vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"There are cases where it makes sense to insure something, even if you can bear its loss.  Insurance is a tool to control risk.  One reason you might want to control risk is indeed if you cannot afford to bear it's loss.  However, there are other reasons you might wish to insure something when you look at your life in totality. Let's say you have $100 to work with, and you have an item A that costs $30. Perhaps you really need A in your life, but its clear here that you can afford to replace it, so maybe you don't insure it.  Then you get item B, which also costs $30, and item C which costs $30.  We can see that you can cover all three of these (total value $90), so one might argue that you don't need to insure it. Now let's add item D onto the plate, also at a cost of $30.  Now you're in an interesting position, with 4 items you depend on, A B C and D, which have a sum total replacement cost of $120.  Now if all of these break or are stolen, you no longer have the funds to replace them.  Of course, what are the odds that all of them break at the same time?  You may be able to do the math to determine the probability of going broke, and use that to determine whether you want to insure the item or not. Now consider that you will have to make a similar mathematical analysis for every additional purchase you make.  You will also have items which you can ""bear to lose"" but you really don't want to.  These can add a large amount of effort to every decision you make.  It may be worth getting insurance in such a case.  One could think of the purchase in two parts.  There is the part that accounts for the statistical expectation of loss, and the other is the insurance company's profits.  The profits could be thought of as paying the insurance company for a service which makes it easier for you to think through complicated decisions by removing risk."
The example you give would clearly be illegal, and so unenforceable in court.  If a contract contains a clause which is deemed legal but so unreasonable (completely unfair) it is unenforceable by the court, then the court can replace that cause with a more reasonable clause.  I think it would be a fairly expensive (and likely losing) argument to convince a court that this particular contract was unfair,  but if you did it would probably mean only a change in the penalty clause to make it 'reasonable'.
Gods are supposed to exist independently from humans - that's part of the belief. Other than that, we really have mapped out old faiths onto the new structure. We are told to have faith, keep our heads down and behave, and we'll have a pleasant retirement (i.e. afterlife). The market will provide, God willing...
That would be lead to eveeel and wasteful litigation.  Youre basically making a pro contingency fee structure argument.  Those incentives exists in private rights of actions which have been whittled away.  Look at the result.
Forcing someone to pay for your personal bills is always immoral. If you need help then ask for it, but don't point a gun at someone and just take it.  It is first and foremost your responsibility if you can't afford private insurance.
"&gt; ...doesn't strip those people of the ability to walk by without buying.  There are plenty of examples where [""framing"" is a crime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) despite the victim having the ability to opt-out.  &gt; That idea necessarily implies that there are innate human needs that are objectively knowable.  That is a textbook [ah hoc relativist fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy) and a big pile of horseshit.  You're just being stubborn if you deny that everyone needs food and water and therefore claim improving access to it is not in the common good.  Regardless the bar isn't even that high as common good is defined as something that *most* agree is beneficial to all.  &gt; ...we have to address the ethical issue of who is responsible for any harm caused to innocent people in the process.  You're just spouting a whole bunch of stuff you don't really believe.  You have no moral problems with companies pushing people to buy things that make them worse in the long run or removing government regulations that other people thought were needed to protect consumers.  You are only intolerant of ""any harm"" for ideas you disagree with."
"&gt; The laws just mean you can't make your decision on the basis of religion. Make your decision because they don't interview well, they can't do the job, they have poor qualifications, etc.  Which means people are being forced to lie and make up excuses to hide the real reason they don't want to hire someone.  &gt; Substitute, say, ""black people"" for the reference to religious expression and you see where this is a problem. Paraphrased, you've got: ""Why should I be forced to hire black people who I fundamentally oppose (and do not wish to support, however indirectly via a paycheck), why is their right to be black more valid than my right to not like black people?""  There is a MORAL problem with this insfar as I object to bigotry.  There should not, however, be a LEGAL problem with it.  If the local bigot business owner does not wish to serve blacks, they shouldn't be forced to do it - it is THEIR business. They took the risk, they pay the bills, and they should be free to hire, fire, and serve whomever they wish as long as they to not use fraud, force, or threat to do so.    if you think otherwise, then you're asking goverment to be in the morality business and this does not end well.  it is EXACTLY because of this that we see the right trying to enforce morality codes when they are in power, the left trying to enforce some version of fairness codes when they are in power.  I want one code: a code liberty that applies to everyone equally.  Yes, that means there will be bigots that do not serve blacks or gays.  But it also means that I can start a business, hire whom I wish, serve whom I wish, and thereby create community-specific value."
