vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Then of course he had to hang around while the water heated up to make sure that was all it was. It cost me, umm, I think $170 to have someone turn that knob. (But I probably saved over $15 on the gas bill by turning it down for the couple of months the place was empty!) Two: What happens when you get a bad tenant? Here in the U.S., theoretically you only have to give 3 days notice to evict a tenant who damages the property or fails to pay the rent. But in practice, they don't leave. Then you have to go to court to get the police to throw them out. When you contact the court, they will schedule a hearing in a month or two. If your case is clear cut -- like the tenant hasn't paid the rent for two months or more -- you will win easily. Both times I've had to do this the tenant didn't even bother to show up so I won by default. So then you have a piece of paper saying the court orders them to leave. You have to wait another month or two for the police to get around to actually going to the unit and ordering them out. So say a tenant fails to pay the rent. In real life you're probably not going to evict someone for being a day or two late, but let's say you're pretty hard-nosed about it and start eviction proceedings when they're a month late. There's at least another two or three months before they're actually going to be out of the place. Of course once you send them an eviction notice they're not going to pay the rent any more. 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.
"Not the OP, and personally I loved the Aptera design. But every time I tried to discuss it online, the Aptera fans were drowned out by people who wanted an EV that looked like a ""real car"" and not a ""sperm on wheels""."
"This is a very disingenuous argument.  The tax subsidies for electric cars aren't for Tesla.  They are for the development of an electric car industry in the United States, hopefully comprising many different car manufacturers, not just Tesla.  It's very convenient to take the tax subsidies for a decade, establish your business, then say ""Well, we don't need these anymore so therefore nobody should have them.""  It would be a massive institutional hurdle for a competitor to start-up under those circumstances, significantly increasing start-up costs.  I'll cede that perhaps the subsidies can be used as advertisements against his company by traditional car companies, but the competitive advantage Tesla would have by reduced competition by ending the subsidies would grossly outweigh that (something Musk conveniently omits).  The subsidies should remain in place until there is at least one significant competitor to Tesla in electric car production (and preferably several).  It's not about one company.  It's about an industry."
So if for some reason you decided today that you only need three red shirts instead of four, this might not have any immediate impact on your buying. It could be months before you would have bought a new red shirt anyway. There is a tendency for the market to react rather slowly to changes in demand for shirts. But with energy, if you decide you only need to burn 3 gallons of gas per week instead of 4, your consumption goes down immediately, within days. Three, really adding to number two, energy is highly perishable, especially some forms of energy. If a solar power station is capable of producing 10 megawatts but today there is only demand for 9 megawatts, you can't save the unused megawatt for some future time when demand is higher. It's gone. (You can charge a battery with it, but that's pretty limited.) You can pile up coal or store natural gas in a tank until you need it, but you can't save the output of a power plant. Note numbers two and three also apply to food, which is why food production is also very volatile.
Let us look at some real life scenarios where we use batteries. In the energy field, you might be having an off-grid system, and you require several batteries to power it up constantly. An energy off grid system requires some batteries to run, but when most batteries start losing their power, thinking about the cost of replacing the number of batteries can make you brain dead.  https://howtoreconditionoldbatteries.com/ez-battery-reconditioning-review/
Even for your cross country trip, you will have super charging gas stations; or, the Tesla battery swap.  In other words, your stop to refuel would be no longer than 2-20 minutes (depending on the method).  Which isn't too bad if you're going cross country.
Interesting read. If that is true then residential neighborhoods are about to become a HOT investment in RE. If millennials do move out then this also could delay a subprime auto loan mini recession.  Edit: transportation into cities would increase and we haven't quite moved into the electric car market so this is a positive read for those in auto
This only applies to owners that bought the S60 models. To save money, Tesla installed the same size battery pack in both the S60 and S75 and limited the range on the S60 through software.  The S60 is cheaper than the S75 for that reason. At anytime, you can pay the difference to unlock your S60 to the range of an S75.
Pseudo scientific bullflop.  Notice a lot of the expenses are for catalytic conversion.  This whole article assumes the rise of the electric car, which will cease when true competition arises after Trump kills the welfare scam of the hybrid car cash give away credit .    If a hybrid car is the clear victor off the battle with oil then it will survive without the generous government subsidy.  But they can't, so they won't.
Jeff Bezos hasn't really made much money in Amazon. His goal was for Amazon to achieve a critical mass through economies of scale so hey kept building up his business instead of cashing out.  Musk is doing the same with infrastructure. He's not just trying to create an electric car. That is a means to an end. His vision is to change transportation infrastructure by switching from fossil fuels to electric. This includes charging stations, battery technology, and energy harvesting (solar).  All his projects are somehow transportation related. The Hyperloop, Boring Project, SpaceX, Tesla.
