vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I vaguely recall a rare helpful employee telling me that, after a ridiculous amount of phone calls.  I thoroughly appreciated that person's helpfulness.    However, I gave my laptop to Best Buy (I had purchased their service agreement), and even if the third party bungled things, it's BB's job to make sure things are ok/to their agreement.  Their employees/management should not be lying sacks of uselessness.
I think your casting most Best buy employees in a bad light. While that may be true for some of the larger stores(with equally as large employee turnover) it is most certainly not true for all stores. I work at a community store(smaller store) and I most certainly do have an interest in customers needs and wants and I enjoy helping people. Please don't cast blanket assumptions because its cool to hate best buy.
"Maybe if people were paying them for their political opinions, that would be a valid argument, but people are paying them for their services.      I would hope that they would do what they need to do to keep their company in business.  I don't think I've ever heard anyone say ""boy, they did lay everybody in the company off and took a few local businesses with them, but they stood by their principles"".   That's not what businesses are for."
This guy sounds like he was more of a consultant than customer support.  Consultants live and die on the ability to do ridiculous things like take a call at home on setting up windows at 2am.  The relationships often get much more personal.  I work with consultants a lot and the good ones are a treasure.  They are the ones you fight for through budget cuts even though they are raising their prices.  A really good consulting firm lets me leverage my knowledge into output 5 times what I'd get from an FTE on the payroll.
"&gt;The rule of law over rule of might is what made modern industry and business possible.  I agree, and so did the US congress and President in 1935 when it [wrote the right to collective bargaining into law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act)    And really, who do you consider to be the ""mighty"" on this issue? Some workers at a couple Wal-Marts or senior management with their lawyers and money?"
He's supposed to be grading him as a board member. I dont think that a board member's vote should be seen as a positive or negative when it comes time for their job review.   Edit: Guys, a board member is under no obligation to cast votes in public elections that are in the best interest of the company on which he boards. In fact, I would prefer board members who are autonomous citizens and have lives, values, and interests beyond the companies they board. For example, I would not discriminate against a board member of a bank who also supported Bernie Sanders.   Edit 2: People should not be discriminated against in the work place because of their politics, religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Frankly, Im alarmed that this tenant of democracy is being disputed. I dont want to live in a democracy where people have to have two sets of political beliefs. One they put forth to appease their employer and the other they keep secret.
"It's not specifically old people, but people who think the world revolves around them.  ""We're Sears! We put out the catalog that everyone uses to plan their entire life,"" they'd exclaim while having their secretary type out a memo. ""Who'd ever buy something from a company that you can't pick up the phone and call to place an order? Who'd want to use a *computer* to buy something? Nonsense."""
"But relative to her competitors it should be the same percentage of negative experiences if her services are equivalent.  So, as is logical, you need to provide a better experience to receive a better ""Grade"" than your competitors.  The same bias' should exist in equal proportion across all businesses.  If you're lower than your competitors, you're probably doing something wrong, and should use the feedback to improve."
Not zealous, I just was quickly glancing while taking my morning shit.  But I do very much like the company, and enjoy working for them.  I'm treated well, the culture is great, and for the customers that are right for best buy, we are great.    I spent 12 years before working here in IT.  The only time I bought stuff from best buy was because I needed it right then, so I'm with you.   But you are generally not our demographic.(I can't imagine corporate thinks you are, I'm just a store level employee, not representing the company)
"&gt;""We used to think that high profits were a sign of the successful working of the American economy, a better product, a better service. But now we know that higher profits can arise from a better way of exploiting consumers...""  It feels like they've gotten that down to a science and that life has become navigating a bureaucracy of pickpockets."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/upshot/maybe-weve-been-thinking-about-the-productivity-slump-all-wrong.html?nytmobile=0) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Just maybe, if the labor market tightens and good workers are harder to find - and wages rise - that will be the impetus to get companies to consider more of those big-ticket innovations that generate productivity growth.  &gt; You could imagine the same thing happening if wages rose because of market forces; that same fast food restaurant might invest in kiosks and robots if the labor market were so tight that no workers were willing to take the job for $10. If you look at long-term patterns of productivity growth, they roughly fit this idea, that a booming job market tends to be followed by a productivity boom, and that deep recessions are followed by productivity slumps.  &gt; In this way of thinking about productivity, inventors and business innovators are always cooking up better ways to do things, but it takes a labor shortage and high wages to coax firms to deploy the investment it takes to actually put those innovations into widespread use.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6pp5po/maybe_weve_been_thinking_about_the_productivity/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~176149 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*: **productivity**^#1 **wage**^#2 **worker**^#3 **growth**^#4 **market**^#5"