Yep that wasn't a shot at you. I had to read the article to determine if it meant that:  A.) A rule exists that makes it easier to sue banks, and republicans are killing it, OR  B.) Republicans are killing a rule, creating a situation that makes it easier to sue banks
Supply and demand?  A bad/poor taste joke, and I agree with its lack of relevance here in this sub, but I definitely agree with it, too. If you feel bad, and have a gun easily available, it is very easy to end your life with a twitch of the finger. If you don't have a gun, it can be much harder to make a snap decision with ease of execution (no pun intended, honestly) like suicide by firearm.
Yes to all three. However,
Unfortunately, a Supreme Court case (Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood &amp; Conklin Mfg. Co.) held that arbitration clauses are enforceable even when you are challenging the enforceability of the contract generally.  Shockingly, if you want to argue that an arbitration clause should not apply to you, you have to make your case to an arbitrator.
"Genuinely curious - equal or better - does that mean that if two candidates (male and female) are ""objectively"" equal, you have to hire the woman?   I'm not saying that this case could ever actually come up, but the threat of having to defend your decision against a court case is probably enough to sway a lot of decisions."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.aier.org/blog/academics-lift-veil-medical-protectionism) reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; In 2011 a total of 538 items required a CON license, and 37 states were enforcing CON laws.  &gt; Non-CON states provide higher-quality services, and the costs of unregulated medical care have not risen dramatically, as claimed by proponents of CON programs.  &gt; According to him, &amp;quot;So-called &amp;#039;certificate of need&amp;#039; laws increase costs for consumers by protecting inefficient hospitals and other health care providers from competition. The theory behind such laws is that since the government has completely unleashed demand by insulating consumers from the cost of their health insurance and medical care, the government must contain supply to keep spending from getting out of hand.""   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70ixsd/academics_lift_the_veil_on_medical_protectionism/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~211185 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*: **laws**^#1 **CON**^#2 **state**^#3 **care**^#4 **Health**^#5"
You think having to pay to get on a road is preferential to the government collecting money and letting anyone use the road?  So, I'd have to pay a toll every time I went to the grocery store, or pay for a monthly driving pass?  What if a company bought out the company that owned the road to my house and doubled the toll?   What it was no longer profitable to maintain the road to my small neighborhood?  I'd have to move?  That doesn't sound like a good idea *at all*.
Death of anyone can bring their close one’s in big distress and they found themselves unable to come up with this trauma of their life. When this death is of a spouse, the severity of trauma affects the life of the living one in such a huge extent that he/she begs for the death and keeps no desire of living. The inspirational books “BECAUSE THE SKY IS EVERYWHERE” and “BOTH SIDES NOW: A TRUE STORY OF LOVE, LOSS AND BOLD LIVING ” written by Nancy sharp  can work as great motivation for such people whose have no desire of living now.
&gt; No it isn't.   You specifically jumped to the most extreme and most *obvious* example of the application of consent as a concept, I'm going to say because you realize on some level that the less extreme and less obvious cases make it rather clear that what exactly does indicate consent and what exactly does not is just a matter of what society generally says it is. So I'm leaning now toward you just being a charlatan, albeit not a very good one. The rest of your comment has no relevance beyond putting on display how dumb and stubborn you're being, which might be worth going over if that weren't already established. If you change your mind about this it'll be with some reflection long after I'm done talking to you, so there's no real point sticking around waiting for you to develop on the spot.
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves.
Well, yes.  Lewis (and anybody) is presuming that you accept take advantage of good fortune.  In his own example, though, he wasn't in any way prepared to go into finance.  Having gotten there, and established himself even, he pitched it in favor of writing a book.  Neither of those examples supports everyone calling luck the result of work plus brains.
