vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"*Moving your text out of order for (I hope) clarity*  &gt; Because... (it) is a violation of the social contract. I'm quite sure I explained this already multiple times.  You've not explained, you just keep repeating your assertion.  You say ""The social contract is X"" and I ask, ""Why must it be X"" and you respond, ""Because the social contract is X.""  Let me try a different approach.  &gt; Because the only modern justification for the existence of a nation is the social contract.  I disagree.  I think a nation can exist for whatever reason it's populace decides and today, more often than not, it includes providing for the welfare of it's citizens.  What do you think prevents a social contract from being so?  &gt; Exactly. That's why we have the social contract...  Great! It sounds like you now agree that a modern government is required for capitalism to exist.  &gt; Please elaborate as to why that is a problem in the first place.  Because it makes for an unstable system which will hurt the welfare of the people which is opposed to my definition of the social contract."
After more than 30 years of married life the only thing that has worked is to partner with someone who is your opposite. I am a saver, my wife is a spender. Each pay period we establish a budget. Only those things to which we both agree go into the budget. If we violate the budget the other one holds the violator accountable.  Be sure to put some 'slop' into the budget, you cannot perfectly predict the future. The budget can, and will, change throughout the pay period, but only if both agree to the change.
"The ""cannot be used for gift cards"" clause is part of a contract. Target agreed to this breach of contract by allowing customers to buy a gift card with a gift card.  From a legal standpoint Target should have refused the purchases, but since it allowed the purchases to occur in plain site I doubt a judge would find a customer at fault."
Go back to the dealership and leave the car there. Call your local news. They love these stories. After the news is out if they still won't give you your money back and void the contract then call the police. This is illegal and the business has violated the law.   Another option is to go to the police first. After the police report then hire a lawyer to sue the dealership. Then call the local news. This method may take longer, but it will have the biggest impact.
its not against the rules anymore, ever since uber lost one of its many lawsuits, i think it was deemed to be in violation of certain state laws. With that said, it was a concession to drivers especially after uber cut rates to bare bones and drivers weren't making any money at all. really, tips just subsidize drivers lost income from rate cuts that uber used to kill competition over the years, drivers arent making anywhere near what they made using uber in 13/14/15 and the promises of increased ridership never panned out, not to mention the disasters that were uber pool, uber driverless (compounded by a rate cut at the same time making it look like an intimidation tactic to drivers), etc.  I drove for both only until i got the bonuses, job sucks, still find glitter in my car (its been 2 fucking years), and my cynicism was reaffirmed by the experience, I wouldn't mind if uber died and left lyft to pick at its decaying corpse. Hell, I wouldnt mind if Travis kal-whatever got hit by an ex uberdriver and left for buzzards to pick at his decaying corpse, guys a douche.
"I appreciate the actually reasonable initial response. I've been consistently called a fake and a fraud mostly by, as you can probably guess, my competitors and my ex who has turned genuinely psycho. She and her father have now made the news for being directly connected to well documented international and American human rights violations, her father being directly connected to apparently a police chiefs admitted systematic protected records falsification/tampering/destruction and so much else. Those two groups arent exactly mutually exclusive at the moment. Her father works in PR/lobbying and she basically tried to make it a goal to ruin me. Why you might ask? Thats a great question. Could have something to do with the money I make people and people potentially owing me more than a few million. You really have to also consider though that would be an absurdly small price to pay for a billion especially if it took about 20 min to deliver in just that instance. Also the fact that she couldnt keep her clothes on to save her life after that point. All of the fake/fraud rhetoric is despite the fact, and probably because, I literally completed industry leading and often freely available open source economic work for no pay for several years as well as my comp (when I actually bill) being largely entirely performance based which almost nobody in the industry will even contemplate. Im not even that smart I just basically as it appears comparably dont have a sudden compulsive need to actively feel like I'm causing problems for people or just bullshit people frankly. Quite the opposite. A good number of the people who have tried to discredit or defame me in some way, if they knew the cause of this situation, probably wouldnt exactly be happy with it. Especially so considering how much money its likely very tangibly cost them just largely due to a psycho ex. On an anecdotal basis, despite previously knowing this was reflected in the data, I can hardly think of more of a good reason to just actually work with people and see how it goes than this. All of its to basically say I'm sure a guy (and his company) who is that wealthy publicly has had a few situations that make his life complicated and some probably without any good reason. You might have missed out.
