vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It may just be that their website isn't set up to track inventory.  However, if it happening frequently, I would suggest shopping elsewhere.  That practice suggests a business that is horribly disorganized, dishonest or, most likely, on the edge of insolvency.
Not to mention, people only shop at Walmart because they have to.   Whether it's small budgets or quite literally no other choices in town, most people don't like Walmart but shop there anyway. It has a bad reputation for many things. They often have lower quality versions of the same products available elsewhere because they bully suppliers into lowering prices. They also steal products to be marketed under their Great Value brand. They bleed local economies by underpaying employees and offering no benefits. And, they are seen as the low class option compared to other stores like Target.  If there was another option, people would take it. As soon as Amazon perfects the shipping system, Walmart will be a thing of the past. Sam's Club might still have a shot, though Costco seems to be edging them out too.
I'm more shocked that sears is still in business. I occasionally drop in to go to little ceasars and i rarely ever see more than a handful of people there. It's like what wal-mart would look like if it lost 90% of its customers.
"I remember when they were making a tidy profit, and I thought ""I wish every branch of the government ran like this.""  The real reason they are losing money? Email.   Sure, they can still exist as a break even, and they should. However, once upon a time they were taking a letter for 32 cents to anywhere the fuck you wanted in the US and making a profit. That's pretty cool."
The story says this property ranked near the bottom among NJ casinos for money won from gamblers.  It's not just poor financial planning that caused this place's failure. Operationally, it was poorly managed as well considering it's excellent location.
The post office has already been replaced with private options. Thats why it is failing and loosing billions a month. You have taken my money and have been trying to justify it this whole thread. Taxes are theft you just don't want to admit it. Taking less is still taking.
"Oh!  Well, on that mark, we are in agreement!  But we need to get to the source of the issue so we can correct it properly, rather than blanketing it as ""the government"".  Sources of issues:  1)  Lobbyists for special interests can actually push through garbage bills due to lack of knowledge by, and financial influences over, congress.  2)  Regulation groups are also infested with Lobbyists and special interest groups whose goals are counter to the regulating.  Regulators are being financially influenced as well.  3)  Voting is manipulated by Gerrymandering and inadequate voting systems.  First Past the Post removes choice from the voters in favor of the preferences of a ""faux"" two part system.  4)  Bills that already disrupt the healthy economic working of the nation are already in place and causing damage.  Things like the Post Office need revamped to foster competition rather than stifle it.  What else am I missing in this list?"
another point to consider is that as new jobs are created in services for example, they don't necessarily create as much value (and therefore income) as the old jobs that they are replacing  this is one reason for our current economic structure, a tiny upper class and a majority of low-wage earners serving them
"There is a distinction between putting a lot of hours into building a semi autonomous business and having your Accountant and Tax Lawyer find legal loopholes so you can avoid millions of dollars of debt again and again.  Then you are using the word ""passive income"" wrong.    ""What would become of an economy if 50% of a population decided they didn't like working and so took up speculating stock prices full time?""  50%+ of the population isn't intelligent enough to even do this.  The ones that are probably don't make much money.  It's a huge gamble.  What if 50% of the population decided to gamble in Vegas full time?  It's just as absurd.  ""Yes, it is ""smart"" to abuse every existing loophole, but it is not ethical and it is certainly not sustainable without being to the detriment of others. I prefer a system where people have integrity and where manipulating others is looked down upon, rather than admired.""  I still don't know where you even got this idea.  I've read the book and he doesn't even really talk about this.  ""but it is not ethical and it is certainly not sustainable without being to the detriment of others""  You're right, it isn't, which is why most people don't do it for a living."
Or how about Applebee's food sucks. Same as Olive Garden or Buffalo Wild Wings. I would rather spend the same at a mom and pop shop or maybe a little more for something not made out of a bag and microwaved.  If I was going to do that, why spend 12 for a meal? Just go to Taco Bell..  Perhaps failing restaurants and brands should stop blaming millennials and come to terms that they are simply out of touch.  Sorry Applebee's, your more expensive than panera and your food is shitty.
&gt; There are too many fingers in the pie - corporate, shareholders and franchisees are all trying to get the most money out of it. So prices go up and they slash and slash the quality.  You may be right overall but this is a strange sentence. Corporate and shareholders have the same slice of the pie you realise, right?
When I walk into a Sears or K-Mart, I feel like I am stepping back 30 years.  Some of their stores are downright neglected.  If they want to compete, they have to remodel their physical stores, remodel their sales tactics, and probably change names.  None of which anyone is going to loan them any money to do, at this point.  Short stock, anyone?
