vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
which is very rare. Advise to you: don't even try to assume that HR is on your side or other employees, until you actually see proof and examples for that. &gt;&gt;real experts have to fight HR and terrible management... and usually lose because of this whole corrupt setup? &gt; Real security experts are not often also experts in HR and management, I see an unsubstantiated bias and claims against certain people. Are you sure that ""nerds"" like Bill Gates, Elon Mask and others have no chance to be good with HR or ""management""? &gt; so aren't qualified to judge qualifications or actions of taken in those contexts as they are unlikely to have a clear view of the overall situation. Claiming that the HR and management setup is systemically corrupt is a specious claim. Yes, you do have claims... and probably your claims are shared by some Equifax top managers... **SUMMARY: do you know that, most likely, Equifax will file for bankruptcy? I am giving it 98% chance. Susan killed that company!** So you need to be more serious about this incident, what are the requirements for this job, and how corporation should handle certain areas and the people who should lead those areas."
One overarching thing to keep in mind is that wherever you go with Finance if you work hard enough and climb the ladder, you can make decent money. I know CIO's, Market Stragesits and even CFO's, Portfolio Managers and CPA's that all live extremely comfortably, and all of them work outside of the IB industry, basically, IB isn't the end-all for making large sums of money. The main reason why it pays so much upfront is that of the hours you have to work if you look at their salary at an hourly rate, it's around 10-12 bucks an hour.   Definitely think about the Double major thing though, or potentially just doing a minor. It would definitely look good on a resume, especially if it's something you also enjoy, but you've gotta keep that GPA high, and getting a 4.0 in CS is quite a challenge, to begin with.  Pretty much any of the Series certifications can help you depending on where you want to go career-wise, obviously for some positions have certain series certifications won't be useful at all. It's also worth looking into the CFA program if you plan on doing Financial Analysis, but you'll need a sponsor for this, just like the Series certifications.  Happy to help man, if you've got any other questions feel free to reach out. I'm in the same boat just trying to figure out what I want to do with my life to make decent money so I can take care of my friends and family, and live life to the fullest.
The fact that you're still calling it BW3's tells me that you remember when it used to be good. ;)  A lot of restaurants (even fast food) go through the same downward cycle. When they're new, the food is good and always fresh. As they get older, management looks for ways to increase profits, usually by cutting costs, and quality suffers.
"For your first question, the general guidelines I've seen recommended are as follows: As to your second question, portfolio management is something you should familiarize yourself with.  If you trust it to other people, don't be surprised when they make ""mistakes"".  Remember, they get paid regardless of whether you make money.  Consider how much any degree of risk will affect you.  When starting out, your contributions make up most of the growth of your accounts; now is the time when you can most afford to take higher risk for higher payouts (still limiting your risk as much as possible, of course).  A 10% loss on a portfolio of $50k can be replaced with a good year's contributions.  Once your portfolio has grown to a much larger sum, it will be time to dial back the risk and focus on preserving your capital.   When choosing investments, always treat your porfolio as a whole - including non-retirement assets (other investment accounts, savings, even your house).  Don't put too many eggs from every account into the same basket, or you'll find that 30% of your porfolio is a single investment.  Also consider that some investments have different tax consequences, and you can leverage the properties of each account to offset that."
"This article is bogus. There may be companies where you would experience what the author describes, but it's not true where I work (I manage a department of 54 in a megacompany with 350k employees worldwide). ""The books are cooked. Corporate boards must approve labor budgets, raises, and bonuses pretty early in the calendar year. "" It's true that the total department budget is set, for example, by June. You might take 4% of everyone's salaries and reserve that for raises to be allocated in the future. That doesn't mean everyone gets 4% increase, though. Some may not be eligible for increase--for example, if they've been there for 6 months or less. Some may underperform, meaning they get 2% or 0%. And some may exceed expectations, so they get 6%. Performance definitely matters. ""Nobody knows how to talk about performance."" Well, that's quite a blanket statement, isn't it? True, it's /difficult/ to talk about a person's performance. And there's certainly room for managers to improve /their/ performance and ability to give feedback. But I've had plenty of bosses that know how to give good feedback and do so throughout the year (not just a year-end). I also believe that I'm pretty good at it--at least my employees have indicated that I'm improving :) ""Unfortunately, you are not as fabulous as the executives in your company. Large bonuses are given at the top, which means that someone needs to be held accountable. Even if you've met and exceeded your goals for the year, that someone is you."" I'm not even sure how to respond to that one. The author needs some holiday cheer, I think. Large bonuses are given at the top, true. What does that have to do with a not-at-the-top employee's accountability? The points don't seem to be related. ""Managers really love forced ranking."" Not true. Forced ranking sucks, isn't fun and is difficult.