"More costs are going to be put on the consumer. But that is something that would happen all the time. Originally those systems were not built with the expectation that average life expectancy would jump from almost a factor of a third (60 to 80 years, if you wonder why the age of retirement is 65 and not more or less, check out Bismark and Kaiser Wilhelm on that subject). Additionally, the current age population pyramid of the west (and asian soon to come) is put an increasing pressure on the cost of healthcare.  Now, to me the biggest issue with the US is the belief that market driven economies will always lower prices. The problem is that the insurance companies in this country form an oligopoly with the goal to make profits. Now, here is the important question: is healthcare a ""need"" or a ""want""? If it is a ""want"" then someone can live without it but if you have an accident or anything of that type, then is it still a ""want"" or a ""need"". You can live without TV all your life and nothing bad may happen to you. No healthcare and then you can get screwed for your life.  Because people will feel compelled to save themselves and be brought to the hospital, those who can afford it or need it will pay for it. Thus you have an automatic pressure on prices as it is used by a smaller pool of people than if everyone in the country was paying for it independent of income. And because the people buying health insurance feel they need to have insurance, their price elasticity of demand will become inelastic (the price may change a lot but the amount of demand won't change much). So, if i'm a private insurance company, I will charge as much as I can because I know that people will be willing to pay more for  the same healthcare cost.   The European system will simply be a cheaper option than the US because it concentrates a larger pool of payers and is not aimed at profits. Additionally, if there were quality issues in the healthcare provided this would have been seen long ago if you compare the amount of money spent in the US and Europe on healthcare. In Europe the cost of healthcare is theoretically only the government spending. In the US it is both gvt and private spending.    Tell me what you think"
I guess I was getting at a few things - distributed solar power now is cheaper than utility grid-based power for at least 1/3 of US homes and that ability to lower energy prices is continuing to grow. Electric Vehicles will soon be cheaper and more compelling than gas-powered alternatives. Other forms of electric transport will come over the next 10+ years.  Significant change is coming in electrical production, transmission, and consumption. Climate change is not a hoax and labeling it as such very clearly reflects the lack of any sort of education on the issue. Therefore, yes, my response was emotional.
"Not ""these"" batteries, they will still be using a mixture of solar, wind, gas and oil, nuclear and coal. Maybe a generation or two, but definitely not these batteries.  I honestly don't care how cheap these things get, until we have an infrastructure to support it,  we will be struggling."
"The problem above is actually a pretty good list of the concerns around life insurance.  While there is no correct answer to the question as posed, this will vary among different WSCs, there is a simpler way to think about insurance in general that may make finding what is right answer for you easier. Buying life insurance, like almost all insurance, is on average a money losing purchase.  This is simply because the companies selling wouldn't offer it if they couldn't expect to make money on it.  Think about buying insurance (a warranty) on a new cell phone, maybe if you are particularly prone to damaging cell phones it can be in your favor, but for most of the people that buy it will lose money on average. People, of course, still buy insurance anyway to protect themselves from unlikely but very bad consequences.  The big reason to make this trade off is if the loss will have big lasting consequences.  To stay with our cell phone example having to replace a cell phone, at least for me, would be annoying but not a catastrophic event.  For myself, the protection is not worth the warranty cost, but that is not true for everyone. Life insurance is a pretty extreme case of this, but I find the best question to ask is ""if you (you and your spouse) were to die will your dependents lives become so much worse that you really dislike the idea of not being insured?"" For some working seniors, they already have enough saved to bridge their kids/spouse to adulthood/old-age that insurance makes no sense.  For some, their children/husband/wife would be destitute and insurance is an obvious choice and an easy price to pay even if it is very high.  The example you suggest seems on the border and good questions to ask are: Thinking about those questions may help you understand if the protection offers is worth the cost."
I don't know what it takes to ""evict"" someone from a parking space. Scenario 2: You expect to collect rent on this space for some period of time, and then someday sell it. In that case, there's an additional piece of information you need: How much can you expect to get for this property when you sell it? This is almost surely highly speculative. But you could certainly look at past pricing trends. If you see that the value of a parking space in your area has been going up by, whatever, say 4% per year for the past 20 years, it's reasonable to plan on the assumption that this trend will continue. If it's been up and down and all over the place, you could be taking a real gamble. If you pay $30,000 for it today and when the time comes to sell the best you can get is $15,000, that's not so good. But if there is some reasonable consistent average rate of growth in value, you can add this to the expected rents. Like if you can expect it to grow in value by $1000 per year, then the return on your investment is the $1600 in rent plus $1000 in capital growth equals $2600. Then again do an ROI calculation based on potential returns from other investments."
