vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
When youre young, youre basically a sponge. You dont really know much (sorry) so you just kinda set out to learn all these new things. When you get old, you brain solidifies and you get stuck in your ways. New information bounces right off. There's a reason all these tech startups are from teenagers and 20 somethings, and not say people in their 50's-60's. It becomes a lot harder to learn at that age and a lot harder to envision change.
Yes. Companies increase, decrease, start paying and stop paying dividends when they think it appropriate.  If a company has been going through some problems and makes a loss, or even a large decrease in profits, they can choose to stop paying dividends until things improve. Many companies did this during the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08.
Um, you're the one that said this:  &gt;Talking about politics like this is not mature.   If a business has no incentive, and furthermore has a disincentive to do something else they will do it.  It is a political statement, but it is very much related to business.  You might see it as somebody who is a jerk, greedy, selfish, but the fact is he knows his business better than you do. Which he has built over 40 years. If you think spite comes into it to where he would damage the business he has built over the last 4 years you don't know what you're talking about.   He said if he does not have an incentive to continue he won't. Or if the government deincentivizes a number of employees above a certain amount, he will have to make cuts (such as forced higher % contributions to medical insurance above 5,000 employees would incentivize him to cut from 6,500 to 4,999 employees).
Same position as you, took it in December. I scored extremely well and got 8 requests for my resume. 2 were ops/hr related, 3 were really small HF's, 2 were mid sized prop trading firms. I had accepted a job a month prior, so I put no effort in in following up other than giving them access to my resume. Personally I really think I could've gotten interviews if I had immediately started networking with people in the company as soon as I got the resume requests.  The test is a bit of a combination between the GMAT/SAT/GRE and the CFA imo.
"Essentially. Though, at Sam's Club and COSTCO, you'll probably get your membership revoked. By asking to see your receipt and items, you're submitting to a search and the company has no legal authority to force you to do so. Basically, every time an employee asks to see your receipt and items, they are accusing you of theft and demanding you submit to a search. No, most employees don't know the legal details about this. They also can't stop you from saying ""No, I don't submit to a search of my items"" and walking right past them.   It might or might not be a big hassle. I've seen people walk right by them at Walmart. At my own grocery store, we had no legal way to restrain people who were stealing. We could yell at them, take pictures of their face, and give the evidence to police but as non-police personnel, we couldn't physically restrain them. We had a designated security guy who could do it and if he wasn't working that day, no one was getting restrained. The tiny girl working in the garden section of Walmart asking to see your receipt probably isn't private security or Walmart loss prevention.  It just depends how strongly you feel about the 4th and 5th amendment. I personally get pissed that I have a 13 month old I'm carrying and then I have to put everything down, open my bags while watching my 13 month old to keep her from bolting all for an 18 year old to just draw a yellow line through my receipt after they barely glanced at my items. It's a hassle for me and unnecessary if Walmart had a loss prevention team worth a shit but they refuse to adequately staff their stores. Hell, you don't even need a good loss prevention department if you have enough employees on the floor to deter theft."
Has anyone on this thread experienced this firsthand? I am interested in talking with older tech workers who have encountered the kind of ageism, or the kind of college campus, hackathon atmosphere of a young tech company that caters more toward twenty-somethings than employees with families. I report for Marketplace and am covering the issue.
I have.   Two of us started a company around Christmas, we doubled in size every 3 weeks or so, by June we had well over 1 million customer and 70 employee, by September we went broke.  It was a hell of a ride.
"I think you're really underestimating the degree of ageism that occurs in hiring and just how much youth is favoured in the job markets. Experience costs more and it depreciates quickly. In most case employers  will prefer someone less experienced who comes across as mature and less expensive than someone who is more experienced but has been our of the industry for a year or more. The attitude of ""you can't teach an old job new tricks"" rules. Your 30s represent the ideal sweet spot: you are still young and you have some experience. If you're not in full preparing for retirement mode by 40 or 45, you're going to have a bad time. GenXers have lost most of their sweet spot and if the recovery doesn't happen, they will have lost all of it.   Yes, Millenials have it pretty bad too -- no one is disputing that -- but GenX was screwed from the start. We have larger generations on either side of us. We are a transitional generation that started out before computers went mainstream but ended after, so we have a hard time competing with Millenials who have lived with technology all their life. The whole structure of the world changed right under us, i.e., the end of the cold war. And this change significantly increased available labour. Even before 2008 the talk was all about how screwed the GenXers where because of the power of Boomers and the dominance of the Millenials. We already had our backs up against the wall then 2008 struck.  Also, I'd much rather be 28 and looking for a job than 40+ and looking for one. It's so much easier to jump industries or cites or countries when younger and you don't have children to look after. The 28 year old is not locked a career path and has lost a ton of political capital and credibility for having lost their job. The 40+ year old will always have to face questions: why wasn't he/she one of the one the company kept during the layoffs? will he/she be able to learn and adapt to the new job? will he/she be comfortable reporting to someone younger? will he/she be will to sacrifice time away from kids to work longer hours to compete with younger employees?"
