vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It's important to remember that upward trending things spend the vast majority of their time at all time highs - intelligent, well meaning people have been regularly saying the Dow Jones has been too expensive since about 2010, often because it was now at 'all time highs':   Sitting on the sidelines can end up just as expensive (if not more so) than avoiding big drops. If you are worried about a large down swing straight after investing just drip it in over a period you feel comfortable with - no one can really answer this better than that without more info on your risk tolerance and exactly what you want to invest in.  Worth noting that buying anything other than transaction free funds when split into small transactions also adds a lot more fees (~£10 entry and exit in a UK ISA for example). Split these over 12 months say, and it will cost you £240 straight out of the gate (2 fund purchases per month for 12 months @£10 each) and another £240 to exit before any holding fees from the ISA platform: that's over 1% of your capital gone just to your stockbroker employing this strategy.  Both the products you mention are also quite high cost in ongoing charges, so unless you have very high convictions about the management quality, will also probably lag cheaper investment types over the long run as well due to the dire performance of virtually all higher cost, active management over time.
I totally understand where you come from and what you mean. And yes I would be partnered in this business since I would be the sole (there's only gonna be one) investor. The guy can't keep up demand and he doesn't wanna export is what my friend - his sister - told me so he's looking to find an investor. And I know it isn't free money since technically I would be investing and resorting the benefits of said investment. However, it would be tax-free afaik but even if it weren't I'd still be partnered with him and his business
Look, bro, I'm not trying to stop you.  By all means take your mom's SSDI' and sink it into this shit.  I really *give zero fucks* except for when you lose everything, when it's funny to be me.
Sweet so you've spent the last six months sinking money into this and have made *hundreds* (your words).  You could have made *thousands* at a part time job but then you'd have had to admit your mom was right about everything.  No but seriously keep being funny because the rest of the internet (and I) love laughing at you.  All the best!
Nobody is going to stop you if you want to try that. But you should keep in mind that you have to invest a lot in getting the best hardware you can lay your hands on, best fail-safe connectivity to the exchanges, best trading algorithms and software that money can buy and loads of other stuff. This all needs quite a big amount of upfront investment without guaranteeing returns. That is why you see institutions with deep pockets i.e. banks and trading firms only involve themselves in HFT.
As much as you want, and are otherwise comfortable with. No matter where you go or what you do, I doubt you would miss the money more than the experience. Money is just money and you can always get some more, but you can't get more time. That's my rule of thumb.
You gun!!! That is awesome to hear I'm hoping to have everyone up and running by the start of 2019 I have a lot to learn before I put money into everything but hearing that it works helps with this whole thing.
I think you are mixing up the likelihood of making a profit with the amount of profit. The likelyhood of profit will be the same, because if you buy $100 worth of shares and the price moves up you will make a profit. If you instead bought $1000 worth of the same shares at the same price and the price moved up you would once again make a profit. In fact if you don't include commissions and other fees, and you buy and sell at the same prices, you percentage profit would be the same.  For example, if you bought at $10 and sold at $12, you percentage gain of 20% would be the same no matter how many shares you bought (not including commissions). So if you bought $100 worth your gain would have been 20% or $20 and if you bought $1000 worth your gain would have been 20% or $200. However, if you include commissions, say $10 in and $10 out, your net profit on $100 would have been $0 (0%) and your net profit on $1000 would have been $180 (18%).
use all cash I have This is a horrible idea. Any problem requiring money will turn into a really big problem. For example any bigger problem with newly bought 2 room flat (emergency repair, damage by renter) will both reduce income and be impossible to fix until some money is secured. Whatever contribution higher than minimal depends on many factors (risks, alternative sources of money, loan conditions etc). But spending all cash and living paycheck to paycheck is unlikely to be worth it. it can be assumed, that I will always be able to find someone to rent my flats This is a very optimistic assumption.
There are been many tests about invest all the money immediately and average it out during a period of time.  The results favor to invest the lump sum immediately, so your money starts to work and produce income with dividends. Cash don't produce any income.
I own less than 1BTC, and I think this is a bubble about to burst but it could go either way. After all, a small purchase of bitcoins three years ago paid for my brand new Toyota Sequoia this summer. You never know.
It's extremely divisible. The smallest unit is 0.00000001 BTC. This smallest unit is called a satoshi, after the pseudonym of the inventor of Bitcoin.  I suggested to my friends and family back in mid 2015 that they invest a little of their money. Nobody did. Back then I bought 21 BTC at around $600 USD/BTC for a total value of slightly less than $13k USD. Currently it's worth over $90k. I can't tell you how many of them say they wish they had listened to me. Then when I tell them they should still buy they think it's too late. It's not.