You are the one who insisted Panasonic was putting up a billion dollars, which is a lie. &gt; Panasonic, you see, is a rather conservative Japanese company. This is even mentioned in your article when they talk about plasma displays. This is why they are always measured in their public statements, because that's what Japanese companies do. But, as specified in the call, Panasonic's actions as a partner to Tesla have always been excellent. And if you actually bothered to read your own article, you would see that they've committed to 2 billion cells and 200-300 million for the factory. You know, an ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANY. So tell me when they put up a dollar. &gt; And if you actually bothered to read any other article, you would see that that very same quote of yours was followed up with ""However, Tesla is a very important partner to us and discussions are continuing. We need to look very carefully at auto demand and respond appropriately so of course that means taking a step-by-step approach to investment."" Yes, that is the polite thing anyone would say. &gt; Also, there have been rumors of talks with LG and Samsung should Panasonic not decide to partner. I'm not sure I believe the rumors, and also I think they're unnecessary, because Panasonic will be a full partner in the gigafactory. They know that Tesla has been a huge source of profit for them, and their automotive supply (i.e. Tesla) has been one of the best-performing parts of their company for some time now. Mark my words, Panasonic's investment will end up being approximately $1 billion, all told. You can come back in a few years and check, if you like. We'll see. &gt; You mean, like an ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANY? The ones putting up the money? They haven't put up any money. &gt; So, since your point was so reliant on ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES having expertise and specialization and so on, does that mean you're now dropping that point, because you realized your bullshit wouldn't fly, and moving on to another sort of bullshit until one of them sticks?
"Probably because so many of the BMW douchebase moved into Teslas. Around here you're more likely to get cut off by some douche in a Tesla than a BMW anymore. Seems like Tesla must have offered the battery saving ""blinkerless"" option too."
I have always liked HTC phones and don't mind Sense, but they really blew it with the One X / Evo 4g LTE. Performance is horrible because of poor memory management. It performs worse than the Evo 3D it was replacing. It will be my third and last HTC phone. Samsung got it right putting in 2GB of RAM on the GS3.
As you said, the next generation will be cheaper and more efficient. Same for the generation after that. From a financial standpoint, there isn't a steadfast theory that supports when to buy the technology. It comes down to primarily personal issues.  As far as I know, Musk's claims about the cost were relating to a traditional slate roof, not a traditional asphalt shingle roof. I can't recall if he explicitly said one way or the other, but I have yet to see any math that supports a comparison to asphalt shingles. If you look at all of the demos and marketing material, it's comparisons to various styles of tile roofing, which is already more expensive than asphalt shingles.  Do you feel it's worth it to invest now, or do you think it would be more worth it to invest later when the costs are lower? A new roof will last 10-20 years (if not longer...I'm not a roof expert). Do you need a new roof yet? Are your electricity bills high enough that the cost of going solar will offset it enough? Can you sell unused power back to your power company? I could go on, but I think you get the point. It's entirely a personal decision, and not one that will have a definitive answer. If you keep waiting to make a purchase because you're worried that the next generation will be cheaper and more efficient, then you're never going to make the purchase.
I am from Santa Cruz. McDonalds closed over 5 years ago.  It was hugely popular here, probably the most popular Hamburger place. The problem was the guy who brought the franchise, promised a much higher volume of sales. These figures were unrealistic for Bolivia and the Headquarters cut the chain.  However, such is the demand, that there are talks about McDonalds being back next year.  EDIT: I don't get why the article makes it seem as this happened quite recently. McDonalds has been closed for some time, before Evo was in power even.   I'd also like to add that at the time McDonald's hamburgers while extremely popular were overpriced for the Bolivian market. However, due to inflation and all the drug money rolling around now days, it would certainly be competitively priced and hugely successful.   EDIT 2: Here is an article dating McDonalds closing in November of 2002, so nearly 10 years ago. http://www.eldeber.com.bo/anteriores/20030308/economia_9.html
I also worked at a place like that, and it *was* very distracting. When an EVP comes to your desk and needs something done and you're lower level, that's A Priority, but if you have other priorities that are on deadline from your more immediate boss, then you're scrambling.. it gets old.  I was pretty good at it as a lower level employee, but it starts to wear you out and for some people creates resentment. As I moved up to manage others, I tried to shield them from that while also not inhibiting communication. It's a tough balance.