No, YOU made it about me.  &gt; If we were both to start our own companies,  &gt; people like you   I'll talk to my employees and the other 100's of people I interact with daily.    You should try it some time.
"*""Amy has applied some deep rationale to her blog post because she felt robbed of her time…""* No, dude, I've never worked at a startup - not unless you count Limewire. I've watched it all happen to lots of people I care about, though, and heard horror stories from all kinds of well-known founders who you wouldn't expect to be bitching about it out of the public spotlight, say ""I would never do that again,"" ""it's a mistake,"" etc. Because of my speaking career, I've also had the good fortune to hang out with famous folks who already had sold their companies. Believe you me, they are not the jolly happy rich people you would expect. They were sad, and wan. But nobody will write about it. I've never worked more than a 40-hour week for any length of time, and perhaps more importantly, at my first ""real"" job at a high tech contract firm at 21, I negotiated a 4-day work week of 8-hour days. Everybody told me I was crazy and would get fired, but obviously that didn't happen. Meanwhile I spent the rest of *my* youth working at a party company (Limewire) then consulting for bigcos like Bear Stearns and Pepsi, then building my own products starting at 24. Now at 27 I've got a whole bunch of products and a verrrry nice income and a short work week, and over a half million dollars a year in revenue. I'm not bitter. I'm passionate. *""Sadly, her reputation with prospective employers might be influenced by her choice of words in the interest of ""fucking glory.""""* If the worst happened, and somehow all my slow-growth, very profitable products disappeared overnight, I would find a job in a hot minute. Don't you worry about me. Real companies LOVE people who actually give a damn. And the fact is, I'm amazing. My husband &amp; I clear over $250,000 years off the most boring software *ever* and spend barely a day a week on it. But naw. I'm never going to take another job.
&gt;While I think it's crazy that all these companies are getting such high valuations, I really want to see Facebook's financials.  Lack of transparency really hurts.  I think any corporation over some set size should be mandated to keep all its financials fully transparent, including line by line day to day accounting.  As it is, it's a black box and we can only guess.
You should include the checks you received from the company, invoices you sent, bank statements showing the deposits, and your receipts, if any, you issued to the company. You'd be surprised to know that this is a fairly common tax fraud. You can also try and sue the company or its successor for the missing amounts, but if it has been dissolved it may be difficult. As with any non-trivial tax issue - I suggest you get a professional advice from a EA/CPA licensed in your State. You may need representation before the IRS - only EA, CPA or an Attorney may represent you in IRS proceedings (including audit and correspondence).
Good for ~~him~~ her! I'm sure ~~he~~ she won't be missed, and there is at least a dozen or so twenty-something that would love to replace him minus the bitching. Someone forgot to give him the TPS memo that says you work for a startup because you enjoy the other perks, not just the financial gain, which should be ancillary to all the other relevant experiences one acquires while working those long 100-hour weeks.  And fuck you (not you) for down voting me.
"People can pretend that those are the only types that work those jobs, but that is most often not the case. Most of the jobs in this economy are service jobs. Like, 70% are. So, are we to then assume that 70% of people had better just be teenagers who need beer money? (Obviously, this is an oversimplification, but I think the point is clear enough.) It is not as if people pop out a kid and subway suddenly says ""thanks for your service! Please report to a decent job with reasonable pay to start work Monday!"" Those jobs just aren't there. Furthermore, it isn't like Subway or McDonalds or walmart can't afford it, or like their prices would go up significantly to shoulder it. If walmart were to pay a living wage, it would cost their customers an extra cent or two per item. I imagine it would impact each business differently, but paying employees decent wages often proves to be a more cost effective strategy because turnover and customer satisfaction go up- ask shake shack or boloco or in-n-out. Its also better for the economy overall."
I think what you meant to say instead of morons is 'young people who drive mass market consumer trends'. Apple, Facebook, Beats- these companies didn't climb to the top of the heap by winning the affectations of tech-geeks, but I suppose looking at demographics and the market would be more appropriate for a subreddit like /r/business, but seeing as how we're in /r/mypersonalopinion I guess I'm the odd one out.
