vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"My theory is that for every stock you buy, you should have an exit strategy and follow it.  It is too hard to let emotions rule if you let your default strategy be ""let's see what happens."" and emotional investing will almost never serve you well.  So before buying a stock, set a maximum loss and maximum gain that you will watch for on the stock, and when it hits that number sell.  At the very least, when it hits one of your numbers, consciously make a decision that you are effectively buying it again at the current price if you decide to stay in. When you do this, set a new high and low price and repeat the above strategy."
"No. That return on equity number is a target that the regulators consider when approving price hikes. If PG&E tried to get a 20% RoE, the regulator would deny the request. Utilities are basically compelled to accept price regulation in return for a  monopoly on utility business in a geographic area. There are obviously no guarantees that a utility will make money, but these good utilities are good stable investments that generally speaking will not make you rich, but appreciate nicely over time. Due to deregulation, however, they are a more complex investment than they once were. Basically, the utility builds and maintains a bunch of physical infrastructure, buys fuel and turns it into electricity. So they have fixed costs, regulated pricing, market-driven costs for fuel, and market-driven demand for electricity.  Also consider that the marginal cost of adding capacity to the electric grid is incredibly high, so uneven demand growth or economic disruption in the utility service area can hurt the firms return on equity (and thus the stock price). Compare the stock performance of HE (the Hawaiian electric utlity) to ED (Consolidated Edison, the NYC utility) to SO (Southern Companies, the utility for much of the South). You can see that the severe impact of the recession on HE really damaged the stock -- location matters. Buying strategy is key as well -- during bad market conditions, money flows into these stocks (which are considered to be low-risk ""defensive"" investments) and inflates the price. You don't want to buy utilities at a peak... you need to dollar-cost average a position over a period of years and hold it. Focus on the high quality utilities or quality local utilities if you understand your local market. Look at Southern Co, Progress Energy, Duke Energy or American Electric Power as high-quality benchmarks to compare with other utilities."
"Paraphrased from Economics of Money, Banking and Financial Markets: Money is (1) a medium of exchange, (2) a unit of account, (3) a store of value.  To the first point: as Homer Simpson's brain explained to him ""Money can be exchanged for goods and services"".  The second: money acts as a measure to keep track of the relative worth of an enormous amount of items. This makes it much simpler than tracking how many apples are worth how many deerhides, and so on and so forth as occurs in barter economies.  The last point: money is a terrible store of value. Your money tends to inflate, meaning that its worth decreases over time.  I think your explanation went into territory that it didn't need to. Your explanation of the creation of money for example seems to imply that the banking system is not involved in the process of money creation when actually the opposite is true."
The measure of change of value of a currency in relation to itself is inflation (or deflation).
The same could be said about the middle class person buying a brand new Toyota or whatever then neglecting the fuck out of it and talking shit about how much they hate it when the person at the bottom of the totem pole got their car for $100 and with they could buy a new car. Value is subjective man ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I understand that ITM have little time value, so they will have small time decay(theta), but why OTM has a lesser theta than ATM? The Time value represents uncertainty.  That uncertainty decreases the farther away from ATM you get (in either direction).  At-the-money, there is roughly a 50% chance that the option expires worthless. As you get deeper in-the-money, the change that is expires worthless decreases, so there is less uncertainty (there is more certainty that the option will pay off).  As you go deeper OTM, the probability that the option expires worthless increases, so there is also less uncertainty. At the TTM decreases, the uncertainty (theta) decreases as well, since there is less time for the option to cross the strike from either direction.  Similarly, as volatility decreases, theta decreases, since low-volatility stocks have a less change of crossing the strike.
You are assigning an intrinsic value to a copy-right by purchasing it. However, when you purchase a copy-right you are not buying ink on a page, you are purchasing an idea. Someone's imaginings that, for all intensive purposes, doesn't even exist in reality! By definition, things that do not exist do not have ""intrinsic"" properties - because things that don't exist, don't have any natural properties at all. ""Intrinsic"" according to Websters Dictionary: ""Belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing ... (the intrinsic brightness of a star)."" An intrinsic property of an object is something we know that exists because it is a natural property of that object. Suns emit light, we know this because we can measure the light coming from it. It is not subjective. ""Intrinsic Value"" by definition is the OPPOSITE of ""Intrinsic"""
When coming to that conclusion, you only consider half of the facts. Yes, all money is debt.  But what you miss is that there are other values and assets out there, not just money. These actually match each other to some degree. If the value of all these other assets grow at the same pace as the money supply, then there will be a balance.  If one grows faster than the other, there will be inflation or deflation. At least there should be, which is the problem not understood.
