vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I'm not kidding. Maybe there is a problem there. I'm really not trying to be a jerk. My husband could use mood stabilizers. His neurologist put him on an antidepressant which helped a lot. I, of course, got yelled at for suggesting it. You absolutely raged at me right out of the gate. I'm VERY familiar with that behavior. You really should see a therapist. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.   I am not backing down from my initial statement. 50% of working age men who are not in the work force are addicted to opiates. It's not because they are in pain. They would be better off smoking cannabis. Everyone is fooling themselves if they think the choice between getting high and not is simply a matter of them just quitting. If they could do that they would. At least cannabis is basically harmless and not physically addictive.   Go ahead, tell me I'm an asshole again. I don't care. Trust me. I have thick skin after 22 years of abuse.
I would say you are wrong. I think you're underestimating a good warehouse worker. There is a skill set involved, and many do not have it. Sadly, many people don't know any better than to arrive high, drunk, hung over, late, or not at all on a regular, for starters. Most warehouse workers don't just lift heavy things anymore. In fact, probably the majority never lift anything heavy at all. They run power equipment. Big, expensive, dangerous power equipment that does most of the lifting. Again, not everyone can handle that. One power equipment accident can end up costing the company tens of thousands of dollars. Aside from that, the people performing those jobs are hardly the only employees present. Someone has to check in the trucks, audit the receivers, distribute the work of sorting, coreograph the loading and distribution of product out to the stores, maintain the computer systems, and a thousand other small tasks on a daily basis. I can assure you these positions require a whole lot more skills than the average loom worker in the 1800s was required. Really, I find it scary how much you are devaluing these people. The fact most well-paying warehouses constantly go a few hands short is testiment to the fact good people are not actually a dime a dozen. Edit a word. Ninja Edit: Another thing about this is that you seem to want to believe people had a choice in not developing whatever killer skillset it is you think makes you better than them. The reality is many very intelligent people cannot afford college. They don't have parents willing to give them a dime or a leg up, or their parents simply do not have the dime or the leg up to give them even if they wanted to. They're smart, but had to work during high school to support a portion of their own expenses, and that hurt their grades a bit. Or they were young, idiotic, and had little guidance because their parents were constantly away working their arses off for a pitance to survive on, so they goofed off in high school more than they ought resulting in an inability to qualify for scholarships. Suddenly, they're grown.
Are you still in high school? The job these people perform are generally menial pencil pushing garbage.  We don't need the best and brightest going there and we've never had it.   These people hate their jobs like everyone else, but the jobs they do are almost unneeded.   The reason they are supposed to get better benefits is because they are too stupid to plan for their future.  If you don't believe that, perhaps you should get one of those jobs.  It's like the better folks are looking out for the simpletons.  And that is a fact.
They don't have parents willing to give them a dime or a leg up, or their parents simply do not have the dime or the leg up to give them even if they wanted to. They're smart, but had to work during high school to support a portion of their own expenses, and that hurt their grades a bit. Or they were young, idiotic, and had little guidance because their parents were constantly away working their arses off for a pitance to survive on, so they goofed off in high school more than they ought resulting in an inability to qualify for scholarships. Suddenly, they're grown. They have to provide housing, food, and whatever for themselves, so they get crap jobs thinking they'll find a way to parlay that into skills or education when the reality is most employers just want to suck as much out of the employee for the least possible contribution. Any general manager of a large facility will tell you bragging rights on the golf course are to he who spends the least for the most work done. The majority of low skill low pay workers would gladly go back to college if only they could. Even if they can somehow scrape together the cash required - now over $8k a year for tuition, a crappy dorm and a food ticket at state colleges in my state, and books will run you $500 a semester for many majors - there is the issue of time. After working a grueling hopefully full-time job, they'd need to find it in them to stay awake during class and to complete assignments. On top of that, there is the question of timing. Especially in low skill jobs, it is usually required that the employee be available at company pleasure. Try finding a school in your area which has the classes you need times you can attend. Good luck with that. But wait! There are government subsidies! Yeah, good luck with that as well. If you've been working any half-decent job and apply, and are under 25 and your parents also make half-decent wages, you will be lucky to be offered loans. They aren't even low interest loans anymore. Also, god forbid your parents have a little emergency nest egg saved up from years of hard labor in the salt mines.