"Finally some good examples!   So clearly this is an issue, and many large companies do similar shenanigans. But the divisions being cut are massively unprofitable anyhow, even with these crappy tricks.   I agree that a company like GE should be looking long term, but I'm not sure what % they do in technology R&amp;D so I'm not prepared to be too harsh on that front.  I absolutely agree that having non software engineers write software is a long term failure. Even smart engineers who can pump out software often do so without having learned the lessons that software companies learn. Resulting in short term results followed by long term pain.   Anyhow. Thanks for a real response. I wonder if the divisions being cut need to be cut or sold off regardless. But I think every large org should look at examples like this and not try to play the ""this quarter is good"" game."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/upshot/maybe-weve-been-thinking-about-the-productivity-slump-all-wrong.html?smid=re-share) reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Just maybe, if the labor market tightens and good workers are harder to find - and wages rise - that will be the impetus to get companies to consider more of those big-ticket innovations that generate productivity growth.  &gt; You could imagine the same thing happening if wages rose because of market forces; that same fast food restaurant might invest in kiosks and robots if the labor market were so tight that no workers were willing to take the job for $10. If you look at long-term patterns of productivity growth, they roughly fit this idea, that a booming job market tends to be followed by a productivity boom, and that deep recessions are followed by productivity slumps.  &gt; In this way of thinking about productivity, inventors and business innovators are always cooking up better ways to do things, but it takes a labor shortage and high wages to coax firms to deploy the investment it takes to actually put those innovations into widespread use.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6s3yzv/maybe_we\u00e2ve_been_thinking_about_the_productivity/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~185009 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*: **productivity**^#1 **wage**^#2 **worker**^#3 **growth**^#4 **market**^#5"
"A majority of employers view the:   &gt;""there weren't any jobs""  excuse as *""you weren't good enough for a job""*. I'm not arguing that there aren't more workers than jobs, it's just that employers expect to get top talent for their dollar. Why snag someone who was/is unemployed (and hence undesirable), when you can potentially steal fresh employed talent from your competitors dealing a blow to their business and a boost to your own? That's the situation we have today in the labor market.  American society and the bootstrap mentality dictate that unemployment is the fault of the unemployed. I don't see how this recession has made any significant inroads towards changing this widely held (mis)conception."
It's not really fair for him to say share buybacks are 4% of GDP, because share buybacks don't directly contribute to GDP. Presumably, if a company has excess cash than what can profitably be reinvested into the business, then it should return that cash to the shareholders (buybacks). Then, it is up to the shareholders to decide how to reallocate that capital. Theoretically, shareholders will allocate that capital into profitable ventures. The assumption being, distributing capital to profitable ventures is more efficient than distributing capital to non-profitable ventures. And the efficient distribution of capital should increase GDP in the long run.  If you believe that sort of thing. Personally, Id rather that every employee was paid a respectable wage for their labor, not the bare minimum that they'll accept to avoid starvation. But that's another issue all together, so nevermind.
"I looked into the ""We buy houses"" people when I was trying to sell my house a few years back.  The amount they are normally willing to pay is far below value.  If I was going to take that little, I would just set the price at that amount and sell it to somebody, maybe making a young couple really happy getting into a house they couldn't otherwise afford."
The 1 for 1 split could be the case where a company is being split into two parts. The new part may be spun off, or sold to another company. Any time a company splits into two parts, the ratio of the resulting companies needs to be determined.
"&gt; They're simply saying that their private company service won't be the one to enable that money making.  The problem I have with this line of logic is that it's pretty much the anti-net neutrality argument. ""Why shouldn't private companies be able to determine which data to send/allow/prioritize over their services?"""
If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company,  Those are income taxes right? So like, he's not saying he will be forced to fire people to maintain a viable business, he's saying he'll have to fire people to maintain his level of profits.  Of course, less profit is still profit so he wouldn't *have* to fire people, he could keep running the business as it is and just make less money...but then how would he [build the biggest house in america??](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125666/)
I think the correct statement is that Expedia wants to buy Orbitz for $12/share. The market price is $11, which means there is somebody willing to sell for that price. But you can't say that a stock price of $11 means that everybody is willing to sell for that price. And Expedia is unlikely to bid $12/share for just 40% of Orbitz shares; they'll want at least a controlling majority.
It was the fact that they wanted to split the company in two, with two completely separate websites that didnt' talk to each other.  The DVD business still brings in a serious amount of their revenue, so they shouldn't be so quick to kill it off.