You're missing the strategy for the tactics. The *whole point* of capitalism is the improved efficiency possible through the price system of value. The price system of value only delivers this efficiency when free markets exist. When markets are *not* free, then capitalism becomes very inefficient, and you get unemployment, inequality and other poor outcomes. In response to this, people demand socialist policies, and if they don't get them, eventually you get proletarian uprisings against the rich, communism, etc.  As far as your attempts to defend David Siegel's ethics, I just don't see where you're coming from. What if he doesn't feel inclined to take my offer? Is he also responsible for my death? But more importantly, *why* are you defending bottom-feeding pond scum like Siegel?
The value does change from 12.61% to 13.48%. The difference between re-investing cashflows at 14% vs 12% is not big enough to change the rounded value. Edit: The initial cashflow is discounted at t0, meaning it's already equal to its present value and the finance rate doesn't have an effect. It does impact future outgoing cashflows, as you've noted.
"People's value of money is not always linear.  Consider an individual with $1000 in the bank.  I'm going to look at amounts of debt by orders of magnitude: Now its pretty easy to see a order of magnitude increase in impact from $100 to $1000, and it becomes slightly worse for the $10,000 case due to debt.  However, one more order of magnitude, going to $100,000, and suddenly it becomes hard to argue that there's a mere ""order of magnitude more hurt"" than the $10,000 case.  From the cases I've read, those sorts of situations can be far far worse than the monetary cost could convey. Insurance companies are in a good position to absorb $100,000 of debt if something happens, far better position than the individual.  They rely on the central limit theorem: in general, they don't have to pay out all at once. The insurance companies have their limits too.  When hurricane Katrina came through, the insurance companies had a tremendously difficult time dealing with so many claims all at once.  Just like the individuals, they found a sudden change in how much value they had to put on their monetary debts!"
"Reich is trying to highlight the disparity between the market price of a person's labor and the real social value of that labor. But while the former concept has a standard definition in modern economics, the latter does not, and Reich does not offer one. That is why I found the article dissatisfying. It's clear he is lamenting the disparity, but he gives no clue about what the disparity actually amounts to.  Case in point:  &gt; Does anyone seriously believe hedge-fund mogul Steven A. Cohen is worth the $2.3 billion he raked in last year, despite being slapped with a $1.8 billion fine after his firm pleaded guilty to insider trading?  I would wager that whoever paid Cohen the money believes it pretty seriously. By rhetorically asking whether *anyone* so believes, Reich assumes away the existence of whoever pays Cohen. His tone throughout the rest of the article is similar. Yet this is precisely where Reich could have stepped in with a definition of social value, e.g.:  &gt; Stephen A. Cohen raked in $2.3 billion last year, despite being slapped with an $1.8-billion fine because of insider trading by his firm. Yet the social value of his work is far lower than $2.3 billion. Here's what I mean by ""social value"" and a way to approximate it...  Here is something Reich does say later on that is probably true and worth emphasizing:  &gt; Most financiers, corporate lawyers, lobbyists, and management consultants are competing with other financiers, lawyers, lobbyists, and management consultants in zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another.  Of course, this is also true of many government officials, athletes, and social activists. But the concept of a socially wasteful zero-sum game--and its implications for welfare--ought to be much more widely understood by the general public. Reich should be praised for calling attention to some examples of it, but it would have been much better if he had dwelt on it a little more instead of just ranting."
"I read one consultant who recommended something a lot like consensus building, but instead of 100% agreement (which is hard and time-consuming to do), you only go after the decision that everyone can ""live with"" - major objections had to be resolved, but other than that, it was good enough.  Another interesting method I saw was very decentralized - everyone makes their own decisions for what they will personally do, after consulting with affected parties. Nothing was seen as a command, only advice.  Wish I had more data, but I don't..."
I would consider it a personal decision based on your individual situation. When I was younger and short on cash tipping sucked. On a 6 figure income with no kids, I can leave 25% regularly without an issue. But everyone's got a different situation.   I think 15% should be minimum but life isn't that black and white. Do what you think is fair and good.
Hmm. I appreciate some peoples margins are tighter than others, but in 10 years we've never been so close to the wire that these decisions could significantly effect (or possibly affect?) the viability of the company as a whole. In that case it would be morally right to favour the greater good of the majority, sure.
"BINGO!!!  Another egregious example of lobbyists being behind and guiding the actual decision-making process.    For the good of democracy, it's tragic and detrimental that so many people are so easily swayed by TV commercials, lawn signs and campaign paraphernalia. Instead of having their vote guided by actual issues that matter, people respond to commercial visibility, ""hot button issues"" and sloganeering. It's the ease with which uniformed voters are manipulated by money that gives lobbyists their ultimate power."