This is a real difficult situation and I think the correct way to proceed here is to be honest and straightforward.
Option 4: Go talk with someone in person at an office of the Insurance company. They have helped me several times with things like this. They can get everyone involved on a conference call and make something happen. But you have to go in. Calling is a good way to waste time and get nowhere, they will throw the issue back and forth. Find an office and go. This is the most effective solution.
TL; DR : OP (for our purposes) has many years of copyright and history with business name.  Scumbag insurance company start using same name.  OP gets lots of insuance related calls and contact from confused customers.  Scumbag insurance Co. uses Florida legal system, including scumbag judge, to try to screw Good Guy OP.  Sucks.    I upvoted in hopes that some FL lawyer will see it.
Both of these examples were game changers for these people and all done with minimal adwords expense. One thing you should do is do a google search from your house (should be in the area your dad wants to service) and search for ""plumber in [your location]"". Take a look at ads on the search engine results page. If you see lots of them for plumbers in your area then there will be competition and its a bit of a tougher road (but totally doable). If you don't see many ads then you are in luck and you will own it. I started with this book: http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Guide-Google-AdWords-Million/dp/1599180308 It changed my life. Once I because an adwords expert I felt I could do anything and I haven't been proven wrong. Good luck. If you need any help let me know."
As an actuary (health, not pensions), this is what we do.  We spend years(5+) taking exams and learning about the best and proper ways to predict liabilities, probabilities, and other statistics that we use to forecast cost and return in the future.  I am in health, not pensions, but I would check out [Actuarial Outpost](http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15) and /r/actuary. The subreddit tends to be a younger (see student) crowd but there may be someone who can better answer your question.
In your shoes, I would approach a CPA familiar with back tax issues and have them prepare your old returns, gathering as much information as they can.   Only once you have all your forms and payment ready, approach the IRS ready to settle up.
&gt;  I don't have the cash for a top tier law school or even to afford to live near one,  Why not take out some loans? If you can get into a good school and get a good job, its worth it.   &gt; Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner or possibly a Physician's Assistant.  Both good options.  I wish you luck :)
Depending on your location, you might have a lot of options to choose from to mitigate your tax burden. There might even be a possibility of combining a few options to make a buck or two off of it. As someone already mentioned, check out conservation easements and REITs, they can be great ways of relieving your burden. Another option that I know is available in a number of states is land-use tax qualifications that allow for significantly reduced tax rates based on the current zoning/use of the land as a timber area(You may not plan on harvesting the timber but you can potentially still qualify for the reduction). Is the land appropriately assessed/appraised? Make sure you're not getting ripped off. What are your neighboring landholders paying for taxes? I would imagine most locales in and around New England would at least have GIS parcel maps in place, talk to your neighbors and find out what they do to minimize their costs. If all else fails, check out ParcelQuest or Google Earth Pro and find out the digs on others with similar land holdings. Make some cold calls, be polite, and ask. Many people, especially in the country are happy to oblige a friendly neighbor.  What would the definition of 'pristine' be? What is the age of the trees, furthermore, what type of trees comprise the woodland? Are you open to selective harvesting(which if done properly can actually improve the health of your property)?Check out what you can do with it(is your woodland comprised of sugar maple or some other resource that might be of persistent value?). Do you want to have the land for the sake of having it or do you want to do anything with it? If you're in a semi-urban environment you could converse with local hunting, disc-golf, or other groups that might be interested in utilizing the land. These uses could potentially be combined with a conservation easement to improve your outcome in more ways than one.  Keep in mind, often times with conservation easements, know everything you want out of the land in the long term. Once the ink is dry, the deal is done. Take your time, think about it. Do what feels right.
"A friend of mine is a Prepaid Legal lawyer. It's not an exclusive  relationship: he does other things too.  Most lawyers regard Prepaid Legal as a way of getting more  customers. They lose money on the Prepaid Legal stuff, but then  ""upsell"" their paid services.  My friend tells me that he'd answer most of the Prepaid Legal  questions for free, in hopes of building a customer base. He didn't  signup for the trivial amount of money Prepaid Legal gives him."