He just sees $X revenue, $X profit and assumes the guy is greedy.  Meanwhile he'll never start a company, sacrafice his free time to toil, be disciplined enough to forego luxuries to invest capital into the company or with sheer determination working nights and weekends to build something--- most people won't, but they'll criticize those who have, based on little more than a headline written by somebody else.
"You've asked eleven different questions here.  Therefore, The first thing I'd recommend is this: Don't panic. Seek answers to your questions systematically, one at a time.  Search this site (and others) to see if there are answers to some of them.  You're in good shape if for no other reason than you're asking these when you're young. Investing and saving are great things to do, but you also have time going for you.  I recommend that you use your ""other eight hours per day"" to build up other income streams.  That potentially will get you far more than a 2% deposit. Any investment can be risky or safe.  It depends on both your personal context and that of the larger economy.  The best answers will come from your own research and from your advisors (since they will be able to see where you are financially, and in life)."
&gt; It's been awfully difficult for clean energy startups to raise money lately, and funding those startups would have a lot more impact.  With so many green startups going bankrupt, it must seem like a risky and fruitless investment.
Risks:
In addition to the other answers, consultants and contractors face a real risk (though admittedly small) of not getting paid. The more short-term the gigs are, the higher the risk of not getting paid for a particular job. As an employee, there are laws to ensure that you get your paycheck. As a contractor, you're just another creditor. I know a couple of contractors (software engineers) who have had difficulty collecting after a job. (I'm not even sure one ever got paid the full amount.) I also personally witnessed a contractor show up for a job who was then told by the company that they unilaterally decided that they would pay half of their pre-arranged rate.
I'm going to diverge from most of the opinions expressed here. It is common for financial advisors to assume that your portfolio should become less risky as you get older.  Explanations for this involve hand-waving and saying that you can afford to lose money when young because you have time to make up for it later.  However, the idea that portfolios should become less risky as you get older is not well-grounded in finance theory.  According to finance theory, regardless of your age and wealth, returns are desirable and risk is undesirable.  Your risk aversion is the only factor that should decide how much risk you put in your portfolio. Do people become more risk averse as they get older?  Sometimes.  Not always.  In fact, there are theoretical reasons why people might want more aggressive portfolios as they age.  For example: As people become wealthier they generally become less risk averse. Young people are not normally very wealthy. When you are young, most of your wealth is tied up in the value of your human capital.  This wealth shifts into your portfolio as you age. Depending on your field, human capital can be extremely risky--much riskier than the market.  Therefore to maintain anything like a constant risk profile over your life, you may want very safe investments when young.  You mention being a hedge fund manager.  If we enter a recession, your human capital will take a huge hit because you will have a hard time raising money or getting/keeping a job.  No one will value your skills and your future career prospects will fall. You will not want the double whammy of large losses in your portfolio. Hedge fund managers are clear examples of people who will want a very safe personal portfolio during their early working years and may be willing to invest very aggressively in their later working and early retirement years. In short, the received wisdom that portfolios should start out risky and get safer as we age is not always, and perhaps not even usually, true.  A better guide to how much risk you should have in your portfolio is how you respond to questions that directly measure your risk aversion.  This questions ask things like how much you would pay to avoid the possibility of a 20% loss in your portfolio with a certain probability.
"&gt;The culture does, indeed, glorify all the best parts of startup-dom and creates a toughness challenge that renders ""no, this may not be a good idea"" unfalsifiable because failure are personal while successes are cultural.   At this point, the same can be said for American capitalism as a whole."
In other words, two weeks after your job starts, you'll have earned as much as your entire savings before you started the job. Even if all your cash ""went down the drain"", you'd make it up in two weeks. Of course, you don't want to throw your money away for nothing. But when your savings are small relative to your income, it's not really worth it to agonize over investment choices to try to get the maximum possible return on your investment. Instead, you should do just what you seem to be doing: prioritize safety, both in terms of keeping your money in a safe account, and try to save rather than spending frivolously. In your current situation, you can double your savings in one month, by working at your part-time job. There's no investment anywhere there that can even come close to that. So don't worry about missing out on some secret opportunity. At this stage, you can earn far more by working than you can by investing, so you should try to build up your savings. When you have enough that you are comfortable with more risk, then you will be in a position to consider other kinds of investments (like stock market index funds), which are riskier but will earn you better returns in the long run."