"They're taking advantage of float.  Like so many things in the financial world today, this practice is a (strictly legal) fraud. When you make the transaction, the money is available immediately, for reasons that should be intuitively obvious to anyone who's ever used PayPal.  It doesn't take 3 minutes for the broker to get that money, let alone 3 days.  But if they can hold on to that money instead of turning it over to you, they can make money from it for themselves, putting money that rightfully belongs to you to work for them instead, earning interest on short-term loans, money market accounts, etc. The SEC mandates that this money must be turned over to you within 3 days so it should not surprise anyone that that's exactly how long the ""we have to wait for it to clear"" scam runs for.  Even if it doesn't seem like very much money per transaction, for a large brokerage with hundreds of thousands of clients, all the little bits add up very quickly.  This is why they feel no need to compete by offering better service: offering poor service is making them a lot of money that they would lose by offering better service."
"Could that be that you have been SOLD the notion that antitrust laws are a failed and discredited policy.... by those intent on protecting private cartels? (Republicans). Could it be that the enforcement arm of the government (like the SEC) have been weakened and captured by lobbyists in a revolving door between the private sector and the the government (facilitated by Democrats too)?   With that said, before corporations, we had feudal lords with the same oligopoly/monopoly desires. In capitalism, unchecked greed leads to the destructive behavior of endless accumulation of resources at the expense of others... if you start out from a competitive vantage point. This is the ""free market"" that Republicans harp on about. It is the ""freedom"" to reap your rewards without any obstacles, even if reaping your rewards means gauging customers because you have swallowed up the competition. This is what Republicans want (and what libertarians are too naive to understand). How does this environment protect the small business or how does it benefit consumers?"
If Bigot Bobby's Bar refuses to serve, say Jews, NO ONE LOSES ANY NATURAL RIGHTS.  No one is harmed thereby.  When Bigot Bobby is FORCED to serve anyone against his will, HIS natural rights to property, privacy, and association are violated.  If you don't think so, then why don't you insist on equality rules for private dinner parties or club membership?  By your reasoning, churches ought to be forced to do things on direct violation of their beliefs.  Oh, wait, Obama has already done that...  Yours is a digusting worldview based on force.
"&gt;Despite having zero proof of such a thing happening. I was refreshing when he did it, so I saw him downvote me in real time. Then, within a minute, he posted his reply. They float a div with the subreddit rule whenever you hover over the downvote. How is that not proof? Anyway, I suspect that FatStig is your alter account anyway, so you're essentially just a little contrarian who doesn't contribute to the discussion. Also, if that is your alter, the way you're defending it makes you a sock puppeteer in reddit parlance. That's unacceptable by the community's longtime standards. &gt;The fact you even made a point to bring it up says all that needs to be said. Pointing out your rule violations would not (and does not) satiate any anger in me; it's not like I reported it. The reason I drew attention to your misbehavior by mentioning it was to make you uncomfortable, because I want to alienate you from the conversation because your participation in it (and probably other discussions on this sub) was not contributing to the discussion. It was detracting from my user experience. You're trying to frame it as an angry tirade because repackaging my legitimate complaint of your behavior makes it easier to dismiss. You are doing that because you are juvenile, and you are inconsiderate of the people around you who have to constantly deal with your shit. Truth. &gt;""IDC you little twerp."" Ya you did get mad over being downvoted. Emotions are a range. When I was a young man, there were times I became angry at little things. Over time that has changed. Don't mistake my contempt for your personality as anger: I think you're a twerp because you exhibit the same shallow misbehavior that a long-time user, like me, perceives as corrupting reddit as I know and love it. I disdain your participation in my interests; I find you to be annoying in an irritating sort of way.
"&gt;Collective bargaining existed before the government officially granted people that right. Collective bargaining is an ambiguous term that could refer to many concepts. There is voluntarily agreed to collective bargaining, which has nothing wrong with it, and then there are laws that FORCE the employer to collectively bargain with a union if a union requests it, which is a mandate and violates the employer's contract liberty. &gt;However we've been through that in this country, and child labor, unsafe working conditions, and 80 hour weeks. I [responded](http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/117gq5/walmarts_employees_went_on_strike_this_month_for/c6kaesg) to this claim made by another Redditor as well: &gt;The prevalence of child labor was decreasing long before any law was created prohibiting it. Child labor is necessary in poor countries because people are far less productive per hour worked. As productivity increases, parents can afford to send their children off to school instead of working, since their own work is enough to support the family. &gt;Child labor is something that needs to disappear on its own, in response to changing economic conditions. If you introduced a law prohibiting child labor in a poor country like Cambodia right now, it would lead to widespread hardship and an increase in mortality. &gt;In other words, no government mandate created due to union-pressure can possibly lead to beneficial change, since laws that limit people's economic rights, under the assumption that 51% knows what's better for the minority than they themselves do, generally do much more harm than good. Nothing good comes for the country from using the threat of violence (as all laws do) to deny people a right to manage their own property how they see fit. &gt;Like all laws, there is a balance to be struck between individual rights and the common good, and what can be seen as a ""right"" for one can often be seen as a ""right to violate another's rights"" for someone else. There is no game theoretic reason to assume, or empirical evidence that suggests, that violating people's property ownership rights leads to a greater betterment of the common good than would have happened with property ownership rights intact.
