text:
\subsection{Keywords for paper submission}

\section{Introduction}
We study the information filtering problem, in which a user faces a stream of time-sensitive items (emails, blog posts, scientific articles), some of which are interesting to the user, but many of which are uninteresting.  We wish to design an automatic system that automatically filters this stream, showing as many relevant items to the user as possible, while showing few irrelevant items.

When historical relevance data from the user is abundant, we can train a statistical classifier, and forward only those items predicted to be relevant. However, when historical data from the user is limited, e.g., because the user is new, or because we are dealing with new kinds of items, we face the {\it cold start problem}, in which we do not have enough training data to build a reliable classifier.

In this setting, it may be advantageous to {\it explore}, i.e., forward some items predicted to be irrelevant, just to learn their true relevance and improve future predictions. Too much exploration, however, will lead to forwarding many irrelevant items. Thus, an information filtering system should also put some weight on {\it exploitation}, i.e., forwarding only those items predicted to be relevant.

We study this tradeoff between exploration vs. exploitation in a Bayesian setting, using a Markov decision process (MDP).  We show how the MDP defining the Bayes-optimal algorithm for making forwarding decisions may be solved efficiently using a decomposition, when irrelevant items are penalized by a user-specified cost per item shown.  We then show how to use this solution to provide a ranking over items when a cost-per-item is unknown not given and users are only willing to examine a limited number of items, but users examine each forwarded item.

Exploration vs. exploitation has been studied extensively in the context of the multi-armed bandit problem in both Bayesian treatments \citep{GiJo74,Wh80,GittinsGlazebrookWeber}, and non-Bayesian treatments \citep{AuCeFrSc95,AuCeFi02}. This tradeoff between exploration and exploitation, which appears in other problem domains including reinforcement learning \citep{KaLiCa98,SuttonBartoRL98,AuerNearOptimalRegret2010}, approximate dynamic programming \citep{Powell04learningalgorithms,PowellADP2007}, revenue management \citep{ArCa10,BeZe09,den2013simultaneously}, optimization algorithms \citep{XieFrazier2013a,FrazierPowellDayanik2008}, and inventory control \citep{LaPo99,DiPuBi02}. In information retrieval problems, exploration vs. exploitation has also been studied in \cite{ZhXuCa03,AgarwalChenElango2009,YuBrKlJo09,Hofmann2013}.

We are motivated by a personalized information system we are building for the electronic repository of scientific articles, arXiv.org.  In popular categories like astro-ph (Astrophysics) and hep-th (high-energy physics), roughly 80 new articles are submitted each week \citep{arxiv}, which creates a challenge for scientists who wish to remain abreast of new arXiv articles directly relevant to their research.  Our experimental results use parameter settings estimated from historical data from arXiv.org.

This paper builds on the previous work \cite{ZhaoFrazier2014}, which considers an information filtering problem in a Bayesian setting, and uses dynamic programming to find the Bayes-optimal strategy for trading exploration and exploitation.  There are two main differences between the model considered in that paper, and the one considered in the current paper.
First, in \cite{ZhaoFrazier2014}, users provide {\it immediate} feedback on forwarded items, while in the current paper, we allow items to queue in the system until the next user visit.  It is only upon visiting the system that the user provides feedback.  This ``periodic review'' assumption is more realistic in many information filtering systems.Second, \cite{ZhaoFrazier2014} assumes that users provide a unit cost for forwarding to the information filtering system, while in the current paper we provide a method for ranking results that allows this cost to be unknown.

Our focus on a Bayesian setting and Bayes-optimal procedures (rather than procedures that are just optimal up to a constant), is in contrast with the portion of the literature on multi-armed bandits that examines regret in a worst-case setting, and provides algorithms that have optimal dependence on time or other problem parameters, but ignore constants.  This focus allows us to apply our method profitably in small-sample regimes, where the best worst-case guarantee would be much worse than the best average-case guarantee, and where constants are just as important as the dependence on time. A downside of our focus on the Bayesian setting is that it requires us to choose a prior distribution to use when measuring performance. However, in many applied settings, including arXiv.org, we argue that a reasonable prior distribution can be estimated from historical data.

In Section \ref{sec:filtering_model}, we formulate the information filtering problem with periodic reviews and a fixed unit cost for forwarding an item. In Section \ref{sec:LagrangeRelaxation}, we consider the case where the unit cost is unknown and there is a budget constraint on the total number of items that a user can view. We then show how to derive a ranking from this budgeted problem. Lastly, we show experimental results in Section \ref{sec:experiments}.

\section{Mathematical Model with a Unit Cost for Forwarding}
\label{sec:filtering_model}
We assume that items arrive to the system according to a Poisson process with rate $\lambda>0$. Each item is categorized into (exactly) one of $k$ categories, $\{1, ..., k\}$, and the category is observed as it enters the system. For systems without explicit categorization, the categories could be obtained by running a clustering algorithm on previous collected items in a pre-processing step.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{model.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic of the information filtering problem with periodic reviews. }
\end{figure}
Let $X_i$ denote the category of the $i^{th}$ arriving item. We assume that the $X_i$ are independent and identically distributed, and we let $p_x=P(X_i=x)>0$.  Thus, items in each category $x \in \{1, ..., k\}$ arrive according to a Poisson process with rate $\lambda_x=p_x \lambda$.

Each category $x$ has some latent unobserved value $\theta_x \in [0, 1]$ measuring the probability that an item from category $x$ is relevant to the user. Let $\theta = [\theta_1, ..., \theta_k]$. We place a Bayesian prior distribution on this $\theta$, given by $\theta_x \sim \mathrm{Beta}(\alpha_{0x}, \beta_{0x})$, with independence across $x$, for some parameters $\alpha_{0x}$ and $\beta_{0x}$, typically estimated using historical data from (other) long-time users on older items. In our model, $\theta$ is assumed to stay static over the user's lifetime.

The optimal tradeoff of exploration vs. exploitation will depend on how long the user interacts with our stream of items. Let $T$ be the length of time that the user uses our information filtering system.  $T$ is unknown a priori, and we model it as an exponential random variable with parameter $r$.

The previous model in \cite{ZhaoFrazier2014} provides a Bayes-optimal algorithm that analyzes the situation in which the user is always available to provide immediate feedback on each arriving item. However, in many real systems, users do not behave like this. Instead, they arrive periodically to review items that have queued in the system since their last visit.

Our model assumes that the user visits the system at time points separated by exponentially distributed inter-arrival times, which are independent and have parameter $s$. Let $N$ be the number of user visits before $T$. Here, we assume that at each visit, he or she examines all items forwarded from the stream since the last visit. Below, we study a problem variant in which the number of items the user is willing to examine on each visit is constrained.

At the $n^{th}$ user visit, the posterior on $\theta_x$ is $\mathrm{Beta}(\alpha_{nx}, \beta_{nx})$, for some $\alpha_{nx}$, $\beta_{nx}$. Based on $(\alpha_{nx}, \beta_{nx})$, we choose $U_{nx}$, denoting the maximum number of items to forward to the user from category $x$. For simplicity, we choose $U_{nx}$ before observing $L_{nx}$, which is the number of items queued in category $x$, then we show $Z_{nx}=\min(L_{nx}, U_{nx})$ items from category $x$ to the user in his or her $n^{th}$ visit. For computationally convenience, we require $U_{nx} \le M$, where $M < \infty$.