5 minutes after the earliest one to check out. How much work do you have to get done? Only as much as anyone else is doing. What will you get for being the hardest-working, earliest-to-arrive, latest-to-leave? The same as the worst performer gets: you'll be splitting your raise with him, since we don't credit individuals here, just job-titles. Most jobs that can be easily automated, are automated. If you need a human employee to do it, it's usually because it involves a nontrivial amount of ""soft"" skills and fuzzy-logic type thinking and behavior. A machine programmed purely to make as many widgets per hour as possible, and motivated to so with human-style skills, ingenuity, and incentives, will tear down the whole factory and dismantle all its co-workers and ignore all quality-controls in order to keep producing widgets. You can't reduce human beings to input-process-output flowcharts (or rather you can, but they will invariably find unintended ways to outsmart your design criteria, with unintended consequences). The reason you need a person instead of an automated process is because you need a whole host hard-to-define, soft/fuzzy/flexible critical-thinking type skills. **Everyone's job seems easier to the people who don't have to do it, and there is a tremendous hidden danger to de-valuing personal desire to do a subjectively ""good job"" by quantifying/genericizing the value of their contribution.** Personnel management is very difficult to reduce to an engineering problem. You usually need good managers who can identify and motivate good employees, who will feel lucky to have the job and the salary they have, and who will come in every day trying to earn it. Posting everyone's pay on a bulletin-board negates all those ""soft"" skills, by putting a quantified, black-and-white, relative value on everyone's contribution. Even in a very large organization, the ""marketplace"" of employees is rarely large enough, and the quality of real-time metrics is almost never good enough to ""digitize"" the bell-curve of employee performance.
"I think this is a bit too simplistic, because you need to keep in mind that Buffet was managing the money as his career. Had he paid the 1% fee he could have ""made more money"" doing something else.    People who hire money managers usually do so because it A. saves them time managing their own portfolios and B. because they don't believe they would do a better job managing it themselves."
It's crazy really, wanting something to be possible doesn't make it so. *A (not so) Quick Example* One volunteer said to me that we should halve the price of all the fiction books to .99 to compete with other shops. I personally don't think that's a good idea (our shop has better quality stock and is much more organised), but I have no evidence to the contrary, and I honestly don't really know.. so I say go for it and support it completely as a good idea. We tried it for a month, and we made exactly the same amount of money.. sold twice as many books, but no extra cash. So it was valuable to do, and we discovered that maybe 1.49 might be a good option to try. But, far more importantly, they saw their ideas put into action right away, and saw the results of that. It empowered them, which is incredibly important for a wide variety of reasons that are too much to go into here, but basically it makes them feel more respected, enjoy their job more, think more about the business, and so on - you know what it's like when you're empowered, how good it feels. However, it's being empowered with the support that's important, something which you personally going into your new job don't feel you have, which leads to the anxiety and so on I'm sure you're feeling now. Don't put your employees in that position if you can help it. There is also another reason why I outright supported their idea from the offset. It didn't work (although we didn't loose anything) and I thought it wouldn't, but I can say ""*we* tried"". It wasn't down to that one person, they didn't feel bad that it didn't work because I was right behind it, and it's my job to take responsibility. If it had been *their* idea that had failed, they wouldn't give any ideas ever again, and everyone else would be put off too. As soon as anyone tries to take personal responsibility, and they will, stick to your guns in supporting them.. stronger than ever.
I don't know what his problem is. IBM has been spending like drunken sailors on acquisitions for years now. IBM is being managed by half-wits who think financial engineering (stock buy backs, restructuring, M&amp;A) is as good as actual engineering. Meanwhile the company has missed every significant technological shift since the 1980s.  So if they make a massive, huge, great big acquisition you can be sure they'll pay too much for it, be unable to integrate it, and end up writing it down. After all, they are consistent in their incompetence.  IBM shareholders have to fire the board. Once a new board is in place they can fire all of senior management and replace them with people who have at least a degree of competence.   Most likely the company will just continue on its course to oblivion.
I've read some great posts on here and either small business or entrepreneur subs re bars and I've heard the complaints from friends of friends. Apparently theft/wastage is rampant so good cash and alcohol controls are crucial. Even if you don't have outright cash theft, letting bartenders get away with free or big pours for bigger tips ultimately gets you the same result. Your manager should know how many pours he's getting from kegs and bottles. If that adds up (it won't) then it could be a lack of business and you need some marketing. But apparently tracking your pours is the key. There are plenty of books and trade publications out there, so if you don't have a bar background, I'd suggest doing some reading or even talk to/hire someone to help you figure it out. It sounds like you have some systemic issues.