Places can succeed with mediocre food.  They just have to price things right and/or have redeeming qualities making up for the meh food.  BWW just doesn't have anything to offer.  They're shitty to be in and their food is overpriced.  So why go there?  Improving the quality of their food probably wouldn't even matter that much because bar wings (and other bar food) aren't going to have all that much pull no matter how great they are.
"So like a Love's Truckstop that says it serves ""fair trade"" coffee, but in reality is hand packing keurig cups with Folgers, because of course this venture is going to blow up in their faces in some hilariously inept attempt at competent management."
&gt;Yea I think a lot of this article is poorly written stats mashed together to make a weak statement.  It does have quotes from the National Retail Federation, who loves to try to make swipe fees seem egregious no matter what. They also only really care about huge corporations, so they need to change their name.
"There's a big difference between paying for a properly prepared first rate meal, and paying for a microwave jockey to nuke up your bowl of mediocre bulk pre-made bagged soup, your microwaved baked potato, a chain-restaurant cut of flat-top seared steak, and some precooked bread that was probably delivered a few days ago.  The reason places like applebees and bww are failing is because the food quality is atrocious. The food isn't an afterthought, it's the main reason you're there. If it's terrible, there's no reason to go back, and most people have already realized that.  Applebees is quickly reaching ""tainted brand"" status because of this."
Because most people can barely manage to operate a can opener, let alone do anything worthwhile, so these retards are upset because they think they're something special and they're probably garbage men posing online as special forces MBAs or some shit.  The downvote is probably proof that I'm right more than anything.
after 10 years, I don't see how you could end up buying from a little shop. I know people much less experienced than him that don't do that...   It's difficult but even someone with 1 year of experience here in China wouldn't do that
"Unfortunately, where I live, minimum wage is what is available to High School graduates.  We have an abundance of minimum wage jobs looking to hire, and no docks, and few greater than minimum wage jobs for people right out of High School.  And minimum wage isn't enough to support a person here.  I think school costs have gone up for more than just loans for everyone.  Our colleges have administration bloat, huge wages for the top few, and are being run like businesses rather than schools: profit over people.  Their educational license still stands, but they work to increase their profit rather than increase their quality of education.  I understand that there is a large ""blame game"" going on about why people are poor or undeserving.  They are lazy. They are drug addicts and gangsters.  They are entitled.  Any excuse we can come up with to not help the other guy.  The other issue is HOW we help the other guy:  Do we hand them money and say, ""Go out and succeed""?  That's been our current method.  But both of these issues again fall to education!  If we can improve education so it teaches people how to have an impact on their world, how to find something they can do well, and how to succeed, then we can resolve the other issues.  Right now, our schools teach basic skills: Math, Science, Reading to the extent that the students can past the tests.  But the world is not built on Math, Science, and Reading.  They are important, but more important are social skills, resource allocation and utilization, self-learning, testing and verifying.  Teach them the basics!  We need them!  But teach them to be self-controlling, self-responsible people.  I know this is part of the third paragraph, but I find, on the outset, we may seem like we have completely different views, when in reality, it is simply where we put the emphasis, not the actual view itself, that differs."
Your analogy is a poor representation of my point. My point being that finding success in life is hard, no matter what you want to do. An idea that is consistent in all ideologies.   Well, it is solely controlled by s/d, kinda. The things you listed all affect s/d which controls the market. Of course there will always be waves of new graduates to fill min wage jobs, because most everyone can do them, that was kinda my point. It's not so much the company controlling demand as it is the company adjusting to it, if there are an abundance of min wage jobs relative to the amount of workers, they wouldn't be min wage jobs. This premise of s/d is in no way unique to capitalism. And even the fluctuations in compensation to mirror your contribution and skills isn't unique to capitalism.  Sure capitalism favors those with more capital, which is the point. In order to acquire capital you need to do productive things, which (idealy) are productive to some degree to society as a whole. So, acquire more capital- SEE IT'S SO EASY!
&gt; If there was, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.  personally, i haven't been to walmart in probably six years, despite living in cities. i buy my necessities at my grocery store, since i'm already there to buy food. i use amazon a lot. i think the problem of monopoly (i'm using this term loosely - walmart isnt technically a monopoly) will be fixed with cultural improvement. people will become more aware and smarter. people will become richer and care more about a company's human rights record, environmental record, etc. but for now, walmart is a good company. it provides a lot of people with cheap products, which allows them to have a better life and spend money on other things. the main problem IMO is that the govt/fed has caused our economy to self-destruct. so people are eager to get low prices. if the govt were smaller (something i assume you are against), our economy would get better, and poor people would be better off. ron paul and libertarians DO believe their beliefs are best for the poor.