With the decision $U_{nx}$ and forwarded $Z_{nx}$ items, the user provides explicit feedback, denoted by $Y_{nx}$, reflecting the actual relevance of the shown items to the user. Conditioning on $U_{nx}$, $\theta_x$ and $L_{nx}$, $Y_{xn}$ is binomial with a probability of $\theta_{x}$ being relevant to the user, that is,
$$Y_{nx}~|~ \theta_x, U_{nx}, L_{nx} \sim \text{Binomial}\left(Z_{nx}, \theta_x \right).$$
We also assume there is a unit cost, $c$, for forwarding each item to the user. Thus, we collect reward $Y_{nx}-cZ_{nx}$ in each step. We define a policy $\pi$ as a sequence of functions, $(\pi_1,  \pi_2, ..., \pi_N)$, where each $\pi_n: (\{0, 1..., M\}^{k} \times \mathbb{N}^k \times \{0, 1..., M\}^{k})^{n-1} \mapsto \{0, 1, ..., M\}^k$ maps history, $\{U_{\ell x}, L_{\ell x}, Y_{\ell x}: \ell \le n-1, x \in \{1,..., k\}\}$ into actions. Let $\Pi$ be the set of all such policies. Our objective becomes to find an optimal policy $\pi \in \Pi$ that maximizes total expected reward:
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:originalEq}
&\sup_{\pi \in \Pi} \mathbb{E}^\pi \left [ \sum^N_{n=1}\sum^k_{x=1}(Y_{nx} - c Z_{nx})\right].
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}

\subsection{Solution and Computation Method}
Due to the independence assumption across $\theta_{x}$, we can decompose the original problem with $k$-categories into a sum of $k$ independent sub-problems, each of which can be solved via stochastic dynamic programming. Equation \eqref{eq:originalEq} is rewritten as,
$$\sup_{\pi \in \Pi} E^{\pi} \left[ \sum^k_{x=1} \sum^N_{n=1} (Y_{nx}-cZ_{nx}) \right] = \sum^k_{x=1} \sup_{\pi(x) \in \Pi(x)} E^{\pi(x)} \left[\sum^N_{n=1}(Y_{nx}-cZ_{nx}) \right],$$

\begin{algorithm}[!h]
\caption{Computation of $V_x^L(\alpha, \beta; \tilde{T})$ and $V_x^U(\alpha, \beta; \tilde{T})$}
\label{alg1}
\begin{algorithmic}
\REQUIRE $\gamma$, $\alpha_{0x}$, $\beta_{0x}$, $\xi_x$, $c$, and $N$
\FOR{$i = 0, ..., \tilde{T}+M$}
  \FOR{$j=\max\{0, \tilde{T}+1-\alpha\}, ..., \tilde{T}+M-\alpha$}
  	\STATE{Let $\alpha = \alpha_{0x} + i$, and $\beta = \beta_{0x}+j$.}
	\STATE{Let $V^L_x(\alpha, \beta; \tilde{T})=\frac {E[\min(M, L_{1x})]}{(1-\gamma)(1-\gamma \xi_x)} \max \left\{0, \frac{\alpha}{\alpha+\beta}-c\right\}$ and $V^U(\alpha, \beta; \tilde{T}) = \frac {E[\min(M, L_{1x})]}{(1-\gamma)(1-\gamma \xi_x)}$.}
  \ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
 \FOR{$i=N_{ttl}, ..., 0$}
	\FOR{$j=N_{ttl}-\alpha, ..., 0$}
	\STATE{Let $\alpha = \alpha_{0x}+i$, $\beta = \beta_{0x}+j$, and $\mu = \frac{\alpha}{\alpha+\beta}.$}
	\STATE{ Let
	$V^L_x(\alpha, \beta; \tilde{T})=\max_{0 \le u \le M } \left\{(\mu- c)E(\min (u, L_{1x})]+\gamma E [V^L_x(\alpha_{1x},\beta_{1x}; N_{ttl}) | U_{1x}=u] \right\},$
	$V^U_x(\alpha, \beta; \tilde{T})=\max_{0 \le u \le M } \left\{(\mu- c)E(\min (u, L_{1x})]+\gamma E [V^U_x(\alpha_{1x},\beta_{1x}; N_{ttl}) | U_{1x}=u] \right\},$}
	\ENDFOR
  \ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
where a policy $\pi(x)$ is a sequence of functions, $(\pi_1(x),  \pi_2(x), ..., \pi_N(x)),$ associated with category $x$ and $\Pi(x)$ is the set of all $\pi(x)$. Each $\pi_n(x): (\{0, 1..., M\} \times \mathbb{N} \times \{0, 1..., M\})^{n-1} \mapsto \{0, 1, ..., M\}$ maps the single-category history, $\{U_{\ell x}, L_{\ell x}, Y_{\ell x}: \ell \le n-1\}$, into actions $U_{nx}$ for category $x$.

We can convert each sub-problem from a problem with a random finite time horizon to one with an infinite time horizon as follows.
First, $N$ follows a geometric distribution with parameter $1-\gamma$, where $\gamma=\frac{s}{s+r}$.  Then,
\begin{eqnarray*}
E^{\pi(x)} \left[\sum^N_{n=1}(Y_{nx}-cZ_{nx}) \right]
=\gamma E^{\pi(x)} \left[\sum^\infty_{n=1} \gamma^{n-1} (Y_{nx}-cZ_{nx}) \right].
\end{eqnarray*}

We now solve this MDP using stochastic dynamic programming. We define the value function
\begin{eqnarray}
V_x(\alpha, \beta) = \sup_{\pi(x) \in \Pi(x)} E^{\pi(x)} \left[\sum^\infty_{n=1}\gamma^{n-1}(Y_{nx}-cZ_{nx}) \Big| \alpha_{0x}=\alpha, \beta_{0x}=\beta \right].
\label{eq:filtering_valueFunc}
\end{eqnarray}

This is a two-dimensional dynamic problem, and we can write its Bellman equation as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{split}
&V_x(\alpha, \beta) = \max_{u \in \{0,1, ..., M\}}Q(\alpha, \beta, u),
\label{eq:bellmanEq}
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Q(\alpha, \beta, u)$ is the expected reward when we forward at most $u$ items and behave optimally afterwards:
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{split}
Q(\alpha, \beta, u)
=& E[Y_{1x} - c\min (u, L_{1x})+\gamma V_x(\alpha_{1x},\beta_{1x}) | U_{1x}=u, \alpha_{0x}=\alpha, \beta_{0x}=\beta]\\
=&(\alpha /(\alpha+\beta)-c)  E[\min (u, L_{1x})] + \gamma E[V_x(\alpha_{1x}, \beta_{1x}) | U_{1x}=u, \alpha_{0x}=\alpha, \beta_{0x}=\beta].
\label{eq:q_factor}
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}

The first in equation~\eqref{eq:q_factor} is the immediate reward for the action.  To compute the second term, we use that $L_{nx}$ is geometric with parameter $\xi_x= \frac{s}{\lambda_x+s}$, and so $E[\min(u, L_{1x})]=\frac{1-\xi_x}{\xi_x} \left[1-(1-\xi_x)^u \right]$. The third term in equation~\eqref{eq:q_factor} specifies the expected future reward for forwarding at most $u$ items,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&E[V_x(\alpha_{1x}, \beta_{1x})|U_{1x}=u, \alpha_{0x}=\alpha, \beta_{0x}=\beta] \\
&=&\sum^{u}_{i=0}\sum_{k=0}^{i}P\left(Y_{1x}=k|Z_{1x}=i, \alpha_{0x}=\alpha, \beta_{0x}=\beta \right)P(Z_{1x}=i|U_{1x}=u) V_x(\alpha+k,\beta+i-k).
\end{eqnarray*}

To compute this,
one can show that
$P\left(Y_{1x}=k ~|~ Z_{1x}=i, \alpha_{0x}=\alpha, \beta_{0x}=\beta \right)=\binom {i}{k} \frac{B(\alpha+k, \beta+i-k)}{B(\alpha, \beta)}$,
where $B(x, y)$ is the beta function.
The distribution $Z_{1x}=\min(U_{1x},L_{1x})|U_{1x}$ is given by:
\begin{align*}
P(Z_{1x} = i|U_{1x}=u)=
\begin{cases}
(1-\xi_x)^i\xi_x & \text{if } 0 \le i < u, \\
(1-\xi_x)^{u} & \text{if } i = u.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}

With these expressions, we can use backward induction, illustrated in Algorithm~\ref{alg1}, to solve the dynamic program in equation \eqref{eq:filtering_valueFunc} by considering a truncated time-horizon problem terminated at $\tilde{T}$, and averaging an upper bound on the value function, $V^L_x(\alpha, \beta; \tilde{T})$ and a lower bound, $V^U_x(\alpha, \beta; \tilde{T})$.