It sounds like you are doing great.  A couple points: You really need to crunch the numbers such as how high is rent in your area, and of course home prices. Home price gains are not a given. It will depend on many factors such as the job market in your area, crime, schools, how long you stay put,..etc.  If you take the standard/non-itemized tax deduction you might not save at tax time if you don't pay enough interest. Your decision to have automatic deductions from your checks was spot on; it is human nature to spend every nickle. Also, money in a savings account won't keep up with inflation. It will slowly degrade; you will want other investments.  -Good luck
"That's true.  I think the reason the chains are blaming other factors is that they are thinking ""our food hasn't changed much, so that can't be the problem.""      However, people have more options now.  Plenty of fast casual places make genuinely good food now, so people don't have to choose between a chain or a fast food place.  And knowledge of cooking at home is increasing.      So while they're kind of right in saying ""It's not our fault, we haven't changed, our customers have,"" that's a cop-out, they should say ""Our customers and the competition have changed, so we will too."""
Response from a good Tampa flooring company to a lot of these inquiries could usually help you come to conclusion. When you do this straightforward research, it can benefit you in the long term because you don't have to come across an awkward circumstance. For example, you could repent for having made a wrong option and this could have also resulted in the loss of massive part of your hard generated income. Nevertheless, flooring is considered to be an important component in home decoration. Factors such as the shade of your unique furniture, various kinds and construct from your home design products, products to be used in lots of home design products, etc. would certainly depend on to a terrific degree on the selection of a particular type of flooring.
Cut them hard; cut until it hurts. Cut out the cell phone (get a pre-paid plan and/or budget $10-20/month), cut out all things like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, lottery, tattoos, cable tv, steak, eating out. Some people would suggest that you consider pets and finding them a new home. No games, no trips, no movies, no new clothes... Cut out soft drinks, candy, and junk food. Take precautions to stay healthy - don't wear shoes in the house, brush your teeth, take a multi vitamin, get exercise, eat healthy (this is not expensive, organic stuff, just regular groceries). Consider other ways to save, like moving in with family or friends. Having family or friends live with you and pay rent. Analyze costs like daycare vs. job income. Apply for assistance - there are lots of levels, and some don't rely on others, such as daycare. Consider making more money - new job, 2nd job, overtime, new career. Consider commute - walk, bike, take the bus. Work 4/10's. Telework. Make a list of every expense and prioritize them. Only keep things which are really necessary. Good Luck."
They're not just giving away money because they're nice, they're doing what they think (or hope) is a good business decision. Even if they lost money on that particular transaction, there are still positive effects such as OP telling the story about how great BestBuy is which will get more people in their stores, many of which won't be as rigorous in their price checking or will possibly buy other items once they're in the store.  You can't look at one sale in a vacuum to make a determination like that.
&gt;That's only one of an array of factors.  yes, that's why I said that number *alone* is not indicative. Listing it as you did makes it sound like that ratio has some magical importance, but it does not. Granted lower might be better, but the current rate is not without precedent and has been followed by good economic times.
"You make a good point and then abandon it.  I agree, everything is ultimately attributable to random events or one's genetics and upbringing.  E.g. The worse baker 'deserves' to fail because they are worse at baking.  However, did they 'deserve' to be born and raised and grow into circumstances that caused them to be a worse baker?  Very hard to argue that.  Very hard.  I also don't think it's suitable to ignore the ""infinite"" (in most cases you don't need to trace a person's history beyond their parentage to explain something, so 'infinite' is hardly the word) regression you mention.    A person's decisions are the result of their life story up until that point, and a person's life story always begins with circumstances completely beyond their control."
Wealth is something that we as a whole need, yet the question is how? Making wealth is not something that is troublesome but rather it is something that you need to think emphatically, as it is said negative considerations can give you negative outcomes. So right off the bat, you should simply begin thinking emphatically and for this, your psyche needs to imagine that way. Wealth is something that can guarantee a superior future. Having a huge amount of wealth is not something you will get in a matter of seconds. This can be a convenient procedure and a great deal of hazard is included in accomplishing it.  We, at Wealth Generators, help you in getting your dream of being rich completed in a very professional way. We through proper guidance given by the financial experts, enable you to generate handsome wealth in a very short span of time. Our financial experts will guide you throughout the wealth generation procedures in accordance with the latest market trends and the ups and downs. Our step by step guide will help you in making decisive decisions in a very effective way. We provide financial education through our newsletters either on the weekly, monthly and yearly basis to let the readers understand the insights of the capital market and its derivatives.  We use the latest financial technologies and tools to bring the best to the forefront of the readers. Our wealth generator newsletters are the essential guide in this competitive market scenario to help the smart investors or people willing to earn huge profits in real time.
