backs could range from Retard to PePe to OrangeMan and they are all good and true and hit home hard in the way that makes America cringe.  Unfortunately the truth is its is more a sign of American impotence and frustration as its power and influence wane and the world has stopped responding to the baby talk that led us into the Iraq war and Afghanistan. Now only America responds to the baby talk and the world looks on in wonder as if the Chinese did actually manage to contaminate our diet with excess lead.  There is nothing that anyone is going to do about North Korea, there is no solution except to accept another member into the nuclear club, and hope others don't rapidly follow suit. The more aggressive and abrasive the US acts, the more the motivation for others to do the same.  There will be a price to pay for the name calling and it will last a lot longer that the orange baboons antics in front of un-amused world leaders."
Tax cuts do lead to economic growth, and why not?  More money circulating in the private economy is good for everybody.  It’s why the stock market is up big on the prospect for tax cuts.  The problem is the rosy growth projections that accompany these plans.  The growth will occur, but the pace of growth is a big question and very hard to model.  So a prudent policy proposal would be to cut spending as well while the growth materializes.  Then (hopefully) that spending cut becomes permanent as the economy grows so the private economy grows at the expense of the state.
Summarized article: The London-based investment bank Barclays Bank has agreed to pay penalties of $450 million to settle charges it attempted to manipulate key benchmark interest rates.   The settlement is with the US Department of Justice, the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the British Financial Services Authority (FSA).   Investigators found that Barclays manipulated the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) which measures how much banks will charge each other for loans, and in turn, affects the cost of loans and mortgages to consumers.   Between 2005 and 2009, Barclays staff would base its estimates for the Libor on the requests of its derivatives traders, who wanted to manipulate the rate to benefit their trading positions. The traders would ask their Barclays colleagues to adjust their rate estimates up or down to post a profit for the bank.  The FSA said that Barclays appeared to have a wide acceptance of its derivatives traders lobbying its colleagues and found evidence through a trail of emails and instant messages.   Barclays has admitted its actions fell short of industry standards but it is unclear if there was any impact to consumers.   The FSA is investigating several major banks for similar violations.  * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit
The end point of autonomous cars is not to own one at all. Why would you have a $35,000 hunk of metal sitting in a car park 90% of the day, when you could just subscribe to an automated car service?  Even cheaper than that, an automated minibus service that auto-generates routes based on demand?  The only reason we don't do it already is because of the relatively high price of an Uber with a human driver, and the lack of privacy from having a human driver in there with you.
The bugs have them utterly baffled, and using skype is a disaster, since they can no longer figure out how to quickly tell skype to use the in-system microphone and webcam for the 13th time this month when receiving a call (like they used to be able to do--never mind that skype continually forgets these settings, as usual). They also have to create some pointless Microsoft account to use the software/hardware they just purchased. Why? People aren't interested in being a card-carrying member of the Mickey Mouse Club anymore--so why *require* it of them? They generally need to get something productive done, and all this bullshit stands in their way. Three separated versions of email--that aren't connected at all behind the scenes--is a recipe for confusion. Another part of my business is industrial design, and with that, the creation of productive, comfortable interfaces. Here's my secret--good interface design really isn't that difficult--you just need to listen to what the users want. Bam! Now even Microsoft can turn things around.
Actually, they wouldn't get arrested. They could probably get away with doing it a lot of the time if the job isn't one where the public visits, as inspectors only come around infrequently. As long as they have someone designated to run ahead and unlock the exit before the inspector sees it, they wouldn't even get caught most probably. Even if they did get caught, the company would just get a fine and a re-inspection. They'd probably even notify the company when the next inspection is coming ahead of time so that they'd have an even easier time of hiding it. At least this has been my experience of things like this.  Edit to add:  I have no experience of unions myself. Some of my relatives have / do work in unionized shops. Overall their experience has been fair to good. An interesting point relating to the union argument: It was pointed out when they had the protests over the teacher unions that teachers in states where there are unions cost the states a good percentage more. As in their pay rate is higher, and their benefits are better. So the argument of the states as a reason for banning collective bargaining for teachers / public employees is that they'll be able to pay them less because they'll have less recourse.
The guy five blocks down has a completely different pool of competing stations. Population Distribution: With a lot of people in a particular area, there's a big ""pie"" of customer dollars for C-stores to compete for. This generally leads to increased prices because the stations don't have to be AS cutthroat; regardless of how good your price is, you have only so many pumps, and at some point people will pay more to use the open pump than wait for the cheaper one. The reverse is true in rural areas; with only two stations in an entire small town, those two stations will become extremely cutthroat. However, rural prices also vary more; with only one station in easy walking distance from where you ran out of gas, they can charge you $6 to fill that gallon gas can if they want, and you'll pay it because the next gas station's another 20 miles down the road and probably has even higher prices. This, along with overhead, is generally why the Rockies states have the lowest average prices; land's cheap and people are scarce in Wyoming. But, the ""price-gouging"" can be seen in the rural Southwest, where there's a LOT of ground to cover between gas stations, and so the ""last chance gas"" along major highways just outside of town, each a nickel to a dime more than the previous station, is a common stereotype. Transportation costs: Prices are higher on the East and West Coasts than in the Gulf States for a very simple reason; the bulk of the U.S. refinery capacity is along the Gulf Coast between Galveston and the Florida border. The further you are from there, the more it costs to get the fuel from the refinery to the gas station, and that cost is reflected at the pump. In fact, the East Coast imports gasoline by tanker even though the United States is now a net exporter of gasoline, because it's cheaper to buy it from foreign sources than it would be to watch it drip through the limited pipeline capacity that exists between the Gulf states and the Eastern Seaboard."
"ASSUMING you're talking about a property in the United States, the answer generally would be ""no"".  You aren't actually paying any of the expenses for the property and yet you want to take the deductions for doing so?  That's a rather cheeky move, I'd say! (grin)   It probably would lead to some real strife with your brother, since he would have proper claim to those credit on the basis he's the one footing the bills for the property.  Before you do anything like what you're talking about, it might be best to speak with him, because both of you are running the very real risk of an audit, and if that happens then I can guarantee the IRS will slap the daylights out of you for it.  Your brother, I'm sure, is already claiming all of the deductions he can for what he's putting into the property, and on top of that you want to file for your half.  What half are you referring to, when your out-of-pocket is zero?  So what you're saying is, you think that between you and your brother you should be able to take a credit of 150% of the actual deductions...Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I strongly encourage you to talk to a tax professional, but if you get a different answer to this than what I've already given then I'd be stunned.   I hope this helps. Good luck!"