"I worked on a competing app a few yeas back. The primary use case isn't high-rollers wanting to save some money by selling off unused seats, it's the charter company wanting to recoup costs on completely empty planes. If they fly someone from NYC to Seattle and that person isn't returning to NYC for a week, they aren't just going to leave the plane there for the duration. So they need to reroute the plane to the next pickup point—and usually, they're doing that with no one on the plane, which is a ""dead leg"" in industry parlance.   The selection is pretty limited (compared to commercial airlines), and due to FAA regulations, they have limits on how far in advance they can advertise, so it's limited to basically 24 hours notice. You'll almost never be able to use any of these services to fly both ways on a trip. All the existing services I'm aware of also require chartering the entire plane, not just getting a seat, which leaves you to try to find a large group of people to share the cost."
"A lot of these arguments seem to be, ""Well, it might be better, therefore it *will* be better.""  While many of the concerns seem trivial, what bothers me is the unaddressed pressure to partake in the enhancements, despite the social net we deploy to help those who fall behind. You won't be able to join the military unless you are enhanced. You won't be hired as a labourer unless you are enhanced. Management positions will go to the enhanced. Physician positions will go to the enhanced. Engineering jobs will go to the enhanced. The list will just increase over time.   Now, you are mostly born into poverty, and getting out is a tough road. Soon, you will be able to choose poverty just by deciding to not getting enhanced. And what worries me about that is the unintended consequences of everyone getting enhanced. Will we all become super susceptible to the same disease? Might an enhancement actually turn into a time bomb? Right now genetic variability is what gives us long term viability. Will enhancements reduce both?  That said, being able to live younger, longer, and to take a pill that will give me the psychological bent to actually enjoy life are two things I would find difficult to turn down. As for love, the mistakes I've made would suddenly become inconsequential."
I've always been a proponent that being laid off or fired is the best thing that can happen to an individual. It's very painful and scary in the short term, but the long term results in a much better life and level of happiness. I've seen it in friends, read it in articles, and experienced it personally. This hurts today - but they're going to attain a new level of happiness and reward.
&gt; Instead they focused on bottom line, cut training, and pissed off the community by abusing employees and being rude and useless to anyone walking in the door. &gt;   1. OH NO, they do NOT cut training, not by a long shot. People seem to think they (past employee) are the 'worst tech-selling company', they aren't, they're a decent electronic store. We are trained on sales and basic product knowledge. Except when as a cashier / customer support guy, I was trained oven installation. Twice actually because they needed it again. We get more training than we know what to do with (not really but most of it is bs so we don't care) and you can just click through the fuckers, and with common sense, pass tests. I build pc's and have maintained multiple business networks in my home-town, but couldn't work GS even after I passes all necessary training, because I couldn't sell as ons well enough. Like really, 100% I just couldn't (even though I left top of my dept.)  2. We sell, and we try to sell hard. People see it as annoying and pushy, same here.  3. We will not go down or byebye for a long time, because we did what Radio shack is doing wrong, cell phones. Best Buy mobile is insanly popular / profitable, and a whole lot of people love it. We shut down 100+ stores last year... we opened up 3 times the number of specialty mobile stores in the US / CA... A lot of those old stores were never profitable, almost every one of the new ones really is.   People just like to think BB is screwed, no, it's actually not. It has a market that doesn't really exist on reddit, the regular guy that wants some shit and someone to maybe fix his shit when his shit doesn't work. He doesn't need the best shit, the newest shit, or the special shit, he wants what his NEIGHBOR has and what he thinks he kinda gets. That middle America, Kentucky and Tennessee market you know? That is fucking huge, we just forget about em.
&gt;I want to work in an environment where I can advocate for myself and, occasionally, negotiate for better compensation. Some people aren't good at these things, and frankly, that sucks for them. I'll eat their lunch if they let me.  Isn't that kind of the point?  If you can't advocate for yourself using negotiation tactics, you're left with the options of increasing the scope of your job or increasing your skills.
They pay for it with tax money. Why would they have to make people work for free that doesn't even make sense. Thats what taxes are for to make life better for the citizens of the country.  I don't think the concept we're discussing would leave people with no responsibility, even providing food and housing there will always be things people need outside whats provided. Removing the penalty of starving to death isn't going to cause the breakdown of society, or overpopulation, or whatever you seem to be afraid of. For one thing most people just don't want tonnes of kids and the ones that do have tonnes without consideration of the consequences already.  Your example here seems kind of random and extreme and doesn't represent any group of people I've ever met.