The classic reddit throwaway comment.   This is not an issue of frailties of statistics, but of cheap methodological reporting. The statistics may be rock solid, but without adequate reporting on methodology, including sampling, we must interpret with caution.  That said, 500 hiring managers is not a bad sample size provided it is truly random (unlikely) or intelligently stratified (possible). You can get fairly stable results without needing 5,000 respondents. It's probably around a 4-4.5% margin of error - notable, but not terrible.
Welcome to Scale Manager. We are the leading residential, commercial, and industrial areas provide limescale remover product service company, which is located in Loughborough. We provide the best water conditioners product in the United Kingdom from previous many years. We have well-trained professionals that offer the best possible service and you can expect to get all of the information you need. If you want to serve in your home and office, you can contact us at our office.
Does any investor seek a specific short investing strategy? I think most people who fork their money over to money managers don't understand a whole lot about markets.  The S&amp;P is a good bench because it shows how you could just shove your money into an ETF for 6.96% real gains/annually. It's a great comparison.
You can try manager.io.   It has a desktop, cloud and server edition that should fit your needs.
(1) Not literally every person...this screams that you don't know what you are talking about. There is literally no one on my team that puts it behind their name nor any of my friends from my MBA program.  (2) They aren't as I just proved to you in 3 minutes  (3) Your advice is complete and utter shit.   (4) As I have already articulated:   (A) undergrads know shit, those that have zero experience and an MBA know less than shit.  (B) Learning advanced concepts without knowing anything about the real world won't help him, he won't be able to apply anything he has learned.   (C) He loses any opportunity to reset his career or recruit into a high level position based on some asshole's advice on the internet.   (D) He will command a higher wage exiting MBA with work experience instead of likely taking more debt that he needs to.   (E) he gets to deal with hiring managers like me that will grill him on why he thought it was a good idea to do his MBA directly after undergrad with no work experience.   I might sound like a dick - but I'm not the one handing out shitty advice that highlights how inexperienced you are.
Yeah, but i know guys who started off in the field doing hardcore manual construction and worked their asses off for years and finally got in the office. There are two of them in their younger thirties with no degree to speak of. They are both project managers who make over 100k a year. I am not saying everyone can do this, but sure is fucking possible to succeed without having to wait until you are fifty.
&gt;It will also make your brightest people leave faster to set up new competitors.  Not if wage increases are done according to how the article is written.  It's mainly criticizing Bezos for not funding things like retirement plans and severance packages.  I don't think any of Amazon's best or brightest are waiting for the retirement benefits to increase before they make their exit.  Moreover, when you're talking about shitty wages at Amazon, you're generally talking about the peons in the warehouses.  Amazon is famous for shitty working conditions, but they pay for middle management and other corporate jobs is pretty decent.  I've generally read that people question whether the money is worth the stress and demanding schedules, not whether the money is good by its' own right.  It's the warehouse staff who're being paid peanuts for regular salary.  &gt;it could mess up with whatever HR or managers are trying to do in managing their team and culture  You mean the famously toxic culture that's so widely written about?  I thought it's common knowledge that Amazon is a miserable place to work.
Honestly it just seems like you never put enough work into any one thing, or a bunch of things, dabbled a little in everything and hoped you would be recognized. That's not how it works. You gotta love do something with the goal of being the best at it in your whole city, and then success will come to you. And maybe it won't, because such is life. But what stays with you and what should make you happy is the fact that you're really good at what you do.  Your problem is the exact same as every creative person I've met. Yeah, I know all of you hate being painted with the same brush, but I will always say the same thing hoping that I get through to one of you. You guys think you're talented, and you are talented, but you NEVER match the talent with hard work. So many of you walk around pissed off with the world that you didn't get what you deserve, but none of you accept that nobody deserves anything. There isn't an international council that awards success. You just gotta love what life is, do your best, and always remain optimistic. Success is never assured... but the surest and only way to get there is to hack away at one thing for always.
I'm saying if she LIKES you (which she most like doesn't) she will help you regardless of whether your leave or stay.  But you should not even view that as an option.  You need to do what's best for YOU.  If you know a better opportunity is around the corner, your boss should respect your decision and you find a neutral way to leave your job.  However, I don't know your situation and it's not great to leave as soon as you got there, it makes you look like you don't know what you're doing or don't know what you want (which is what everybody is doing anyway..)  Don't trust your boss unless you knew her prior to this job for a long time, or through family.  That should not come into play in your decision.  You can network with bankers to get a banking job, do you really need to spend months and months appeasing this one person to get referrals? On the flipside, you definitely want to be in good standing with your boss.   Again, do what's best for you.  Don't take empty promises or you will get burned.