Is there a way he can spin his knowledge into a consulting capacity?  If he can't find a job he can always create one.  Market himself as an onsite mentor/trainer perhaps.  Or make YouTube videos and market himself in that way.  Run the seminar circuit.  Just high and brainstorming here...
You want to sell for 61.15, but the most the best buyer will pay is 61.10? The HFT trader forces you both to trade over a gap of a nickel AND makes a nickel in profit??      How does he do that, with magic?
Then I wait till the price of the stock gets near the strike value (almost ATM) and I ""re-buy"" the option sold (Example: [StockX]C9 where C means month = March) and sell again the call option with higher strike to April (Example [StockX]D10, where D means month = April) PS.: At item 9 there should be no loss between the action of ""re-buy"" and sell to roll-out to the next month. When re-buying it with the stock's price near the strike, option value for March (C9) will be lower than when selling it to April (D10). This isn't any rule to be followed, this is just a conservative (I think they call it hedge) way to handle options and stocks. Few free to make money according to your goals and your style. The perfect rule is the one that meet your expectation, don't take the generalized rules too serious."
Possibly a single player game hence the need to simulate a market?   I would supposed that you could use a Cobb Douglas demand function. This way you could set demand for x_1 = c(m/p_1) and demand for x_2 = (1-c)(m/p_2)   Where p_1/p_2 are the prices of good 1 and 2, m is income, and x_1/x_2 are good 1 and 2 respectively.
"&gt;  The Author clearly has no freaking idea what the hell he is talking about.  I have an idea of what's going on.  And my experience comes from earlier in my career, when I acted as an execution trader at several hedge funds.  Rebates are offered by the exchange so that the exchange can make money.  It isn't a public service or some great sacrifice.    Let me tell you how it works:  Somebody at XYZ exchange/bank takes you out for a nice steak dinner.  Then maybe they take you to the strip club.  There may be some blow involved.  If the broker is particularly nice, they'll pay for an experience in the *actual* ""champagne room.""    Then you go back to your desk on Monday, look at the flows you're disbursing to various brokers and exchanges, and make your ""adjustments"" based on how much you enjoy hanging out with the broker/salesperson.  Oh, and of course the ""rebates.""  Which to you barely make a difference, because you're just an execution trader.  You aren't in it to make money.  The analysts don't know what you're doing, and there's a good chance that the PM doesn't, either.   It's easy to do, because tracking ""best execution"" is beyond the comprehension of the SEC.  Oh, if they only knew...and could actually act on it.  But we all know they don't really want to, because almost to a man they're each waiting for their turn at the revolving door that will usher them on to a lucrative private sector career."
If markets were perfectly efficient, the price should reflect everything that is currently known about the future of a commodity.  If it is known that silver is currently under-valued, then investors would be buying it -- driving the price up.  Conversely, if silver is currently over-valued, then investors would be selling and the price would be going down.  Added to that is emotion.  If the price is currently trending up, then people expect it to keep going up, and the price continues to rise.  Until enough people think it can't go any higher and start selling, which drives the price down.  Since this is driven by emotion, it cannot be predicted when this will happen.
First price isn't artificially maintained at a level. When a refining company signs a contract to buy crude from a supplier, it promises to buy at a certain price with options for increase and decrease due to the fluctuating prices in the market. And it buys crude to build up a certain buffer to supply itself for a certain duration, in case of supply problems. As it had bought oil at a higher price, it would be reluctant to lower the prices even if the current crude it buys is at a lower cost. If it buys oil from the open market, it has no other option than to pass on the hike on to the consumers, so a more intense fluctuation in the prices of oil at the point, where you buy it. Some airlines used hedging to take care of the spurts in the price of oil, to mantian their operating margins.  And moreover refining and distribution is a very low margin business, so the company has an incentive to sell at a higher cost if required.
"It's called paper trading because you do it on paper. So just do literally that for a little while. Write things down like ""buy 100 XYZ at $49.99 on 9/29."" Then note the price each time you look it up, graph it each day, draw trendlines, calculate your ROI, etc. In pencil or ink, up to you. It'll give you good insights into what all that software is trying to do for you, and when it's trying to fool you."