Unfortunately, humans need motivation to maintain efficiency. Nothing is perfect, but the best motivation to keep the entire system as efficient and sustaining as possible has been the system where competition is promoted. The reason why we are in the mess we are in is because the government has failed to promote competition either by creating monopolies or oligopolies itself or letting industries become less competitive.
Why? Because when I play a game, I use every rule to my advantage. It sounds like that's what he's doing. He's also created thousands of jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.   I admire people with the inclination and skills to be a shrewd businessman. I don't know the guy personally, or much of anything about him. I'm mostly defending the practice of playing the game to win, and having the skills to do so.
I think what he is trying to say is that, if we fix our economic mindset of trickle down economics and shift the wealth so it is more middle class focused, America will be able to have more paying customers with greater disposable incomes. Thus allowing businesses to have a more constant and heavier flow of revenue which would in turn allow the businesses to expand in employees, facilities, R&amp;D, etc.
If that's the case I hope continues and is more articulate about he is proposing.   Maybe I'm just a cynic but I see CEOs and Governors and Congressmen as all cut from the same cloth.   They paint a beautiful picture that everyone loves and they build support by that.  For businessmen, this is the top job.  For politicians, that support winning the election.   How and whether they can deliver on the dream is always irrelevant.  The supporters don't wise up until years later.
I think it's messed up, I'm not saying I would run my personal life or my personal business in that way, but yes, within the law, everyone should pretty much do whatever they can to advance their own cause as much as possible. Yes, if we as a society feel that this behavior is not good or beneficial, we should disallow it.
EVERYTHING is built on oppositional forces, and a kind of competition.  Otherwise the word wouldn’t exist.  Capitalism gets better the more healthy competition there is.  Competition that stomps all other competitors to the ground is not healthy for Capitalism or society.
Without knowing the details of that journey, it's very easy to agree. But successful people have a very strong bias to see themselves as responsible for their success, discounting, ignoring or being oblivious to the factors outside thier control that critically contrubuted. Pointing out the fortunes that assisted undermines an ego they are very vested in protecting.
I feel like this change is the first of many that are going to continue to happen in the business world because there is a younger wiser generation arising that appreciate the power of technology and will get rid of these things that are not as efficient or old fashioned  such as the landline.
For me even if you conceed the first, the 2nd is untenable. clearly seen in the rise of Asia and of India through the 20th &amp;21st century, education medicine ,social support and infrastructure play a much larger role in the ability of a society to effectively allocate resource , than the vain colour of ones skin or the line of ones heritage. Not to say the first is entirely true either, as the mistakes of yours forbearers weigh on your ability as much as their success accelerates you . There are key resources, and educations the places such as Zimbabwe lacked, the made them unable to use resource historically in the same way as the modern western world (water hygiene, tool making resource, most notably land able to support intensive farming, and food storage. ) . Instead the cultures would have developed to use the land resources as is most efficient, though may not nessisarily be the centralised cities and farming of Europe. Further I would argue education and infrastructure, as was seen originally with the foundation of the us the America's resource was untapped without the machinery or knowledge to take advantage of it, which debatably comes best from the close quarters of Europe. Writing also, improving the transfer of information by orders of magnitude , first created in the middle East, taken up by the Greeks, then the Romans . Therefore much of Europe's success (amount other thing s) can be credited to to Romans, and theirs to the Greeks, and theirs to the Persians . Clearly the Persians , nor even the Romans were ""white "" by any pure standard. (Especially noting England's boom occurred after introduction of Roman infrastructure, and more recently Asia with western international corporation's) I would argue that the size of a society and it's economic success (which may not nessisarily be the aim of the society) has more to do with the tools available, the location and access to trade, infrastructure and social support (including medicine). These are things that are not inextricably linked to the colour of ones skin. Therefore to say that ""blacks"" by virtue of being black, lacking any other qualifying information, are inherently less able to bring America into economic success than ""whites"" by virtue of them being white, lacking any qualifying information, is not entirely factually correct and is naturally open to criticism.
"Wait, are you telling me that some guy is pushing a bill that would ENHANCE transparency in business and make it harder for the ""job creators"" to get away with fraud? Well i guess we know which way the republicans are going to be voting... The conservatives will be voting against such ""government overreach"""
"&gt; Identifying and supporting products good for the business   If a gray person comes with a great idea or innovation, any idiot can ""identify"" and ""support"" that product.  And you want to bet how many great ideas and products Steve and CEOs said ""No!"" and it turned out to be huge mistakes?  Do you know the story of Bill Gates/Microsoft Internet Explorer versus Steve Jobs/Macintosh?   Hint: eventually, Steve had to cave in and ask Bill Gates to make a version of Internet Explorer for the Macintosh.  In this respect, Bill Gates was much much better than Steve Jobs in identifying and supporting new products and ideas."