\section{Mathematical Model with a Constraint on Items Forwarded} \label{sec:LagrangeRelaxation}
In Section \ref{sec:filtering_model}, we assumed that the system knows the unit cost, $c$, that the user incurs for reviewing each item. In reality, we often do not know this cost. In this section, we instead assume that the number of items forwarded in each step is constrained, $\sum^k_{x=1}U_{nx}\le M\ \forall n$. Our objective is to maximize the expected number of relevant items forwarded, subject to this constraint:
\begin{eqnarray}
&\sup_{\tilde{\pi} \in \tilde{\Pi}}E^{\tilde{\pi}} \left [ \sum^N_{n=1}\sum^k_{x=1}Y_{nx} \right],
\label{eq:rankingDP}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{\Pi}=\{\pi \in \Pi: \sum^k_{x=1}U_{nx}\le M\ \forall n\}$ and $\tilde{\pi}$ is a policy in $\tilde{\Pi}$ that satisfies the constraint.

In contrast with the previous problem, computation in this problem scales exponentially in $k$ due to ``curse of dimensionality'', because we can no longer decompose equation \eqref{eq:rankingDP} into multiple tractable sub-problems \citep{PowellADP2007}. Instead, we consider a Lagrangian relaxation, following developments \cite{HuFrazierXie2014,XieFrazier2013b}, that provides a computationally tractable upper bound on the value of equation \eqref{eq:rankingDP}, and which motivates an index-based heuristic policy below in Section~\ref{sec:MDPIF}.

Let $\boldsymbol \alpha_{0} = (\alpha_{01}, ..., \alpha_{0k})$ and $\boldsymbol \beta_{0} = (\beta_{01}, ..., \beta_{0k})$. Let $\boldsymbol \nu = (\nu_1, ..., \nu_N)$ be a vector of Lagrange multipliers, with each $\nu_n \ge 0$ denoting a unit cost (or penalty) when we violate the constraint, $\sum_{x=1}^k Z_{nx} \leq M$, at step $n$. We can then write the Lagrangian relaxation of \eqref{eq:rankingDP} as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:lagrangianRelaxation}
V^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\boldsymbol \alpha_0, \boldsymbol \beta_0) &=&\sup_{\pi \in \Pi} E^\pi \left [ \sum^N_{n=1} \left[ \sum^k_{x=1} Y_{nx}- \nu_n \left(\sum_{x=1}^k Z_{nx} - M \right) \right] \right]\\
&=&\sum_{x=1}^k \sup_{\pi(x) \in \Pi(x)} E^{\pi(x)} \left [ \sum^N_{n=1}(Y_{nx}- \nu_n Z_{nx}) \right] + M E\left[\sum^N_{n=1} \nu_n \right].
\end{eqnarray}
Because of the constraint $\sum^{k}_{x=1} Z_{nx} \le M$ for all $n$ satisfied by $\tilde{\pi}\in\tilde{\Pi}$, and the non-negativity of the Lagrange multiplier, $\boldsymbol \nu \ge \boldsymbol 0$, the value in equation \eqref{eq:lagrangianRelaxation} provides an upper bound on the value of equation \eqref{eq:rankingDP}. Given $\boldsymbol \nu \ge \boldsymbol 0$, let $V^{\boldsymbol \nu}_x(\alpha_{0x}, \beta_{0x}) = \sup_{\pi \in \Pi} E^\pi \left [ \sum^N_{n=1}(Y_{nx}- \nu_n Z_{nx}) \right]$.  Then $V^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\boldsymbol \alpha_0, \boldsymbol \beta_0)$ can be decomposed into a sum of multiple sub-problems, plus a constant,
\begin{eqnarray}
V^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\boldsymbol \alpha_0, \boldsymbol \beta_0)
&=&\sum_{x=1}^k V^{\boldsymbol \nu}_x(\alpha_{0x}, \beta_{0x}) + M E\left[\sum^N_{n=1} \nu_n \right]
\ge  \sup_{\tilde{\pi} \in \tilde{\Pi}} E^{\tilde\pi} \left [ \sum^N_{n=1}\sum^k_{x=1}Y_{nx} \right].
\label{eq:V_nu}
\end{eqnarray}
This upper bound $V^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\boldsymbol \alpha_0, \boldsymbol \beta_0)$ is useful because it can be computed efficiently, as the sum of independent and easy-to-solve stochastic control sub-problems. Furthermore, if we consider this upper bound for the special case $\boldsymbol \nu = \nu \boldsymbol e$ with $\nu \ge 0$ and $\boldsymbol e = (1, 1, ..., 1)$, then $V_x^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\alpha_{0x}, \beta_{0x})$ recovers the total expected reward in the information filtering problem described in Section \ref{sec:filtering_model}, with a fixed unit cost, $\nu$, for forwarding each item. $V_x^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\alpha, \beta)$ can be computed efficiently using Algorithm 1.

We can construct tighter upper bound by taking the infimum of $V^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\boldsymbol \alpha_0, \boldsymbol \beta_0)$ over sets of potential values for our Lagrange multipliers,
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{UB}({\boldsymbol \alpha}_{0}, {\boldsymbol \beta}_{0})
&=& \inf_{\boldsymbol \nu \ge 0, \boldsymbol \nu= \nu \boldsymbol e} V^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\boldsymbol \alpha_0, \boldsymbol \beta_0)
\ge  \inf_{\boldsymbol \nu \ge 0} V^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\boldsymbol \alpha_0, \boldsymbol \beta_0).\label{eq:upperBound}
\end{eqnarray}
Inequality \eqref{eq:upperBound} holds because $\{\boldsymbol \nu \ge \boldsymbol 0: \boldsymbol \nu = \nu \boldsymbol e\} \subseteq \{\boldsymbol \nu \ge \boldsymbol 0\}$.

We conjecture that the function $V_x^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\alpha_{0x}, \beta_{0x})$ is convex and non-increasing in $\boldsymbol \nu$. The other term, $M E\left[ \sum_{n=1}^N \nu_n\right]$ is also a convex function of $\boldsymbol \nu$, so $V^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\boldsymbol \alpha_0, \boldsymbol \beta_0)$ is conjectured to be convex. If this conjecture is true, we can use a bisection algorithm to find $\boldsymbol \nu \ge \boldsymbol 0$ in the region $\{\boldsymbol \nu \ge \boldsymbol 0: \boldsymbol \nu= \nu \boldsymbol e\}$ that minimizes
$V^{\boldsymbol \nu}({\boldsymbol \alpha}_{0}, {\boldsymbol \beta}_{0})$, obtaining $\text{UB}(\boldsymbol \alpha_0, \boldsymbol \beta_0)$. The conjectured non-increasing property of $V_x^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\alpha_{0x}, \beta_{0x})$ induces another property of the optimal solution: given $\nu>0$, if it is optimal to forward $m$ items at $(\alpha_{0x}, \beta_{0x})$, then it should be optimal to forward at least $m$ items for all $0 \le \nu' < \nu$.