On the flip side of that, those employees that you are so passionate about protecting will now be out of a job because no one will go to the restaurant. Isn't that the end game of a campaign such as yours?  Which is better, a low paying shitty job or no job at all? This is the financial reality we are in.  And please don't take this as me advocating their practices-- I disagree strongly with them, however there are two sides to the coin here.
"Economic hardship is just as misleading as ""economic slavery"".  If you are working two jobs and can't afford rent... How can you better yourself?  Sure, if you are exceptionally intelligent and/or charismatic and/or exceptionally great in some other way, you could find a way out of the hole.  But if you are working two full-time jobs and are trying your best - that should be enough.  I personally am against a $15 minimum wage - even on a local level, much less a state or federal level, but I very much support legislation that ensures someone who works 85 (or 60) hours a week (that's 12 hours a day for 85 hours per week) can get by.  By ""getting by"" I mean can rent modest housing, can afford nutritious food, can afford decent health insurance, can buy clothes (maybe second-hand), can put a bit into savings, etc.  Minimum wage jobs are done by young people just entering the job market and older people with few skills.  Better to have legislation that takes that into account.  High school and college kids won't be working 60-85+ hours a week.  Save the subsidies for the people that really need them."
No no, not at all. I'm saying that Bezos, as head of Amazon, should work to improve workers conditions using his influence as founder / chairman / CEO of Amazon. Which is a longer winded way of saying *Amazon* should improve workers conditions.   I think it's great that he's looking to give some of his money away to charity. I think it's rather hypocritical to do that whilst being accused of low employee welfare conditions mind you, but it's certainly better than nothing!   If I'm still not coming across correctly, let me slip into hyperbole and extremes. Let's say a Victorian factory owner employs children in dangerous and gruelling work, 14 hours a day and they get fired if they are ill. But with the money he makes from the factory, he gives some of it to a children's hospital! I mean, that's great, but hey, what about instituting change at the factory too, if you really care about society?  I think that last paragraph detracts from my point actually but I've written it out so I'll leave it there.
"&gt; That’s not really true. Industries are developed and killed off all the time.  You are right of course.  Since my ""musical chairs"" analogy confused /u/mattcwu I was trying to keep it simple.  My point is that from the perspective of a job seeker, the job market is effectively fixed.  If you improve yourself and get a better job, that job already existed in the system.  New jobs are not created to accommodate your new skills.  &gt; A small capital investment could be used as a replacement for most of the labor.  Correct and the problem is only going to get worse as AI improves.  You are familiar with [CGPGrey's Humans Need Not Apply video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU)?  &gt; It was true with the cotton gin and it will be true with future innovations.  Right, so the problem of non-living wages is systemic.  Maybe need a system that isn't designed to compensate people as little as possible."
"The only people who benefit from ""Kleenex's consumption"" are Kimberley-Clark's owners, workers/management, and the people that consume their products.  A being called ""kleenex"" doesn't exist to reap the rewards.    If you are truly in support of ""money going to the people who work for a living"" then you should be 100% in support of removing corporate taxes, and simply taxing wealth.  This is because corporate taxes cut equally among the owners, and every middle-class citizen is going to have a 401k or IRA.  On top of corporate taxes hitting the middle-class, if the good that the corporation is selling is relatively inelastic, and a lot of goods are, then a portion of the costs of corporate taxes get passed onto the consumer anyway."
Toronto is small relative to the states. Have you considered moving to NYC or even Chicago?  Everyone seems to be wanting in right now. I know of a guy with a master's from the london school of economics, CFA level III who's just started as an unpaid intern(not me).  You might be better off working a job wherein you actually produce something good for people to make money rather than just siphoning funds from others. Then you'll have funds to start your own trading unit with talented people you respect and trust.
"I just heard a lot of ""They should have known better"" lately. On an individual basis there are no excuses for borrowing more than you can pay. However if that many people do it all at the exact same time in dealings with the exact same person, I think it's safe to say the person the are all dealing with might be working against their customers best interests."
&gt;**Because if it is achievable**, it is almost certainly better than just tying the whole economy to the price of a single commodity. **If it is not achievable**, then it is almost certainly better to let the markets adjust and correct, however imperfectly, than to tie the whole economy to the whims and wishes of incompetent and politically-motivated money-printers.  So... what I'm getting from all of this, is basically how we view the possibility of a workable flat currency.  I think the possibility of whether or not a flat currency will actually work depends on many things, some more important than others. The size (and power/influence) of a country can greatly affect how a flat currency will work within that country.  If the country is large and power hungry (like ours), then a flat currency will most likely not work in the long run. It will promote greed and monopolization of wealth, but what of gold? That can't work either because a large country can't sustain itself off such an inefficient monetary system.  So... to me, it seems like extremely large countries should be split into smaller countries that can actually use flat currencies (or gold) without all of the potential for corruption.  This same sort of logic applies to our primate cousins. If a tribe of chimps gets too large, the group will split to relieve social tension.  This is a big part of why I support ideas like Cascadia.  Do you think there is a way for monetary systems to work in very large countries?