2%? I would put in just what it takes to share in the profit sharing, not a dime more. My S&P fund cost is .02% (edited, as it dropped to .02 since original post), 1/100 of the cost of most funds you list. Doesn't take too many years of this fee to negate the potential tax savings, and not many more to make this a real loser.
It's not worth the effort - executing a transaction costs time and money,and if you get only back your 14 cent, why'd you care? Same reason why some people don't pick up a penny - not worth the effort
I'm curious about your mention of the short tenure of Amazon engineers. As an undergrad who's never worked in a large tech company before, may I ask if this is usual for the big 4 or a uniquely Amazon thing?
I've heard higher end jobs suck too.  It's the polar opposite of what a lot of silicon valley strives for: you get no stake in anything, you are only as good as your last project, and you have hella rough deadlines.  A lot of young devs go in with a romanticized view of Bezos and what he's done.
They've already passed into economies of scale and are about to take a hit in profit if they keep growing (due to competition catching up) However this is mostly about its retail portion. Amazon seems like it's trying to escape the box it built for itself and it's done a pretty good job breaking out so far
This is far more important than Facebook shares. Models for games like theirs can easily be changed to find new revenue streams. Heck, if they wanted they could up and move to Google+ and still make money. Or start a traditional game app factory.
Very odd site, it seems extremely useful but then there are douchey users with superiority complexes that may or may not be real, lmao.   Good point the manager made, cost of living in NY is damn expensive and unless you get aggressive with all the other schmucks there and move up you're not doing yourself a huge favor. I'd take the guaranteed cash, regular hours, and strong possibility of moving high up in the smaller company. Although both options aren't want I'd want to be doing for the rest of my life.
They are the largest non government employer in the country. They have an absolutely massive consumer base. They made that profit while constantly lowering prices for their customers. I bet you use them on a regular basis. It is kind of funny watching your faux indignation. Isn't Apple your product provider of choice? One of the most expensive over priced producers currently on the market. With one of the lowest paid work forces on the planet. But well paid for their market. You just ooze hypocrite. Like most Apple  social warriors. Its funny listening to people like you speak for others you would never be caught mingling with.
I think there is a huge difference to what Google does with intangible assets as compared to a company such as Facebook. Facebook floated and as people thought it was highly overvalued the share price plummeted. Google on the other hand has many years of relatively stable growth and share price in a market that is generally pretty well informed.  So I disagree.
Zynga is based on a single point of failure, in an industry known even among technology companies as very faddish.  Netflix is different in that they actually have more than one content source, and if the MAFIAA drops Netflix, *nobody* will get to pick up the customers, they'll flee back to bittorrent.
I'm pretty sure I do, given that it's my job to research the underlying business model and psychological tricks they build their customer experience on. They've very, very deliberately built their products to be the way they are, and some random joe isn't going to substitute for it at the drop of a hat.
"It would depend on how you look at those three companies. Each has overwhelming market share in its core business (search, social, and online shopping). However, if you define them more broadly (like Google and Facebook as ""online advertisers"") they overlap. Also, some of their less-central business ventures overlap (e.g. Amazon and Google both sell cloud compute stuff, they all do Machine Learning)."
Agree. Ony shit thing is they outsourced CS to India or some asian country. Being they make stupid money why the heck not make the country that created you a place where you have all services. Sadly the cost of companies always having VCs that have no heart for people but just for coin. Like a bread of little fingers :)
Well without Cisco's products you can not connect to internet at first place. I can tomorrow found a site like FB by jacking its script but in no way I can produce anything Cisco produces.  I understand that it is expected growth rate is two times higher than Cisco but so is its p/e and its risk. When I was in high school there was a site called myspace which nobody remembers today.
Yes youre right it's far more complex than the M-M textbook theory. My view is that there's even more advantages to debt than M-M would say. Further you've nailed exactly why these companies don't follow corporate norms. As disruptors they fear disruption despite their pretty much impenetrable moats. But their CFOs are slowly turning them. MSFT now has a normal corporate structure, apple is getting there, and Google hired Morgan Stanley's CFO. I disagree on your last point: what an entrepreneur CEO (who built a disruptive business from the ground up) wants for his balance sheet is usually not the right thing for shareholders. They do it because they can get away with it due to share class structure and their phenomenal operating performance. That's just my opinion.
Culture is always the first thing to go when the profits decline. Netflix has the bank to perk the shit out of the staff and the market attractiveness to promote a meritocracy during this growth phase... But when the margins disappear you can expect this attitude to change.
Im just saying I am familiar with this stuff and I have seen the way things work there and how capable they are of replacing someone like Walmart anytime soon. Again, it could happen in the not too distant future but it's at least a decade out before things get bad for Walmart.