Given $\boldsymbol \nu = \nu \boldsymbol e$, let $\pi_{\nu}^*(x)$ be the optimal policy for $V_x^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\cdot, \cdot)$, and $U^*(\alpha, \beta) \in \pi_{\nu}^*(x)$ be the optimal decision at state $(\alpha, \beta)$. For each $0 \le u \le M$, we define $\nu^*(u, \alpha, \beta)$ to be the largest reward achieved for forwarding (or the largest cost a user would pay to view) at least $u$ number of items at state $(\alpha, \beta)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:cstar}
\nu^*(u, \alpha, \beta)
&=&\sup_{\nu \ge 0} \left\{\nu: U_{\nu}^*(\alpha, \beta) \ge u \text{ with } U^*_{\nu}(\alpha, \beta) \in \pi_{\nu}^*(x) \right\}\\
&=& \sup_{\nu \ge 0} \left\{\nu: V^{\boldsymbol \nu}(\alpha, \beta) = \max_{u'\ge u} Q^{\nu}(\alpha, \beta, u') \right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
In the special case $M=1$ and $L_{nx} \ge 1$ for all $n$ and $x$, the index $\nu^*(1, \alpha, \beta)$ actually corresponds to Gittin's index for a two-armed bandit \citep{Gittins79, Wh80}, where one arm gives the known value of not forwarding $(0)$, and the other arm gives the unknown value of forwarding in a single-category problem.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.48\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm, width=6cm]{cstar_plot.pdf}
\caption{Plot of $U^*(\alpha, \beta)$ vs. $\nu$ at state $(\alpha, \beta) = (1, 3)$ for different values of $\xi$ and $\gamma$.}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.48\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm,width=6cm]{cstar_plot1.pdf}
\caption{Plot of $U^*(\alpha, \beta)$ vs. $\nu$ at $\xi=0.2$ and $\gamma=0.99$ for different pairs of $(\alpha, \beta)$. }
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{Plots of optimal decision $U^*(\alpha, \beta)$ against Lagrange multiplier $\boldsymbol \nu = \nu \boldsymbol e$ for various values of $(\alpha, \beta, \xi, \gamma)$ with $M=10$. In each case, we solve $V_x^\nu(\alpha, \beta)$ via Algorithm \ref{alg1} to find $U^*(\alpha, \beta)$ for each $\nu \in [0, 1]$. Here, $\nu^*(u, \alpha, \beta)$ is $\nu$ at the right-most endpoint of the interval where $U^*(\alpha, \beta) \ge u$. }\label{fig:cstar_plot}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:cstar_plot} plots the optimal decision $U^*(\alpha, \beta)$ against Lagrange multiplier ${\bf \nu} = \nu {\bf e}$ for different values of $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\xi$, and $\gamma$. In both plots, we see that $U^*(\alpha, \beta)$ is non-increasing in $\nu$. The observation confirms the conjectured statement that if it is optimal to forward $m$ items at $\nu$, then it is optimal to forward at least $m$ items for all $\nu'<\nu$. Furthermore, $\nu^*(u, \alpha, \beta)$ is $\nu$ at the right-most endpoint of intervals where $U^*(\alpha, \beta) \ge u$. In Figure \ref{fig:cstar_plot}(a), we vary $\xi$ and $\gamma$ while fixing $(\alpha, \beta)$. Increasing the discount factor, $\gamma$, increases $\nu^*(u, \alpha, \beta)$ because a user spends longer in the system. In contract, as $\xi$ increases, $\nu^*(u, \alpha, \beta)$ becomes smaller because on average there are fewer items queued in the system. Figure \ref{fig:cstar_plot}(b) illustrates that $\nu^*(u, \alpha', \beta') \ge \nu^*(u, \alpha, \beta)$ in the case when $\frac{\alpha'}{\alpha'+\beta'} = \frac{\alpha}{\alpha+\beta}$ but $\alpha'+\beta' < \alpha + \beta$. This reflects that exploration provides the largest value when observation size is small, and uncertainty is high.

\subsection{MDP-based Information Filtering (MDP-IF) Policy} \label{sec:MDPIF}
In this section, we propose a heuristic index-based policy for ranking items queued at step $n$, disregarding whether the user cost is known. We call our policy the MDP-based Information Filtering Policy, abbreviated {\it MDP-IF}. We then discuss scenarios where the proposed policy is Bayes-optimal.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.48\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm, width=7.8cm]{cstar_alpha0_beta0.pdf}
\caption{Plot of $U^*_{O}(2, 1)$ and $U^*_{\Delta}(2, 2)$ against $\nu$.}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.48\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm, width=7.8cm]{cstar_alpha_beta.pdf}
\caption{Plot of $U^*_{O}(2, 1) + U^*_{\Delta}(2, 2)$ against $\nu$}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{There are two categories: category $O$ at state (2, 1) and category $\Delta$ at state (2, 2). Figure (a) shows optimal decision $U^*_{O}(2, 1)$, $U^*_{\Delta}(2, 2)$ against lagrangian multiplier $\nu$, and also plots $\nu^*_{O}(u, 2, 1)$ (denoted in purple circles) and $\nu^*_{\Delta}(u, 2, 2)$ (denoted in blue triangles). Figure (b) plots $U^*_{O}(2, 1) + U^*_{\Delta}(2, 2)$ vs. $\nu$, with ranked list of $\nu^*_{O}(u, 2, 1)$ and $\nu^*_{\Delta}(u, 2, 2)$ among all $u \in \{0, 1, ..., 10\}$. When $M=5$, the rank list would be: $\{O, O, \Delta, O, O \}$. When the user cost is 0.75, the rank list would be the six right-most items, $\{O, O, \Delta, O, O, \Delta\}$.}\label{fig:cstar_decision}
\end{figure}
At each step $n$, we first compute $\nu^*(u, \alpha_{nx}, \beta_{nx})$ for all possible $u \le M$ in each category $x$, then rank items from the categories based on the computed $\nu^*(u, \alpha_{nx}, \beta_{nx})$, among all categories and all $u \le M$. $\nu^*(u, \alpha_{nx}, \beta_{nx})$ reflects the highest reward one can achieve if we choose to forward at least $u$ items from the category $x$ at the current state, $(\alpha_{nx}, \beta_{nx})$. In the situation where we have a constraint that $\sum_{x=1}^kZ_{nx} \le M$, we would forward items from the ranked list until we exhaust $M$ slots. This heuristic index policy is exactly the optimal policy corresponding to the Gittins index in a conventional multi-armed bandit problem, when there is at least one item queued in each category per step and $M=1$. On the other hand, if a user cost $c$ is specified, then we would forward items from the ranked list with $\nu^*(u, \alpha_{nx}, \beta_{nx}) \ge c$. In a general case with both $c$ and $M$ specified, we follow the same procedure with a stop criteria if any condition is violated.

Figure \ref{fig:cstar_decision} demonstrates how this index policy works in a two-category problem (category ``O'' and category ``$\Delta$'').  Category ``O'' is at state (2, 1) and  category ``$\Delta$'' is at state (2, 2). Figure (a) plots optimal decisions $U^*_{O}(2, 1)$ and $U^*_{\Delta}(2, 2)$ as a function of $\nu$, and identifies their $\nu^*_{O}(u, 2, 1)$ and $\nu^*_{\Delta}(2, 2)$ values. Then, Figure (b) plots $U^*_{O}(2, 1) + U^*_{\Delta}(2, 2)$ against $\nu$, with a ranked list of $\nu^*_{O}(u, 2, 1)$ and $\nu^*_{\Delta}(u, 2, 2)$ among all $u \in \{0, 1, ..., 10\}$. When $M=5$, the ranked list would be items below the dashed line: $\{O, O, \Delta, O, O \}$. When the user cost is 0.75, the ranked list would be the six items on the right of the vertical line (defined by $c=0.75$): $\{O, O, \Delta, O, O, \Delta\}$.
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{sec:experiments}
In this section, we show numerical results of Monte Carlo simulations in four different parameter settings to illustrate how this heuristic index-based policy performs compared to other competing methods, including the pure exploitation and upper confidence bound (UCB) policies. At each step $n+1$, pure exploitation ranks items based on posterior means of user preference across categories, while UCB ranks items by $\left(1-1/t_{n}\right)\%$ quantiles from the posterior distribution on user preferences, with $t_{n}$ denoting the total number of items shown by $n$.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.225\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm, width=3.7cm]{ttl_reward_sc_gamma95.pdf}
\caption{$M=5$, $c=.49$, $\mathbf{\gamma=0.95}$, $\alpha_{0x}=1$, $\beta_{0x}=1$, $\xi_x=0.1$ $\forall x$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.225\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm, width=3.8cm]{ttl_reward_sc_gamma99.pdf}
\caption{$M=5$, $c=.49$, $\mathbf{\gamma=0.99}$, $\alpha_{0x}=1$, $\beta_{0x}=1$, $\xi_x=0.1$ $\forall x$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.225\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm, width=3.7cm]{ttl_reward_sc_xi2.pdf}
\caption{$M=5$, $c=.49$, $\gamma=0.99$, $\alpha_{0x}=1$, $\beta_{0x}=1$, $\mathbf{\xi_x=0.2}$ $\forall x$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.225\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm, width=3.8cm]{ttl_reward_sc_alpha5.pdf}
\caption{$M=5$, $c=.49$, $\gamma=0.99$, $\mathbf{\alpha_{0x}=5}$, $\mathbf{\beta_{0x}=5}$, $\xi_x=0.1$ $\forall x$}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{Each sub-figure shows plots of expected total reward with 95\% confidence intervals under each policy (MDP-IF in solid blue line, UCB in red dashed line, Pure Exploit in green dotted line) against category size in a given parameter setting specified in its sub-caption. $50,000$ users are simulated in each scenario.}\label{fig:sim_results}
\end{figure}