Playing devils advocate here (and I haven't studied GEs financials, so damn I've got to look at that pension).    It could be that Immeltz(sp) and management don't want to risk getting removed, and ultimately they feel they can guide GEs transformation to make it a better company and eventually decrease the funding shortfall. Thus placate the shareholders temporarily while changing the business.
"In a perfect world of random stock returns (with a drift) there is no reason to ""take profit"" by exiting a position because there is no reason to think price appreciation will be followed by decline.   In our imperfect world, there are many rules of thumb that occasionally work but if any one of them works consistently over a long period of time, everyone starts to practice that rule and then it stops working.  Therefore, there are no such rules of thumb that work reliably and consistently over long periods of time and are expected to continue doing so.  Finding such a rule is and always has been a moving target. The rational, consistently sensible reasons to sell a stock are: These rules are very different from my interpretation of the ""walk with your chips"" behavior mentioned in your question."
An index will drop a company for several reasons:  A fund decides how close they want to mirror the index. Some do so exactly, others only approximate the index.
Annual sales dived five straight years, and the company closed 450 stores. Then they tried to merge with Office Depot. That didn't work. So by going private with Sycamore Partners Staples they have an opportunity to revamp their businesses away Wall Street pressure. Staples is being sold at a fraction of the price.
They could buy the domain a lot cheaper than the company.  They are probably trying to lock in the ability to have face.com technology always available to them as I'm assuming they have invested a fair bit on integration with them.  Saves someone like google snapping it up and shutting it down.
you know, i'm curious.  why did you feel it was overpriced? if it opened at $50 a share and you thought that was too high, might you buy 2 shares if it opened at $25 instead? would there be any notable difference in what you owned?
So I don't have any problems with your analysis or the comments associated with it. I just wanted to mention that no one is talking about taxes. Your answer....Figure out new portfolio breakdown and sell to 1.) Get money I need and 2.) re-balance the portfolio to my new target allocations is completely correct.  (Unimpeachable in my opinion.) However, when you calculate what you need to sell to meet your current cash needs make sure to include in that analysis money to pay taxes on anything you sell for a gain, or keep some invested to account for the tax money you would save by selling things for a loss.  The actual mechanics of calculating what these amounts are are fairly involved but not difficult to understand. (IE every situation is different.) Best of luck to you, and I hope your cashflow gets back up to its previous level soon.
Exactly why I made the comment. If you want drama, take it to r/politics or r/AdviceAnimals.  If people want to talk about the business aspect of what occurred, then rock on.  In your case, you should take your ball and go back to r/middleschool
"I don't think this is a good model to sell cloths - very costly, slow and a lot of returns.  Clothing and fashion stores could easily fight this and sell more than they do now. I say ""could"" because they should have done it many many years ago. To stuck in their old-fashioned way.  I would prefer to go to a Showroom (not a store) that has huge selection on display, possibly fashion expert who can help select/suggest for me, try/touch the cloths there, and what I like will be ordered and shipped to my house exactly to my size.  (the old Service Merchandise mode of selling, but for clothing and fashion)."
We understand that BUYING OR SELLING can sometimes be a very stressful situation especially if you do not understand the language. We, here at RD Properties speak English &amp; Spanish and here to assist, not only purchasing or selling your property, but with all legal documentation during the process.
Thanks, I will try post more in the future.  I actually said you can make money if you know what your doing the refurbished products not counterfeit.   I don't deal in counterfeit goods at all. As an owner of several (extremely small) trademarks i think trademark infringement of goods is just not on and i wouldn't support it.  Thanks
Booking of computer services and repairs advertisement helps a lot in providing you great and easy solutions with Book My Ad. These computers ads provide easy clients to the dealers. Get offers and discounts, for more info call us at 8800334456.
Regarding the textbooks and technical books, it might be worth checking out sites like Chegg.com or other textbook rental websites. They might buy it from you directly versus trying to sell it on an ebay or amazon.  For fiction or nonfiction, amazon and ebay can be tough, but probably worth a look. See what comparables are for your books or similar titles, and if it works, try selling a few. The big problem is that so many sellers are on Amazon these days, that major discounts are commonplace. I've bought hardback 1st editions for less than the cost of economy shipping, so the profit margin is dwindling at best if it's an unpopular or low demand book.
In case you have no thought, [local business listing](http://come2ourdeals.com.au/) services is similar to phone book. Usually, when folks desire to find someone or something their first instinct is to search by way of the phone book. The yellow page contains not just the identify, deal with but also different ads of companies.