You use Amazon if you use the internet. Amazon AWS controls 50% of the cloud provider market, which provides the back end and holds data for many websites, apps, and services. There's simply no avoiding feeding Amazon since they control the backend. There's also no way to totally avoid Google/Facebook internet advertising since they rake in a combined 75% of online ad spend and display ads on a plethora of services.  So you're not using Android, Chrome, Google search, Gmail, Google Photos, Youtube, Whats app, Instagram, FireTV/Chromecast, or Android Auto correct? Those all feed massive amounts of user data into the aforementioned data behemoths. I find it hard to believe you don't use Youtube since it has a near monopoly on user created video, and the alternatives to Google search are pretty inferior unfortunately.
Eh, I've read their list and it didn't seem like they had that strong of arguments for their selections. Some of those I'm sure will make the short list but others don't seem to match what Amazon is looking for at all.
"Remember this gush-a-thon when everything you can buy comes from the Amazon [chaebol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol).  Only on this site could there be a cult surrounding a predatory reptile who would make the Rockefellers and JP Morgan squirm.  You've been sucked in again; just like with Saint Elon and the Martyred Steve. Those 'disruptors', putting it to the ""man"" from their little garages, until they inevitably become what they conquered."
I think you really have to ask yourself if its worth it, the risk/reward.  Can you trust a publicly traded company with your data in return for the analytics you can get back from them?
&gt; monopoly  &gt; names 3 giant companies who compete with each other in almost every industry possible  What happened to /economy :(. It used to be actual business minded people, now it's becoming another socialist echo chamber... Sad to see.
I'm sure they're not even in the running then. Amazon is definitely looking for tax breaks, and that's not unreasonable given how many jobs they'll be bringing to the table, along with the talent that will move there as well.
not really one to argue semantics, retail stores are closing by the dozen these days as Amazon looks to purchase brick and motor locations like Sears and Whole Foods.. A few choices today, talk to me in 10 years.. You may be to young, I don't know but the same was said about Verizon early on and now it pretty much controls communications, Amazon is on the same highway, very soon they will control the majority of retail..
Wells Fargo or pre-sale Yahoo -- or any other large company that give golden parachutes to incompetent CEOs.  I have no illusions about my abilities.  On the other hand, I can't be any worse than some of those bastards.
Honestly, I get the feeling that CS degrees are flooding the market right now, and that Finance has kind of fallen by the wayside, making it a better degree to have.  Of course, this is based purely off hearsay and secondary observation.
&gt;Someone remind WalMart this is not 2007 when they were the baddest, biggest company in the country  But....they are...  Their revenue is over quadruple that of amazons, and in 2015 amazon had profits of 596 million, while Walmart had 14.6 *billion*.  So yes, I'd say that Amazon is somewhat of a decent competitor, but Wal-Mart is still *very far* ahead of amazon in all metrics (including having a higher profit margin!) which means - more leverage against amazon.
"&gt;With their customer base, they can literally choose segments of the market and dismantle them.  Or so you think.  And of course everyone else will be ""powerless"" to oppose them, and all of their users will simply follow like sheep...  Wow. Delusional."
Virtually all of Facebook's users also use Windows (either at home or at work). Microsoft charges money for Windows licenses, lots of money. You can make the same analogy for Microsoft's Business division (Office products). Facebook's valuation is getting comparable to Microsoft (ex-cash stockpile). It is absolutely ridiculous. Google is the dominant online advertiser, and Google's profits is not even close to what Microsoft makes. Only a small fraction. Even if Facebook meets all future expectations and becomes the dominant online advertiser, making the same amount of money as Google, it still doesn't deserve that $100B valuation today, as it will take years before it gets up there. Facebook may be an amazing product, but collecting hundreds of dollars per license renewal is simply a better business than an ad-supported model. In order for advertisers to pay Facebook $100/user (the type of money Microsoft makes), the users must be buying thousands of dollars more stuff because of Facebook ads. That's not possible, especially with other methods of advertising all competing.
the whole angle here was the synergies of whole food's affluent shopping demographic and amazon's efficiency.    All the while Walmart is getting shit on by every millennial that has access to HuffPost for only offering minimum wage jobs to over 500,000 people, Amazon has it in mind to eliminate the job completely, and getting the accolades for having a good reputation in the community.  Comes to show how important it is for a marketing team to control and shape the message perception and interpretation.  In short, Amazon will dry the lake and we will thank them for it, while Walmart made the masses fight for whatever water was left while we chastised them.    How does common man win here unless their parents hand them an inheritance?  p.s. im high
They are one of the bigger companies pushing for more 10G gear as well as lower power consumption; they have the size, cash, and the need for better, faster and cheaper software and hardware. But don't take my word for it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4958/facebooks-open-compute-server-tested (one of many such articles). As much as I hate facebook, the reality is that there is quite a bit of drive on the technical side.
amazon is only a handful of years old really. it didn't come into being until well into the time companies were alreadsy shipping customer service jobs overseas. they were lucky with when they entered the market.  and keep in mind, amazon is a service, not a product. it was only after product uniformation started in the 90's that things other than the product became of interest to the consumer.