We run experiments for four different scenarios, each with a chosen set of parameters, including $\gamma$ and $\{\alpha_{0x}, \beta_{0x}, \xi_x\}_{x \in \{1, ..., k\}}$. Each scenarios consists of simulations for a range of $k \in \{5, 10, 30, 50, 100\}$, for us to understand how each policy behaves as category size, $k$, varies. Specific parameters setting are described in sub-figure captions in Figure~\ref{fig:sim_results}. Here, $\gamma$ is chosen based on the estimated parameter of the empirical distribution of user visits in astro-ph.GA and astro-ph.CO from the arXiv.org dataset in 2009-2010. Similarly, $\xi_x$ is chosen based on the empirical distributions. For convenience, $\alpha_{0x}$ and $\beta_{0x}$ is chosen to be 1 for three scenarios, and $5$ for the last scenario to understand how the policy performs when we are more certain about user preferences. For constraints, we set $M=5$, the maximum number of items forward, and unit cost as $c=0.49$, which is motivated by our conjecture that exploration adds the most benefit when cost is near the initial mean of $\theta_x$, which is $0.5$ in our test cases.

With the chosen set of parameters in each scenario, we simulate a large set of users, with user visits, items arrivals between two visits, and user feedbacks on forwarded items generated according to the model formulated in Section~\ref{sec:filtering_model}. At each visit, each policy (MDP-IF, UCB, or pure exploitation) decides how many and which items to forward. The reward is then collected to compute the expected total reward for each policy.

Each line in Figure~\ref{fig:sim_results} shows the total expected reward with 95\% confidence intervals against category size, $k$, for a given parameter setting. In all scenarios, the MDP-IF policy outperforms both UCB and pure exploitation, with magnified improvement for a larger category size and, mostly, a non-decreasing relationship with $k$. For some larger $k$, the improvement from the MDP-IF policy widens as $\gamma$ increases (comparing Figure~\ref{fig:sim_results}(a) and (b)) or $\xi_x$ shrinks (comparing Figure~\ref{fig:sim_results}(b) and (c)), or the prior user preference has less variance (comparing Figure~\ref{fig:sim_results}(b) and (d)).
\section{Conclusion}
We consider the information filtering problem where we face a voluminous stream of items and need to decide sequentially on which batch of items to forward to a user so that the total reward, the number of relevant items shown minus the cost of forwarded items, is maximized. With a focus on limited historical data, we formulate the problem as a Markov Decision Process in a Bayesian setting, and then provide a computationally tractable algorithm that is Bayes-optimal. In a setting where the total number of item shown is constrained, we consider a Lagrangian relaxation of the problem and provide an index-based policy that ranks items. As shown in the numerical section, our index-based policy outperforms UCB and the pure exploitation policy, and provides magnified benefits in many settings.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
Authors were supported by NSF IIS-1247696 and IIS-1247696.  Peter Frazier was also supported by NSF CAREER CMMI-1254298, AFOSR YIP FA9550-11-1-0083, and AFOSR FA9550-12-1-0200.

\bibliographystyle{ormsv080}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


Our eight space Roulette Wrap Around Chip Value Rack features clear and black 1/4 inch acrylic construction throughout.
Each rack measures 16 inches long and can be used on roulette wheels measuring up to 32 inches in diameter.
This wrap around roulette chip value rack has 8 slots for inserting roulette chips and their respective values.


Finding a new modern area rug has never been more fun than it is today. The vibrant colors and designs of this contemporary collection reflect today's decorating trends. Each of these rugs is awash with color, dense non shedding polypropylene fiber comfort underfoot, with modern geometric designs inspired by traditional tribal looks to energise your room.


Post your answer: How do you like your steak?
Joren and I like it rare/raw. Lucky us because we were able to share a 9oz. New York strip I bought at the Old Cheney Farmer's Market today.
Grass-fed was delicious and nutritious. You can tell it's lean, just a bit tough so I wouldn't recommend well-done. The flavors we're earthy, complex and savory. I felt different after the meal as well, not the same tired feeling after big meals. My goal this fall is to eat plenty of lean proteins, vegetables, and fruits. Starches have been weighing me down and I feel more out of control when I'm eating them.
Anyone agree? Ever felt binge-y with crackers, bread, pasta, or rice? I never feel that way with chicken or salmon, not even my favorite asparagus or salad.
Anywho… The green beans with shrimp were a good pair, surprisingly. The sauce from that dish went very well with the steak and we had our favorite wine with the meal. Oh! I also made us a tomato salad. Chopped tomatoes with fresh basil, parsley, yellow hot pepper, balsamic vinegar, olive oil, pepper and sea salt. I know what a snob… sea salt? Don't judge me.
Our first meal in Chicago thanks to Anna P. Wild Mushrooms, arugula and cheese Mmmmm. Tastiest flatbread.
I never thought I would meet someone who loved eating more than me… Nikki and I "sing" a duet every time we dine together.
Mussels with a spring pea risotto.
Joren got a burger and Nikki got a portabello burger. They had their own homemade chips! I had never used malt vinegar at old school restaurants but Nikki was genius. Splash of vinegar and a sprinkle of salt.
I'm not going in to work today until 4p, last day of PEGS for me!


First light? You mean at the crack of dawn??
Tides aren't very WR friendly sadly. Might have to be Crescent if it holds but it's a long way out so I'm sure it'll move around a bit.
1. it may be better Monday but doesn't mean its crap Thursday and anything is good if my 12m goes wt a flat board. im not difficult. im glad for it.
2, that Monday is a far ahead prediction, can change anytime.
drummermom wrote: First light? You mean at the crack of dawn??
yeah , at the cocaine of dawn is my feeling for best winds so if not working I bring couple of hot thermos of tea plus food and will see whats up 7am till 1pm. on WU wind more morning early in Tsawwassen. on gspot it changes. I will check again 10pm Wednesday on gspot and bwd . cheers.
my god the weather been awesome for biking last like 2 weeks!
Having already admitted that I don't read these charts very well, you said 1-3 looks good but the whole day the arrows are the same direction and the whole day, I believe, is forecasting 20 knots plus. Is that wrong? Where do I find that graph? What is the actual address ? I've never been anywhere but the spit.
The big question I have is whether it is expecting to be crazy gusty or not.
drummermom wrote: Having already admitted that I don't read these charts very well, you said 1-3 looks good but the whole day the arrows are the same direction and the whole day, I believe, is forecasting 20 knots plus. Is that wrong? Where do I find that graph? What is the actual address ? I've never been anywhere but the spit.
Sorry for the confusion I was not sure about this either but I'll try and clear things up. That forecast is from iwindsurf/ikitesurf and is always over optimistic for Boundary Bay. Not sure about the tide but Gabriel is looking at it from a surf prospective from Point Roberts.
but if you are kiting the low tide from 11 might be nice as there will be sand exposed and shallow water. I say this as the falling tide sets up better waves in Boundary Bay. In coming tide can get choppy but is still fun.
so best check the forecasts again after 10 PM to get a better idea of when the wind will show up. Also check the airport forecast for Vancouver as that shows a more accurate time of the winds arrival. I will post something again tonight. Boundary Bay is difficult to forecast so if you want to sail keep the day open. It's not as reliable as Squamish but usually not gusty, when the wind does show up it's fun.