There aren't only two factors at play here. There is more to success than hours worked and lucky circumstances. I don't claim to know the other factors, but I would like to give you an example.  Currently, I'm listening to Bach's Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor. It is truly an inspiring piece. Bach was, and still is, a great success. His genius has been rivaled very few times over the past 250+ years. Still, there are many composers who put in just as much work as Bach, yet are not as good. Both Bach and such nameless composers put conscious effort into the placements of their notes, so luck is not a factor. Both Bach and nameless composers also put in a comparable number of hours, yet Bach is just better. Clearly there must be some other factor deciding who is successful and who is not.
He gets a lot of praise, but I'm unsure if it's more due to his own skill or Ballmer's incompetence. Seriously weird decisions happened during his time as a CEO. Even at the time, the Nokia thing didn't make much sense and was very controversial.  Nadella is also directly responsible for breaking new ground as forming the first [ad supported operating system](http://www.google.se/search?q=windows+10+ads), a move not going into the history books for the right reasons.  But yeah, besides this, he seems to be the right person for the company. During his time, we've also got things like the high quality Microsoft Surface lineup, and the Ubuntu subsystem on Windows. Hell, maybe ads is even what Windows 10 needs, I have no idea. I guess it depends on how the general public takes it, how much people care, versus how much they give Microsoft. Personally it's helped me realize how little I actually depend on Windows nowadays. It's new times now, with so much and so many services web based. The strings that have tied me are getting weaker and some have already broken. Photo post-processing and library management via Adobe Lightroom has been a strong one, but Raw Therapee is becoming very good indeed.
According to the (NIDA),  There are a few basic factors such as trouble at home, mental health issues, friends or family members who abuse drugs and alcohol. Drug addiction is very bad for body and mind. We provide the best Drug and alcohol addiction recovery in the world. If you have a family member who is addicted to some type of substance we hope, you will be the best treatment at our center.
"&gt; So yes, it's doing better than a year ago. It was supposed to do better, all the trends were already pointing up in 2016.  LOL!!!! So it's doing better because it's ""supposed to"" and not because of Trump?   Darling, Trump, if he wanted to, can crash the market in few days by few bad decisions.  But Trump is Making America Great Again by cancelling the TPP, NAFTA, reducing immigration and reducing regulation. And the economy and stock market responded immediately to those positive actions by him."
"&gt; Just like they do not understand mortality – their brains are literally chemically imbalanced in this way – young people do not understand why it's a good idea to be private. They are solipsistic.   I loled. As if a correctly chemically balanced brain can see an ""obvious"" morality. Just goes to show the author must be really stupid. Maybe this comes from the fact that a certain lobe (I'm not sure of this word for word), the frontal one, goes through some weird development which impairs decision ability. Decision ability does not equal morality."
"&gt;You assume that student performance is a good proxy for teacher performance. One of the bigger influences on student performance is parent engagement.  If the goal is success in actual conveyance of knowledge, then external factors are merely the ""environment"" in which the performance (or lack thereof) must be executed.  If a teacher is incapable of reaching a particular group of students (due to whatever ""environmental"" reasons) then that teacher is obviously NOT performing IN that environment.  It would be best then (for everyone, *including that teacher*) to get a DIFFERENT teacher in their place; and for that teacher then to attempt to teach in a different environment (where they may be capable of shining), rather than to keep them in an environment where they are failing.  **A big part of the problem here is that ""merit"" is seen by teachers as if it were a judgment of them as PEOPLE** -- which, ironically enough is a rather juvenile mindset -- when in fact **it is merely a judgement of their specific performance in a particular situation.**  And as far as pay is concerned -- pay varies in virtually EVERY profession and industry (and people MOVE and CHOOSE accordingly) -- the seeking of some utopian ""egalitarianism"" is woefully naive."
"I know some CEOs (for both big and small companies).  A few have admitted to me on a few occasions they themselves don't have the slightest idea about being a CEO.  The world changes too fast so they have absolutely no idea what's going to work and what isn't when it comes time to make decisions.  All they can do is rely on the recommendations of the people that work under them at which point it becomes a matter of trust:  Do you trust the recommendations from your CTO?  Who did he trust to make that recommendation?  The trust chain goes waaay down and it makes you wonder if the people who ""know"" (at the end of the chain) shouldn't have been able to just make the decision themselves."