Are we still discussing Amazon? Their net income has hovered around $1 billion per year for the past three years.  If that's profit-free, sign me up. They do have very thin margins, but it's clearly by design. And you really do have to take into account the massive volume of sales they do.  Still, like you, I'm curious to see if they'll ever turn into a mature, dividend-paying company. For example, it's been interesting to see Microsoft hike their dividend to a fairly competitive level while Yahoo resists being seen as anything other than a growth story.
&gt;If, however, they create their own service and everyone just likes it more then there's not much the US Government can do.   Unless they get to big in any of their industries and then there definitely is something the govt can do.
Used to be big on netflix culture, but after working in a place with very similar culture then reading a recent post from their CEO comparing their teams to professional sports teams (the implication that there are starters and folks who are on the bench, and the folks being benched should be cut/fired). I'm not so sure.   These kinds of cultures breed toxicity, the stench of with they try to disguise with the faux perfume of hyper-meritocracy (the best survive, everyone else can go). Truth is they're not willing to invest in personally improving their employees, so they just want to do the easy job of picking the most talented people and discarding them as soon as they stop performing ... its lazy, and its pretty ugly once you figure out how it all works.
Innovation? Last I checked, they still do the same damn thing they've been doing for the past decade or more. They just happened to have been the first successful brand in the video streaming industry when it began. No amount of free coffee and naps and beer will change that.
"The firms listed as protesting - Google, Facebook, Amazon, Reddit, AirBnB, Twitter and Snapchat - almost to a ""T"" (sans Amazon) rely on the free delivery of content model to survive.  Of all of these, Google benefits most due to the advertising revenues.  I pay for the New York Times because I find that it's quality journalism.  I don't pay for the Huffington Post because it's shit journalism.  If it was no longer free to deliver that sort of content, the NYT would survive; the Huffer's Post wouldn't.  And is that what we're fighting for here?  The right for the Huffington Post to scrape content off the web, provide it for free, then earn money off of advertising for grabbing our eyeballs?  Think about who you're carrying water for here."
I just finished working for a major retailer this past summer, and most retailers are freaking out because Amazon has a diversified enough portfolio that they can undercut everyone else's prices while maintaining revenue, but one day they will have to actually make a profit. Unfortunately, that's probably gonna happen after they've screwed everyone else out of the market and they can charge reasonable prices.   Retail is about to get a lot crazier folks. Grab your popcorn.
That's why a major metro area is more likely than regular metro. Maybe even the so-called mega metro areas.  Depending on how it grows it could surpass Seattle if an industry they latch onto into that area is profitable. AWS is awesome but can't be as big yet. The major ones like drones combined with driverless vehicles and energy flows into trillion dollar industries over the next 20 years.  California needs automated logistical infrastructure like nobodies business. Do you know how many people are going to try and buy the first driverless vehicles in California? Do you know how many customers they would have within 100 tightly packed miles that would be lifelong customer's?  It depends on the balance between customers and HQ human resources. Obviously office space doesn't serve customers directly.  Let's see what cities propose for drone and driverless vehicle allowances. Amazon could make ups, FedEx and usps obsolete in a decade.... Plus analysts seem to think whoever gets driverless cars implemented first will be the first solidly mega corporation. Apple and Amazon will both get there without it anyway, but there's a reason everyone is working on that. CA served by NV or rural CA space would be a godsend.  Amazon could also invest in high speed commercial freight rail.  There's a thousand directions they could do. Amazon is on fire right now in a scary amazing kind of way.
If Amazon perfects same day delivery you can bet your bottom dollar that many other businesses will do so shortly thereafter.  Amazon is obviously a very formidable operation, but right now the investment community is treating Bezos like his shit doesn't stink.  Retail has *always* been a brutal economic sector in which dominant players do not last long, so let's not treat the Amazon phenomenon as if it's sui generis.  It wasn't Amazon that cracked the A&amp;P Company.  Incidentally I am growing increasingly impressed with Wal-Mart's online moves.  It's unusual for a dominant corporation to adjust like this to a new competitive threat in a non-traditional sector.
Of course not, even if it got me closer to work, I've moved 30+ times in my life and I'm fucking done with it. I'm just saying, there are conceivably options, it isn't a total monopoly, even if you have to do an unreasonable amount of work to get around it. From an investing standpoint, there are competitors, even if there aren't real options for customers.