text:
Guest Articles.
Katrina Pielli / Sasha Kapadia
Serving Refugee Communities with Tech, Energy Access, Entrepreneurship: Mastercard and USAID's Collective Approach
As we mark World Refugee Day 2019 (June 20) and reflect on the fate of displaced communities all around the world, we are convinced, now more than ever, that cross-pollination of experience and expertise is the only way we will surmount the major challenge in front of us. Others increasingly seem to agree – last week the World Bank, European Investment Bank and Danish Confederation of Industry hosted a conference on the private sector's role enabling refugees. This need for collaboration is precisely why USAID and Mastercard established the Smart Communities Coalition (SCC) last year. A network comprised of 35+ public and private organizations, the SCC seeks to demonstrate a new way of working, to show that companies, NGOs, governments and United Nations agencies can co-design and co-implement programs that empower people and enable growth. We chose to focus on energy access, connectivity and digital tools; all inadequately addressed by the humanitarian system but in today's economy are as essential as food and shelter to people in need.
How did we go about it all?
First: Narrow the scope
We picked Uganda and Kenya as pilot countries, which collectively host over 1.5 million refugees. In Uganda, the government has been lauded for its progressive policies towards the displaced, which include the right to move freely and work as well as access government-managed schools and health clinics. In Kenya, refugee communities contribute significantly to the local economy, even though they live in more restrictive environments. In Turkana County in northwest Kenya, refugees have helped boost the county's Gross Regional Product by over 3% and increased total employment by about 3%. By working in two very different environments, we aim to prove that our model for public-private partnership could be relevant in all kinds of contexts.
Second: Understand needs, identify gaps
The humanitarian and development system is structured in such a way that every entity has a role and carries out specific functions. Organization A is in charge of education, while Organization B covers health and Organization C tackles livelihoods. The private sector is often only engaged during the procurement process. The SCC is a (necessary and critical) break from tradition.
To delve into the needs and identify compelling projects, we held two design workshops in Nairobi, convening 40+ participants. We want to encourage companies to serve refugees and host communities, not just because it is the right to do, but also because it is good business. To that end, we created market profiles for our focus camps and settlements in Kenya (Kakuma and Kalobeyei) and Uganda (Bidi Bidi, Kiryandongo and Rwamwanja), aggregating data that we believed would make the business case clearer. We consult with key local stakeholders, review reports and publications, and aggregate learnings, all in the spirit of facilitating connections that can improve programs, or serve as the spark for new ideas.
Third: Implement
This year, we will test our model through a number of pilots:
Digital Agents for Energy+ – Norwegian Refugee Council, International Trade Centre, SNV, Total Access to Energy, BioLite and Mastercard will work together to strengthen local small businesses and entrepreneurs to act as last mile distribution points for clean energy products in Kakuma. By deploying a Mastercard application that connects energy suppliers with local youth empowered to sell and service products, refugees and host community members will more readily access affordable, reliable energy.
United States African Development Foundation (USADF) SCC Grants – The program supports refugee and host community-owned businesses' innovative efforts to address energy access gaps while leveraging the internet and digital technology, thereby helping the local private sector improve the quality and scale of their services.
De-Risking Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Solar Home Systems Grants – Grants awarded to Fenix International, BrightLife and SolarNow will enable them to sell products in two Ugandan refugee settlements and host communities, keeping product costs at the market rate. We believe this will demonstrate the viability of commercial distribution models for off-grid energy products in protracted humanitarian settings.
Rwamwanja Mini-grids and CE3+ – Advancing market-based community energy solutions with USAID support and internet infrastructure, coupled with market development and livelihood programs, will bring new opportunities to Rwamwanja refugee settlement and host community in Uganda.
Collaboration is everything
Through these programs, we aim to validate that multi-party, multi-capability programs should be the norm. Moreover, to encourage further adoption of our model, we have chosen to expand our focus to all refugee camps and settlements in Kenya and Uganda, and are looking to other geographies to replicate our model. We want to enhance and scale what's working and help innovate where we can do better. Collaboration is key to solving our most pressing problems. Want to be a problem-solver? Join the SCC!
Katrina Pielli is a Senior Energy Advisor and Lead for the Smart Communities Coalition with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Sasha Kapadia is Director, Humanitarian & Development, and leads the Smart Communities Coalition for Mastercard.
Image: Kakuma Refugee Camp, Turkana County, Kenya. Photo courtesy of author.
Bringing Refugee Camps Out of the Dark: An…
An Overlooked Engine of Economic Growth: Delivering Products…
In People and Dollars, Energy Access Is Growing by Billions:…
Energy, Entrepreneurship, Technology
energy access, global development, public private partnerships, refugees

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


medicine bush reticulated venationThere is some doubt as to which of the two names is the correct one, and which the synonym. The Kew Plants List gives Pogonolobus reticulatus, while GRIN gives Coelospermum reticulatum. Pogonolobus is derived from the Greek πωγον (pogon), a beard, and λοβος (lobos), a lobe, a pod; Coelospermun from κοιλος (koilos), hollow, and σπερμα (sperma), a seed; reticulatus is Latin for 'net-like'. Djumdum is an Aboriginal name for the plant, from the Northern Territory.
This Australian native is a straggly shrub, from 1 to 3 metres tall, and sometimes a scrambler or climber. It is found in Arnhem Land, Cape York Peninsula, down the Queensland coastal strip as far as Brisbane, and occasionally in the Channel Country of South-west Queensland. It is found in coastal scrubs, especially dry rainforest and the moister types of Eucalypt woodland, along stream banks, and on stony ridges. The grey bark is rough, corky and tessellated.
leaves flower 1The opposite leaves are stiff and coarse-textured, harsh to the touch, ovate in shape, tapering to the base, and with a small pointed tip. They are a dull light green on both sides. They measure about 3 – 9 cm long by 2 – 6 cm wide. The margins are sometimes irregular. The venation is prominent, and reticulated.
Creamy-white flowers are borne. They are tubular, hairy inside, and scented, 1 cm or a little more in length, in small terminal clusters. Their flowering period is from about September to March.
Globular fleshy berries follow. These are smooth, green, turning blackish when ripe, and 1 cm or a little more in diameter. They contain 3 or 4 seeds, that are embedded in pulp. The fruits are edible.
flower 2 While this is a straggly shrub in the bush, its shape could no doubt be improved in the garden, with watering, fertilizing, and pruning. It may be propagated from fresh seed.
Especially in Arnhem Land, the roots of the plant are used by the indigenous peoples to obtain an excellent yellow dye, used for colouring the baskets woven from Pandanus leaves. The colour comes from the inner bark of the roots, and the dyes produced have a strong, fast colour. The natural yellow of the dye can be changed to various shades of orange and rich tan by the addition of ashes from various eucalyptus trees that grow nearby. The boiled fruits produce a black dye, and the bark also makes a dye. The stems are used as fire sticks.
I have been unable to discover any medicinal uses for the plant, and so have no idea why it is called Medicine Bush.


Giving Tuesday on Nov. 27 is a global day of giving that marks the beginning of the charitable season. On this day, sponsored and led by United Way, we gather with other organizations and individuals in the collective spirit of giving to be hands on and hearts in -- and to help change lives and transform the places where we live and work.
Begun in 2012 largely as a social media movement, Giving Tuesday has become a worldwide effort to change cultural norms -- to make giving a more powerful message than buying on Black Friday or Cyber Monday. This movement has struck a chord, and the numbers have exploded. From $10 million in the first year to more than $300 million worldwide in 2017, Giving Tuesday has become a holiday force for good.
As a family, we are all in. United Way -- and living life in a united way -- has been a defining piece of our adult lives and of Texas Instruments since the company's beginnings. From the early years of our marriage, it has been our personal commitment to be part of the fabric of support and solution in our community. We found that United Way provides opportunities to give, volunteer, connect and live in ways that are consistent with our core values. United Way has a strong track record as the bridge between business and nonprofits, and of amplifying that connection for community impact.
Involving our own children in this venture seemed natural, and Giving Tuesday provided the ideal occasion. Our children have grown up aware of United Way and our involvement, and have seen firsthand the benefits of volunteering and contributing to our community. On Giving Tuesday, our children will join us to host volunteer projects throughout the community highlighting United Way's work in education, income and health -- the building blocks of a thriving community. We are proud our children are stepping up on Giving Tuesday and we hope this will inspire a new generation of givers in North Texas to take part in solutions, as well as to give to them.
Mary and Rich Templeton are co-chairs of this year's fundraising campaign for United Way of Metropolitan Dallas. Rich Templeton is chairman, president and CEO of Texas Instruments.