"For one thing fund managers, even fund management companies, own less money than their clients put together. On the whole they simply cannot underwrite 50% of the potential losses of the funds they manage, and an offer to do so would be completely unsecured. Warren Buffet owns about 1/3 of Berkshire Hathaway, so I suppose maybe he could do it if he wanted to, and I won't guess why he prefers his own business model (investing in the fund he manages, or used to manage) over the one you propose for him (keeping his money in something so secure he could use it to cover arbitrary losses on B-H). Buffett and his investors have always felt that he has sufficient incentive to see B-H do well, and it's not clear that your scheme would provide him any useful further incentive. You say that the details are immaterial. Supposing instead of 50% it was 0.0001%, one part in a million. Then it would be completely plausible for a fund manager to offer this: ""invest 50 million, lose it all, and I'll buy dinner to apologise"". But would you be as attracted to it as you would be to 50%? Then the details are material. Actually a fund manager could do it by taking your money, putting 50% into the fund and 50% into a cash account. If you make money on the fund, you only make half as much as if you'd been fully invested, so half your profit has been ""taken"" when you get back the fund value + cash. If you lose money on the fund, pay you back 50% of your losses using the cash. Worst case scenario[*], the fund is completely wiped out but you still get back 50% of your initial investment. The combined fund+cash investment vehicle has covered exactly half your losses and it subtracts exactly half your profit. The manager has offered the terms you asked for (-50% leverage) but still doesn't have skin the game. Your proposed terms do not provide the incentive you expect. Why don't fund managers offer this? Because with a few exceptions 50% is an absurd amount for an investment fund to keep in cash, and nobody would buy it.
Finance noob here.  Am I reading the article right that he's saying MPT bad, active management good?    If so, what is that saying about how I should manage my portfolio (assuming I am only dedicating a few hours a month)?    &gt;he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game  So what do I do then? Are there specific strategies?  Also, could you suggest a good explanation of why MPT is bad?
I drove myself into serious debt until a friend persuaded me to start budgeting and told me about Out Of The Dark Budgeting.  This free budgeting site made a huge difference for me because it made money management so simple for me and it provides many good suggestions and advice.  I particularly like the cash put aside feature and credit card debt terminator both of which helped me move from bad spending habits to responsible money management so now I waste less and have more for what I really need and love, and most importantly, I am on my way to being debt free, a very powerful feeling already.  Good luck.
&gt; Managers got paid bonuses if they sold more deserts/alcohol so waiters are forced to offer every customer wine samples and pitch them on other drinks.  ...those bastards, giving us free booze.  The bar I go to actually takes pride in their beer. Full wall of microbrews. They do not sell \*lite. Standard procedure is to sit down, ask the bartender about what's good, and to be given half a dozen samples of the new kegs they got this week. I mean, *seriously*, those assholes -- trying to get me to find and drink a beer that actually I like. What a bunch of jerks.
"&gt;When I was a student, back in the early nineties, I had a holiday job at the frozen-food supermarket chain, Iceland. One morning, presumably fresh from a leadership course at Frosty HQ, our manager called all the staff together to admonish us for our apparent lack of enthusiasm for the sale of turkey nuggets. “Sometimes I feel that some of you are only in this for the money” she hissed. She was cut off by incredulous laughter. After all, what other motivation could there be for spending one’s weekend restocking a giant fridge freezer? This is ironically (ROTFLMAO) hilarious. After all what exactly is the underlying motivation of the ""company"" itself? The good of all little children of the world... hence the dispensing of ""turkey nuggets"" for FREE??? Oh wait, the goal is to make money. Herp Derp. --- &gt;Innocuous as this may sound, it’s a cultural shift that poisonously favours the employer over the worker. For as long as companies are able to offer their staff these intangible psychological carrots, they are able to get away with not paying them in full for the work they do. &gt; &gt;[...] &gt; &gt;For companies, it’s a perfect ruse. Like faith healers, the more evangelical fervour they can fire up in their staff, the more they can squeeze out of them, and the less they ask in return. I heard this kind of BS (along with the Soviet-style ""banners"" and ""mission statements"" and ""5 year plans"") well over a decade ago.
OK, were there any fund managers stupid enough to bet on Facebook? If there are, they should all be out of jobs by now. (They won't be, but they should.)  Facebook was a bad investment on paper, on hype, and on fundamentals. There was no reasonable expectation of it going up on IPO.