It's a pretty good tip. People are often telling you the answer but not explicitly. Example:  You call about bad service and demand a refund. The employee tells you:  I'm sorry, sir, I can't give you back your money.  But maybe he actually said:  I'm sorry, sir, *I* can't give you back your money. Maybe someone else can?  I'm sorry, sir, I can't *give* you back your money. So not give but trade?  I'm sorry, sir, I can't give you back your *money*. So what can you give?
I grow tired of telling you the same thing over and over again especially when you apparently do not read replies or skip over any part that you disagree with. Good luck with your line of thinking. Hopefully one day someone like PayPal does not block your business or a business you do business with because it differs from their opinion. Your opinion now aligns with theirs, but what happens next time it doesn't and they have the same kind of power. Let them do it once, next time you well not have a choice. Don't worry about replying, I'm no longer interested in hearing your opinion as I have now made up my mind that you are small minded and lack basic thought required to see past your immediate fields of view. They are burning someone else now, eventually they well burn you since you are so happy to let them do it too someone else. Don't make a stand now, they will not let you make a stand later.
This tale makes me sad the more I learn of it.  I am impressed with your dedication and caring for your ex-wife and particularly your kids; you seem like a good person from your questions. But you are tired and exasperated too.  You have every right to be.  The problem isn't how this woman can rent a new apartment (which there isn't a good way that won't screw over some unsuspecting landlord) but how to get this woman into conseling on a regular basis.  Not just money, but personal or group therapy. She honestly needs help and must face this problem herself otherwise these questions will never stop.  I know you mentioned this doesn't appear to be an option, anf maybe it isn't your job, but I. See your questions are much deeper than personal finance. I wish you the best and I really do admire your resolve to take care of your kids.
"&gt; You really believe everything they're selling you?  I am willing to challenge my beliefs. Other than my conclusion of ""strong government makes demands but is still good"", what in any of my last post do you think is wrong?"
Again, dude, with this projecting shit. Now you're creating me in your mind as some country bumpkin redneck that also shops at hot topic? Is that the kind of person you usually get your ass handed to you by? I am honestly worried about you. You're probably, what, mid 30s? Shitty job, failed restaurant, meaningless MBA. You need to find a way to not be a failure eventually.
Did you read the sidebar? I get that you deeply dislike Romney and the Republicans - I can easily see that from your post history. No problem with that, but please don't let /r/politics bleed over. There is a reason why many subs are trying to keep /r/politics-esque submissions out - because they are ummm... not especially objective.  &gt;r/business brings you the best of your business section. From tips for running a business, to pitfalls to avoid, /r/business teaches you the smart moves and helps you dodge the foolish.  &gt;Political submission? use /r/politics  If you are that desperate to debate republicans over the internet, there is surely a different subreddit for that. Although...   &gt;So the republican subreddit /r/business...   That did make me giggle. Now I'm fairly certain that your posts here have been pure trolling.
"If you're doing a masters, that's awesome! Being out of school is the toughest part! First thing I'd do is lean towards IT, it just naturally makes a lot of sense (not to say not to do strategy, too but its a whole different beast). You should sit down with career services at your school ASAP. They should help guide you through the process and tell you about timelines, firms that come to campus, etc.  Since your in a MS you'd prob be applying for an Associate role. To get those you need to brush up and master a case interview (EXTREMELY IMPORTANT). Basically they sit you down in a room and ask you to solve a real world problem without a calculator. There are a number of books such as ""cracking the case"" that can help with that.   Also, go on LinkedIn and start searching for alumni that are at your target companies. Network hard, it matters probably more than the interview. They can give you a really good ideas on how to position yourself, too. I'd also look at boutique firms that specialize in Comp. Sci related work. It's easier to switch into a McKinsey from a boutique, than as an outsider.  Seems like you should be in good shape (much better than i had ignorantly assumed)! Best of luck! I hope this helps! Just remember, work hard at it and make sure it's for you!"
They've asked you, so your advice is welcome.  That's your main concern, really. I'd also ask them how much, and what kind of advice.  Do they want you to point them to good websites?  On what subjects?  Or do they want more personal advice and have you to look over their bank accounts and credit card statements, provide accountability, etc.? Treat them the same way you'd want to be treated if you asked for help on something that you were weak on.
I don't see how it contrasts with any other the other advise here.  I even gave the advice to hold people accountable.  If anything my advise was more hard-line then most that's been given here.  I think you either misread what I wrote or you're completely off base.