Given the global warming and pollution issues associated with burning fossil fuels and generating huge amounts of plastic, yes. It's much better than oil.   Battery tech is improving rapidly. Ceramics are becoming viable options in some cases. It's going to be a very interesting 10 years.
That's money they would rather be loaning out at interest to someone else, so this represents lost income. Foreclosing a mortgage is a fairly complicated procedure. The bank has to pay its staff, including lawyers, for a significant number of hours to get the foreclosure done. There will be court filing fees and so on. If you refuse to leave, they may have to get the sheriff to evict you; that has a fee as well. If you fight the foreclosure, that racks up even more legal fees. This too eats into the net proceeds from the sale. So if the bank loans you the full $200,000, they stand a pretty significant risk of not getting all of it back, after expenses. You can understand that risk may not be worth the interest they would get from you on the extra $40,000. On the other hand, if they loan you only 80% of the property's appraised value ($160,000), they effectively shift that risk onto you. Should you default on the loan, and they foreclose, all they have to do is sell the property for $160,000 or a little bit more. That shouldn't be too hard, even if it is not freshly painted or a bit trashed. They probably don't need to hire a real estate agent: just hold a quick auction, maybe first calling up a few investors who might be interested in flipping it. If it happens to sell for more than the outstanding principal of the loan, plus the bank's costs, then they will pay you the difference; but they have no incentive to make that happen, and every incentive to just get it sold quick. So any difference between the property's true value and the actual sale price now represents a loss to you first, not to the bank. So you can see why the bank would rather not loan you the full value of the property. 80% is a somewhat arbitrary figure but it cuts their risk by a lot.
Slice and Dice would have the approach for dividing things up into 25% of large/small and growth/value that is one way to go. Bogleheads also have more than a few splits ranging from 2 funds to nearly 10 funds on high end.
A very simple and safe, though boring, approach is to hold cash rather than bonds, and move out of cash later once higher yields have lowered asset prices.
This is also true. Part of the strategy was to no longer battle for better prices than ups with large retailers. UPS and FedEx end up undercutting each other so much that they lose money on large accounts. UPS is so much bigger that they can manage that better. FedEx is much smaller so it doesn't make sense to battle on price. Also see my comment below about shifting IT costs. They moved it to FedEx services. Bill the other fedex companies for IT services and then operate FedEx services at loss. There is a lot of money moving around in big corporations like this to avoid taxes.
Costs for home / small business equipment under US$10,000 don't have to  be capitalized. They can be expensed (that is, claimed as an expense all in one year.)  Unless this printer is one of those behemoths that collates, folds, staples, and mails medium-sized booklets, it cost less than that. Keep track of your costs. Ask the charity to pay you those costs for the product you generate, and then donate that amount of money back to them. This will be good for the charity because they'll correctly account for the cost of printing.
Best Buy has always had high prices and horrible customer service. Can you tell I have a chip on my shoulder? lol they installed a stereo in my truck and broke the ac which cost me over $1900 to fix. After weeks of having a lawyer hound them, they sent me $1000 to settle the claim. Wasn't worth my time to miss work for small claims court. P.S. why is $1900 and the common man considered small claims? Big companies like Best Buy and Paypal just bully people using the law, and I'm sick of it!
Most of all don't get caught up in too much hype. Things like Forex, options, life insurance, gold/silver, are not investments. They are tools for sales people to make fat commissions off the ignorant. You are fortunate in that Engineers are very likely to retire wealthy. They are part of the second largest demographic of first generation rich. The first is small business owners. To start out I would read Millionaire Next Door and Stop Acting Rich. For a debt free approach to life, check out Financial Peace University (FPU) by Dave Ramsey (video course). His lesson on insurance is excellent. I am an engineer, and my wife a project manager we found FPU life changing and regretted not getting on board sooner. Along these lines we have had some turmoil, recently, that became little more than an inconvenience because we were prepared."
target audience smaller businesses that deal with logistics as a secondary (but necessary) part of their business (ie charlie's cake factory, alice's airplane repairs, steve's steelworks)  or  target audience smaller business that deal with logistics directly as as a primary part of their business (ie wilson's warehouse, connie's courier, laura's LTL shipping company)  ?
"Each individual situation merits a fresh approach.  Working in venture capital, I've learned that the weights are always shifting and taking a ""one size fits all"" approach to business is probably the most foolish thing one can do."
&gt; They've been vocal about this strategy: they plan to corner the ecommerce market, push competition out of business and then they'll inevitably raise prices.  please find me a source where Jeff Bezos says he's going to price gouge in 20 years. Amazon is a customer focused company who's model is based around having low prices.