I hope everyone who celebrates Christmas had a great one, and those of you who don't celebrate, enjoyed the time off, whether spent alone or with family and freinds. After Darren's mom was in town last week, we reluctantly shipped Nova off to St. Louis and I had an overindulgent night seeing LA Witch and going to the Ken Club. Over the weekend, we had our Casbah holiday brunch which was awesome, but then the little tickle I'd been feeling had become more intense and I found myself reaching for the 'Tussin and spending as much time in bed as I could handle. Fortunately I was feeling somewhat better on Sunday...not well enough to go out to Exile, but well enough to finish my Christmas shopping. On Christmas, Darren woke up with the cold so I went to have breakfast with my family to let him rest up, picked him up for dinner, then let him off the hook when my sister drove him home and I stated to watch TV with my dad. Three years ago, my dad was in the hospital for Christmas, and he was in for some time this year, too, so I feel especially lucky this time of year to have my family so close. Anyhoo, I did listings through January 1, but I'm going to have to update throughout the week because obviously not everyone is ready for 2018. I decided not to waste the time adding NYE ticket links, but just know you should definitely lock in your plans sooner rather than later. All the listings are after the jump.
I am completely freaking out. After we went to the Safari Park and had such a good time with the lions last week, I was remembering them when they were little pups. So I decided to look at my old pictures, only to realize I have no idea where my hard drive is. I transferred the last four or 5 years of photos from my old laptop and here I was looking for it and not only was it not where I thought it should be, I can't really remember the last time I saw it or accessed it, so I have no idea where it could be. I'm crushed about it, but still have hope it will turn up in our house somewhere. Other than that, it was a pretty good week. We did the Zoo and Safari Park, I went to see Veronica May & Van HØF at the Casbah, I worked for Metz, and worked for the Julien Baker show, the last show the Casbah will be doing at the venue. She was amazing, but it was kinda sad that the church board can't what an asset it is to the community. Saturday I worked for Us The Duo at Westfield UTC, which turned out to be a pretty fun gig, and then Sunday Darren's family arrived so we'll be doing a lot this week. These listings go through Christmas, and you can find them all after the jump.
If you have room in your home and your heart this holiday season, what better gift than being a forever home to a new pet? The San Diego Humane Society, with a sponsorship by generous donors, are offering FREE adoptions from now until Christmas Eve. Ficus was a Humane Society adoption and she has been an amazing addition to our family, and to be honest, filled the massive void left when Pascha died. We recently took advantage of a similar offer at the San Diego County Animal Shelter and came home with Strawberry, who is the sweetest little jerk you could ever hope for.
Get down to any of the three campuses of the San Diego Humane Society and find your new love in a cat, a dog, a guinea pig, chicken, or rabbit.
So it's December. Our soccer season is over but Nova made all-stars, so we're still busy running up to PB for soccer and downtown for derby and South Park for piano, but we've been able to carve a bit more time out for going out and I did something I haven't done in awhile...I went to the Casbah four nights in a row. I haven't been lugging my camera because my shoulder has been acting up, but we caught some great shows. Pack AD was Wednesday, then Creepseed on Thursday, and after a family night braving December Nights, I went to see The Shelters and The Tracks, and then after watching the Juvenile Dollinquents derby on Saturday (Nova didn't roster), we went to Blitzen Trapper. This week is going to be busy...I'll be selling merch for Jake Clemons on Monday, shooting Angus & Julia Stone on Tuesday, checking out Alex Lahey on Wednesday, and working at the Irenic on Thursday and Friday. I'm still hoping some tickets comme through for Phoenix, but I'm not holding my breath. We got our tree on Sunday and heard that places actually are selling out (Costco was 100% sold out, for example) so if you are buying a live tree this year, don't wait. Whether or not the news stories were exaggerating, there were practically riots in the Home Depot parking lot. Monday through Sunday archives are after the jump.


text:
Country Singer Sam Hunt Wears an Engagement Ring Too
TOPICS:celebrity engagementscountry starsSam Hunt
LAS VEGAS, NV - APRIL 02: Singer Sam Hunt (L) and Hannah Lee Fowler attend the 52nd Academy Of Country Music Awards at T-Mobile Arena on April 2, 2017 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Chris Polk/ACMA2017/Getty Images for ACM)
He's wearing it with pride. Country singer Sam Hunt brought his soon-to-be-wife, Hannah Lee Fowler, to the ACM Awards in Las Vegas this weekend, and he completely lavished her with attention throughout the night.
Hunt first revealed on the red carpet that he and Fowler will make it official even sooner than expected. In fact, he's been wearing an engagement ring of his own. "I put it on to try it on, and decided it felt too good and I didn't want to take it off," he told Entertainment Tonight on Sunday night. "It's only a few weeks left before we do get married."
The couple, who only had about four months to plan the nuptials, are looking to host a casual celebration. "[It will be] low-key, low maintenance. We are both kind of introverted people for the most part, so we don't like celebrating ourselves too much," he added. "If there ever is a time to do it, it is now, and it is more to celebrate the union of marriage than it is each other. I am excited about doing that."
Hunt continued to dote on his fiancee during his performance on Sunday night, where cameras panned to the singer walking over to Fowler during his latest smash single, "Body Like a Back Road." He then sat down beside his future wife and put one arm around her as he serenaded her live. Fowler smiled, blushed and bashfully looked down with embarrassment.
Fowler inspired Hunt's breakout album, Montevallo, which is the name of her town in Alabama. Their engagement was confirmed in January.
Be the first to comment on "Country Singer Sam Hunt Wears an Engagement Ring Too"


Microsoft Lifecycle Policy offers 10 years of support (5 years for Mainstream Support and 5 years for Extended Support). This event will provide you with an overview of how the end of this 10 year period of support will affect your Windows Server and SQL Server 2008 / 2008 R2 environments, along with your devices running Windows 7. We will be covering upgrading, extended support options and of course, moving to Azure.


text:
Taxes marriage certificate
Proof of current address e. They don't mean you shouldn't get hitched; just consider them unwelcome gifts, along with that third toaster oven and the cheap fondue set. Search. You can choose a civil or religious marriage, but in some cases, a religious marriage alone will not be valid and you will also need a civil marriage. The marriage license fee is $40. After marriage, either one of the couple can choose to use: the same last name as your new spouse; the last name of a previous spouse by marriage or; the last name that is on your birth certificate; The Name Act says that you can legally assume your spouse's last name without applying for a legal change of name. The marriage certificate is issued after the wedding license has been signed by the person who performed the marriage and two witnesses and filed with the appropriate agency. The license is recorded and made a matter of public record. Some states issue separate certificates, others use a license signed on the back. Birth, Death and Marriage certificates issued by a Registrar or Superintendent Registrar £35:Tax downsides to marriage. The 72-hour waiting period can be waived by meeting one of three criteria. 00, which includes the issuance of a Certificate of Marriage Registration. Once it's recorded ANYONE can get a copy; You, your friends, your family, your employers, every telemarketer, and Chester the Identity Thief can get a copy. Search the website. Marriage. BankingMarriage and civil partnership ceremonies. Accordingly, from 1st Jan 2020 a marriage contract will be subject to 'droit d'enregistrement' of €125. There should be no registration taxes payable, as this type of marriage contract is exempt from taxes (Article 1133 bis Code général des impôts). Validity. Both applicants need to visit the Marriage License Bureau in City Hall to get a marriage license from the City. . g. You can also return to the use of your previous name at any time. To that you will need to add stamp duty of 0,715% in the case of the …A public marriage license requires one or two witnesses to sign the marriage license. There are tax benefits to nuptials, but some drawbacks exist as well. This position will change in 2020, as the exemption was abolished by the Finance Act 2019. This certificate is automatically sent to the applicants within 15 days after the completed license is returned by the officiant (the person who performs the marriage ceremony). Driving Licence, current council tax bill, bank statement dated within 1 month or a utility bill dated within 3 months of the appointment. Additional requirements and information: There is a 72-hour waiting period after the license is issued before the marriage ceremony can take place. For detailed instructions on getting your marriage license, see: Instructions for obtaining a marriage license in PhiladelphiaFORMAL MARRIAGE. Proof of a marriage can be:-a certified copy of an entry in a UK register of marriages; or; a marriage certificate issued in the country where the marriage took place
GnIP | LyHJ | 3PWb | Z1dl | Tkid | A36o | IhYB | gpFu | HSUQ | dLGq | gxW7 | eEtS | qdaY | cZbr | Y6Uf | fnP6 | rAbx | Ra6i | GLsG | ivDn |


text:
Q: Mathematica Notebook Navigation Shortcuts I really enjoy structuring my Notebook with different part & sub-parts, however, I have not yet found the shortcuts to navigate it efficiently.
For example :
-How to go from one paragraph to another ?
-From a cell to another ?
-"Open" or "Expend" a paragraph or
Many thank in advance,
LA