If you don't want to employer a smoker, that's fine. It's pretty common in my secondary line of work to not even employee cigarette smokers.     But that doesn't mean it's necessarily the best policy for all jobs, or that it should be a default policy without further examination.   I'm judging this based on time spent working in call centers when I was younger and going to school. I was in workforce development at the place I have in mind, so part of my job was tracking productivity. They tried so hard to screen for marijuana, but still failed pretty hard, but ended up with so many people who were addicted to opiates and/or using meth.  Ideally, the perfect work force would be totally drug free, have no medical or mental health conditions, and all have experience and intelligence. But in a metro area that ranks in the bottom 10 for educational achievement, and where $10-12 an hour is considered good pay, that's not what they're going to get.
"I'm going to subtly and cheekily change the obvious advice. There are three ways to deal with negative cashflow, not two: You're currently studying for a degree. You don't say what country you're in or how your studies are funded, but most people in the US, UK, and a fair number of other countries, run up debts while studying for a degree. They do this because a degree is valuable to them. They can't avoid it because the tuition alone costs more than most students can generate in income, never mind their living expenses. So by all means look for savings, (1). Clearly strangers on the internet can't just think up ways for you to spend less money without knowing anything about what you do spend money on. But you can at least list your expenditures for yourself, and see what's necessary. Consider also how much fun you want your studies to be: 4 years in a cold house to avoid paying for heating, and never going out with friends to avoid spending on unnecessary stuff is all very well. But with hindsight you'll regret torturing yourself if you're ever well-off enough to pay back whatever you would have borrowed to use for heating and fun. Only do (2) if it doesn't affect your studies or if the money you're paid justifies delaying the valuable asset you seek to acquire (a degree, leading perhaps to a better job but at least to the capacity to do a full-time job rather than fitting work around your studies). There are some jobs that are really good fits for students (reasonably low hours that don't clash with classes) and some jobs that are terrible. If these fail, resort to (3). I don't mean dishonest book-keeping, I mean accept that you are going to borrow money in order to pay for something of value that you can account as an asset. Work out now what you'll need to borrow and how you think you can pay it back, make sure the sum is worth it, budget for that, stick to your budget. You'll still have negative cashflow, nothing changes there, but your capital account looks fine.
"I used to travel a lot for work, in '14 I spent 35 work weeks on the road, so I know air travel pretty well. Thing is, anyone who travels that often generally doesn't need to pay for a better seat. I got upgraded to first class for free about 50% of the time, some trips I'd get first class on all the flights. At the worst, you're sitting in the coach ""plus"" with larger seats, more legroom, and often free drinks. Regular fliers don't sit in the back by the bathrooms, they're sitting further up right behind first class. Either you travel infrequently enough that you can suck it up for a coach flight every so often, or you're traveling often enough that you don't need to worry about it."
As somebody who has worked remotely for the last 5 years, first at 50%, then at 100%, I find this shift to be far superior to office work. My productivity is up, my focus is good, and the work/life balance is far better than if I was working in an office. I can put in a longer day than my colleagues, yet still be free to pursue outside goals sooner than they are by eliminating my commute. Instead of spending money on greasy rushed lunches near the office, I eat healthy and cheaply at home. My energy, focus, and balance are all better.
"1) Don't leave anything off your CV, get a little job. 2) Upload it. It helps to know that you have done certain modules without fucking them up. 3) Turn any question (including this one) into a dialogue. ""I was always aware of JP as a company, but I really got more of an insight when I was studying them for my final project ..."" 4) LEVERAGE THE FUCK OUT OF YOUR DIVERSITY! The majority of the applicants are white males and these large companies have diversity initiatives which they have to meet. You are doing yourself a huge disservice if you do not mention your background on those forms. 5) Launguages are a great skill so make sure it is on your CV clearly near the start. You should keep your name AND include your full name on the CV. The bad press Muslims get is not going to affect you negatively.  You will not be discriminated against in the way that you think. Everyone who I know who works at JP is Nigerian. When was the last time you read a nice news article about Nigeria?"