When a contract is breached by one party, the party who suffers by such breach of contract is entitled to receive from the person who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage that has occurred to him by such breach. Such compensation however cannot be claimed for remote or indirect damages.
I'm honestly a little surprised about where that funding came from too.  Twitter's been a monumental help in all the uprisings worldwide.    Incoming funds from a country known for human rights violations seems very suspect indeed.    Then again, if twitter goes the way of suppressed communication / biased information (Fox News (also partly owned by said Saudi prince)) then what's to stop people from building a twitter clone?   Twitter is great an all, but at it's heart it only has brand loyalty.
"This one struck a nerve I see.   I also certainly understand your side- it's not ""right"" for the consumer to do it, in a strictly moral sense of the word. However, they're operating in a marketplace where Target will use any and all tricks in the book to increase revenue, including tax dodging/sheltering, lobbying against their citizens' interest, using non-union shops (see the Canadians' discussion below), etc. That is, Target is doing everything it can to gain the upper hand against consumers/employees/labor, etc, in the old ""labor vs capital"" battle.   To ask individuals to adhere to a stricter set of marketplace rules is to put ""us"" (or any individual) at a disadvantage in said marketplace. Consumers need to be able to be just as ruthless in the marketplace as corporations. In this case, Target screwed up and thus pays for it. If Target found a perfectly legal loophole, it's guaranteed they would drive the whole ship through it. I mean, there's a reason corporate taxes rates are abysmally low.   The argument I would accept is this: One could argue that the consumers, by using the gift card deal in a way that deliberately violates the terms of the contract of said card, are committing fraud. That's fine- I have no problem with saying it's wrong on that technicality. However, economics has been called the ""dismal science"" for a reason- there's no morality in a marketplace."
Some examples where an HOA is a positive thing: 1) Amenities: Maybe it is professionally maintained landscaping at the front of the subdivision, or a playground, or community pool. An HOA provides a convenient way to have things like that and share the costs among all the people who benefit. 2) Legal Advocacy: I live in a neighborhood (rural) without an HOA. My neighbor decided to start an auto-repair shop on his property which was CLEARLY a violation of the covenants. There isn't really a Government body you can report them to that will swoop in and make them stop a neighbor from destroying your property values even if they signed an agreement when they bought it to the contrary. You need to hire a lawyer and sue them and that costs money and time. Also, in many cases if you wait too long they can get an exception grandfathered in because no one raised an issue about it. An HOA exists to watch for this kind of thing and nip it in the bud rather than making homeowners have to hassle with the time/expense. 3) Independence: Assuming no HOA, and assuming you are okay with suing your neighbor over violating a covenant. That makes for a very uncomfortable situation between you and that neighbor. Having a neutral 3rd party take action on your behalf anonymously can greatly help that situation. It's not all about making people ditch their basketball goals, or garden gnomes. They also protect you from other obnoxious stuff like junky mobile homes in high-end neighborhoods, the guy who blocks half the street permanently with his RV/Boat parked on the curb, three foot tall grass that is an eyesore and a fire hazard, a taco stand opening in your neighbors garage,  etc.
There are plenty of firewalls - Fortinet and Sonicwall UTM, and dedicated DLP devices - that do SSL MITM to sniff traffic for violations. Your employer simply installs the relevant cert on your machine first and most people never notice.  Worth noting: Fortinet has a default setting to NOT monitor or log traffic from bank and health SSL sites. It can be disabled though.