Lightning is very unpredictable. People who work with or near explosive or conductive materials, in open spaces or near tall objects, are especially at-risk for lightning striking and injuries. Employers should be responsible for protecting their workers from lightning exposure and take other important lightning safety precautions to lower the chances of these damaging and deadly workplace injuries. Know more about us here: https://www.lightningprotection.com/lightning-safety-lightning-protection/
Well, I think the possibility to start a new company for each movie is detrimental -- the mother company gets the rewards of the risk without actually taking on the risk, and that's Simply Wrong[tm].    But while the possibility persists, it will be used..
The main risk is insurance liability - if they are in an accident who pays?  It is not professional to have your employees deliver items.  Most of whom make minimum wage and could care less about on time delivery.
And it all depends what you are advertising. We target business owners and startups. I have yet to see a millennial as a client of ours.   Our CFO also pointed out some research found on LinkedIn pitying millenials unable to afford housing. Their age and choice living with parents is much larger by contrast, compared with previous generations. Many millenials wont pay rent, not because they can't, but they blow that money elsewhere for example on entertainment, electronic, or food they like as opposed to cooking, etc. so of course they can't. They learn their financial advice from each other. In some cases their word of mouth interaction with each other is depriving them more than the boomer paranoia spread has deprived baby boomers from taking certain risks.
one way or another, most posts here, and at /r/entrepreneur and /r/startups are about building/making something.  not me  my thoughts are about sales/marketing.  if I can **SEE** how sales/marketing will be achieved to success, now we have a **GO**
&gt; growth doesnt come from people hiding in safe havens. it comes when investors take risk.  And investors don't take risks when they find it difficult to calculate, like when policies are continually changing, when regulations grow by the day, when the cost of doing business (such as employee health care) are unknown.  This is pretty much exactly what fiscal conservatives are saying is wrong with our current U.S. administration and economic climate.
It's important to consider your Investor Profile when deciding the right kind of vehicle for your finances. You are a young guy, with a considerable earned income and no dependents (sorry, this was not clear from the question.) This means that you are able to take a lot of risks that people who also have a family to think about, might not. == high risk tolerance You should definitely not put your money in a Wealth Management fund or Mutual Fund or any other 'hands-off' vehicle. These typically have worse returns than the FTSE itself. Their popularity is due to an amazing marketing job and the fact that people in general want to believe there is an easy way to grow their money. Probably the best vehicle for your money is property, so the first thing you should do with the money is hire a competent accountant and solicitor.
That is certainly true, but I think those innocent people have to take that risk if they are going to work for immoral employers.  Your objection holds for just about every single boycott that has ever happened, every single trade embargo, every single sanction against a nation, and so on.
"First thing I'd say is don't start with investing. The foundation of solid finances is cash flow. Making more than you spend, reliably; knowing where your money goes; having a system that works for you to make sure you make more than you spend. Until you have that, your focus may as well be on getting there, because you can't fix much else about your finances until you fix this. A number you want to know is your percentage of income saved, and a good goal for that is about 15%, with 10-12% going to retirement savings and the rest to shorter-term goals and emergency fund and so forth. (Of course the right percentage here depends on your goals and situation, but for most people this is a kind of minimum savings rate to be in good shape.) Focus on your savings rate. This is your profitability, if you view yourself as a business. If it's crappy or negative, your finances will be a mess. Two ways to improve it are to spend less or to improve your earnings power. Doing both is even better. The book Your Money or Your Life by Dominguez and Robin is good for showing how to obsessively focus on cash flow, even though you may not share their zeal for early retirement. A simpler exercise than what they recommend: take 3 months of your checking and credit card statements, go through each expenditure and put them in a spreadsheet column, SUM() that column. Then add up 3 months of after-tax paychecks. Divide both numbers by three and compare. (The 3 months is to average out your spending, which probably varies a lot by month.) After positive cash flow and savings rate, the next thing I'd go through is insurance. Risk management for what you have. This can include checking you have all the important insurance coverages (homeowner's/renter's, auto, potentially umbrella, term life, disability, and of course health insurance, are some highlights); and also adjusting all your policies to be most cost-effective, which usually means raising the deductible if you have a good emergency fund.
I'm not ignorant, I just support the right of a business or owner to make the decision to go after someone who drinks, smokes, or puts anything else in their body that might downgrade performance AND put other employees at risk to dangerous behaviors.  https://news.yale.edu/2017/03/08/combo-pot-and-booze-real-gpa-downer-study-shows
It aims at providing a multidisciplinary Chartered Accountancy service with complete cost-adequacy which mainly consists of the Regulatory and Compliance related services, Business Startup Services, Advisory and consultancy services, Audit, Assurance and risk assessment services, Direct, Indirect as well as the International Taxation services.