"The argument puts forth a false dichotomy in support of an ideological position.  The ""1%"" is also a perjorative term that's rapidly becoming noxious.   Entrepreneurs organise the effort that leads to fulfillment of consumer demand and create jobs when doing so.  Consumer demand does not magically result in supply. It requires an organiser."
Growth and efficiency can occur independently of each other.  For instance, if an economy consists of one inefficient business and then a second more efficient business opens to compete agains the first the overall efficiency increases while the economy grows. New industries tend to be inefficient at the beginning (since initiation is more important than optimisation) and then become more efficient over time.  Agriculture is an amazingly efficient business if you consider how many people now produce the amount of food we consume in comparison to only 100 years ago. Plus, efficiency is not only about producing extra widgets.  You could produce the same number of widgets for lower cost.  Outsourcing to China (taking advantage of their lower cost of production) increases the efficiency of the US economy, but also increases the efficiency of the Chinese economy (since extra work is created producing more things).  Lower costs in the US lead to increased investment in other production.  Increased production in China leads to the rising wages there. Growth can be achieved in both places for very different reasons. So, no, growth doesn't have to come about through less efficiency.
"Consider it this way: ***EVERYONE*** has one or more of those ""lucky events"" in their lives. Every single person overheard the right conversation, or was in the right place at the right time, or had that spontaneous collision of thoughts resulting in a ""eureka"" moment.   The people that are successful are the ones who had the wisdom, intelligence, and/or drive to capitalize on that moment."
"Double digit increase in tax liabilities might not ""break"" a business, but if you already keep less than half of gross profits because of liabilities for tax, insurances, etc, what incentive do you have to continue if in doing so your costs go up even higher?  Do you realize how many retailers have gone out of business because of increased overhead?   Obama said he didn't build it, but he'll sure as shit shut it down or sell the business if there's no incentive to continue.   To use your words its amazing you make such assumptions in such a ""cut-and-dry fashion"" knowing nothing about the actual details of the business except that there is a lot of net revenue and gross profit. GROSS profit, not necessarily net profit."
In the United Kingdom, there is a leading company that has been offering Progressive business funding solutions to the businesses for the last 120 years. Their service areas are South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada, Australia, USA, etc.
A growing economy should become more efficient because of increased opportunity for division of labor: specialization. External regulation or monetary policy external to the free market can cause parts of the economy to grow in response to said regulations.  This creates inefficiencies that are wrung out of the economy after the policies reverse.  A couple of examples: Tinkering with the economy causes the inefficiencies.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/28/the-associated-press-us-economy-expanded-at-stronger-2-point-6-percent-rate-in-q2.html) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The revision slightly boosted growth over the past three years, enough to lift the average growth in this recovery, now the third longest in U.S. history, to annual gains of 2.2 percent, up from the previous estimate of 2.1 percent.  &gt; The 2.6 percent growth in the second quarter was the fastest pace since the economy expanded at a 2.8 percent rate in the third quarter of last year.  &gt; Much of the strength in the April-June period came from consumer spending, which grew at a 2.8 percent rate, up from a 1.9 percent growth rate in the first quarter.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6qr78a/us_economy_expanded_at_26_percent_rate_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~180154 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **growth**^#1 **percent**^#2 **quarter**^#3 **rate**^#4 **year**^#5"
#####&amp;#009; ######&amp;#009; ####&amp;#009; [**Progress and Poverty**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress%20and%20Poverty): [](#sfw) --- &gt; &gt;___Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry into the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth: The Remedy___ was written by [Henry George](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George) in 1879. The book is a [treatise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise) on the [cyclical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle) nature of an industrial [economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy) and its remedies.
TLDR summary: Automation helps drive the economy rather than cause unemployment. Just look at the last 10 centuries (forgetting that the combination of information technology with automation started with the generation of milinials and has never been seen before in history.) And milinials are happy with their jobs even though they are replaceable because they have no kids, friends, or family to enjoy. Their low paying jobs and occasional vacations are all they have to enjoy.
Being blinded by party or idealogical bias would prevent one from seeing the qualifications of someone who is otherwise qualified for a position.  Somehow he must have bluffed his way through a governorship, running a successful Olympics and building a successful business, right?