If the bank is calling your employer, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) limits where and when debt collectors can contact consumer debtors. In many cases, debt collectors that contact debtors at work are violating the FDCPA. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/a-debt-collector-calling-me-work-is-allowed.html
Melodrama much?   The only reason this hurts the franchise system is because it prevents the franchiser from profiting from labor violations at the franchise level.  So, sure some franchises might not be viable anymore, but that might not be so bad for society as a whole, those jobs will just transition to other food joints.  In terms of franchiser operational changes, its not going to change anything other than the cost of drafting up some company wide pay policies and reworking the franchise contracts to allow McDs  to revoke franchise licenses in the event that they violate labor laws.
&gt; The legal system is not meant to reward people for being screwed over **but to restore people to their rightful position** and to punish wrongdoers.  Condition 1 (bolded) has not been met, yet the lawyers are profiting wildly despite that, hence the outrage.  Coupons which cannot be redeemed without the wronged parties (the customers) giving Ticketmaster even *more* of their money do not constitute restitution or restoration to the position prior to the wrongdoing. Nothing short of cash being sent to the wronged parties is sufficient restitution in this case.
**Net neutrality**  Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.  A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secretslowing (a.k.a. “throttling”) of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/economy/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/trump-plans-to-dismantle-obama-era-startup-visa/) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The Department of Homeland Security will file an official notice to delay the International Entrepreneur Rule for eight months.  &gt; The International Entrepreneur Rule, signed by former President Obama days before he left office in January, doesn&amp;#039;t offer a visa but rather a type of &amp;quot;Parole&amp;quot; that would allow immigrants to stay in the US temporarily as long as they meet certain requirements.  &gt; DHS has estimated about 3,000 entrepreneurs would qualify under the rule.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6iy5bm/trump_plans_to_dismantle_obamaera_startup_visa/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~150458 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Rule**^#1 **Entrepreneur**^#2 **Startup**^#3 **visa**^#4 **month**^#5"
"While it is true that protectionist policies can be met with WTO penalties, the International regime disproportionately benefits the US, so I don't see it going out of its way to displease the US.   Furthermore, the international regime are for the most part non binding contracts and it does not act as a true authoritative figure. The WTO can say one thing, but countries don't have to follow because there is no real mechanism of enforcing these international ""laws"".  The US will be fine."
What to do with your equity?  Leave it alone...
"And my CPA is saying no way, it will cost me many thousands in taxes   and doesn't make any sense. I'd think so too. It looks like it converts from capitol gains at 14% to something else at about 35% Can be, if your gain under the Sec.1231 rules is classified as depreciation recapture. But, perhaps the buyers will be saving this way? Not your problem even if they were, which they aren't. I would not do something my CPA says ""no-way"" about. I sometimes prefer not doing some things my CPA says ""it may fly"" because I'm defensive when it comes to taxes, but if your CPA is not willing to sign something off - don't do it. Ever."
It is breaking the law, it's just difficult to demonstrate it. It's easy for international companies to make individual territories look unprofitable, reducing local tax bills. The law forbids this when abused, but not easy to prove. In this case Starbucks execs have been mouthing off about how profitable it is in the UK!
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.scmp.com/tech/enterprises/article/2113581/chinas-chance-lead-global-innovation-may-lie-5g-mobile-technology) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; China is on the cusp of recasting itself as a leading technology innovator from a mere follower in the telecommunications industry, as efforts to develop a global 5G mobile standard near the final stage.  &gt; &amp;quot;While China has the world&amp;#039;s largest mobile market by subscriber and network size, other countries have dominated mobile technology innovation,&amp;quot; said Jefferies equity analyst Edison Lee.  &gt; The international authorities overseeing the creation of a unified standard for 5G mobile technologies are expected to release its initial phase next year and the final phase in 2019, paving the way for a broad roll-out of 5G services by mobile network operators from 2020.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73qa1f/5g_may_be_chinas_chance_to_lead_global_tech/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~220391 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **China**^#1 **technology**^#2 **mobile**^#3 **standard**^#4 **network**^#5"
huh? the Volker Rule is straight up repealed, in full.  &gt;TITLE IX—REPEAL OF THE VOLCKER RULE AND OTHER PROVISIONS  &gt;SEC. 901. REPEALS. &gt;(a) In General.—The following sections of title VI of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such sections are restored or revived as if such sections had not been enacted:  &gt;(1) Section 603.  &gt;(2) Section 618.  &gt;(3) Section 619.  &gt;(4) Section 620.  &gt;(5) Section 621.  &gt;(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of contents under section 1(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is amended by striking the items relating to sections 603, 618, 619, 620, and 621.