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


They also think that red is a good color in finance.
Alfa Bank (Альфа Банк) is my bank in Russia. In case you are wondering, I have not misspelled "alpha." My bank choice is as unfortunate as the idiotic and intentional English misspelling of the bank's name.
My bank account hit by what appears to have been a systematic fraud operation in Russia: Somehow, my debit card information and PIN number were compromised and the result was a multi-thousand dollar theft loss. The same appears to have been true for many other people, including a few acquaintances, at various banks. To be fair, this could happen anywhere.
Alfa Bank was good enough to detect fraud after the seventh thousand dollar left my account but, per a branch manager, the bank could not guarantee the safety of my funds in the bank at any time. In other words, the bank manager admitted that Alfa Bank is of the same safety grade as any random hole in the ground, except that because the word "bank" is in Alfa Bank's name, it is a bigger target. This is not OK and should not happen anywhere. Let's award "I1" to the bank manager for the insanely idiotic nature of her statement.
I2 is awarded to the same bank manager idiot for instructing me to file a police repot for a breach in a bank that she manages, so that the police can investigate the crime. She then said to wait for 9 months to get the results back. I am starting to wonder whether I should report her to the police for criminal negligence.
I3 is awarded to whichever idiot that designated me as a "VIP Client." Unsatisfied with the idiot in charge who got the I1 and I2 awards, I went to a separate branch to push my case. The bank staff, having identified me as a VIP Client, put me in a private office and asked a pretty 19-year-old girl to tend to my needs. I told the girl that she was very nice, but I needed someone competent and asked her to send the branch manager in.
Out walked the girl and in walked in a clown. He deserves I4, I5, and I6.
I4 is for his shirt: This pudgy self-designated Romeo was wearing a very tight, multi-colored Tommy Hilfiger polo over his budging belly. When I say multicolored, I mean that each sleeve had a different primary color, as did his collar. And for some weird reason, his shirt was stitched together in the middle with yet fabric of different color. It was like watching a TV color test screen. Befittingly, he disseminated just as much useful content.
I5 is for the clown's necktie. As if his shirt was not offensive enough, dumbbell the banker also sported a weirdly knotted tie that was just long enough to fit only an 11-year-old choirboy properly, with the tip just hovering above his protruding tummy. And as difficult as it seems, none of the colors of his tacky tie matched any of the gazillion colors of his stupid shirt. I mean: Come on!
The clown noticed that I was agitated. He heard my story and tried to console me. This effort gets him an I6. Without reviewing any documentation, he said to come back after 70 days to know where the bank investigation has led. Bank investigation? Really? I thought I had to file a police so that they could analyze the bank's failings. Does the bank have any sort of process, or train any of its managers on process?
Here is a tidbit for others who find themselves in a similar situation as me: By Russian law, a bank is obliged to answer to a consumer demand similar in nature to mine within 10 days. If the bank refuses to compensate the consumer for fraudulent losses, the consumer has the option of suing the bank in a Russian court. In most cases, the court sides with the consumer.
How did I learn this? A former Alfa Bank operations manager, who left the company for greener pastures, confirmed this information nugget. Somehow, existing Alfa Bank managers seem to be oblivious to this.
Maybe the first bank manager was right, and my I1 award was undeserved: Alfa Bank is about as good as a hole in the ground. In any case, the bank deserves a new, more descriptive logo (luckily, it still preserves their red color scheme).
Alfa Bank, just FYI: Red in financial parlance means "loss." At least, your color is accurately descriptive.
Uh-oh! I hope you've gotten things sorted out with this bank by now. I wonder why it came to a point wherein you had to make some unnecessary roundabouts just to get what you wanted from them. Maybe it's time to switch banks, don't you think so? I'm sure there are other banks in Russia that would be more than capable of keeping your money secure and staff that would be a lot easier to talk with should any problems arise.


text:
HOME > Brexit > Brexit – a guide for the perplexed
Brexit – a guide for the perplexed
By Victor Hill 30 January 2019
25 mins. to read
I am writing this the week before Christmas whereas you will be reading this in early January. So events may have overtaken me. But here goes: in the middle of December the political situation in the UK was so uncertain that the outcome of the Brexit process could have gone one of four ways. The possible outcomes were: Mrs May's deal, no-deal, Norway or Bremain. Which was more likely?
This article was originally featured in Master Investor Magazine
Never miss an issue of Master Investor Magazine – sign-up now for free!
Read the latest Master Investor Magazine
The vote on the Withdrawal Agreement (that's the May-Barnier deal published in mid-November) did not take place on Tuesday, 11 December, as planned. As a direct consequence of postponing that vote Mrs May was challenged in a vote of no-confidence by Tory Ultras (that's the roughly 100 Tory MPs who coalesce around the European Research Group (ERG)).
In the event, Mrs May survived by 200 votes to 117 on 13 December. That meant that, excluding the "payroll vote" of some 180 MPs who are ministers or officers of the crown, most Tory backbenchers actually voted against their Leader. Under Conservative Party rules, however, Mrs May only required an absolute majority of MPs to back her and, having survived, she cannot be challenged again for 12 months, despite the feeling before Christmas that her personal authority had been compromised.
So, barring some kind of coup (as I submit this Labour has tabled a no-confidence motion), it will be Mrs May who will steer us through Brexit which is scheduled to take place at 23:00 hours on 29 March 2019. But what are the chances that Brexit will be postponed or even reversed altogether? And if it does take place – which type of Brexit will it be?
And who will be the winners and losers in the corporate world? Given that the outlook for global stock and bond markets is not particularly encouraging in 2019 – Brexit aside – most of the risk is on the downside. As I write during the week before Christmas global stock markets are falling and retail stocks are being hammered – but not because of Brexit. There may, however, be some canny players who can profit in a time of uncertainty.
Mrs May's Withdrawal Agreement
If you have been penguin-watching in Antarctica these last two months you may have missed some political drama back home.
It was during the afternoon of Tuesday, 13 November that the news flashed up on our screens that a Brexit deal had been struck between the UK Government and the EU's negotiating team led by Michel Barnier. Mrs May emerged from a marathon five-hour cabinet meeting on the evening of the following day to announce that the cabinet was on-side. Brussels announced there would be an exceptional summit on 25 November to endorse the deal – which it duly did.
The first cabinet resignations came that Thursday morning: significantly that of Dominic Raab, the Brexit Secretary – the man who was supposed to have negotiated the deal. (We now know that Mr Raab had been kept in the dark by the PM – as had his predecessor, Mr Davis.) Mr Raab was quickly followed out of cabinet by Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey. A further half dozen or so junior ministers resigned subsequently.
Mrs May then began a series of statements to the House of Commons, all of which were met with hostility from all sides. What emerged was that the deal, if ratified, would entail that the UK would remain inside the EU Customs Union, not just for the transition period up to December 2020, but indefinitely until such time as a Canada-style trade agreement was concluded between the two sides. And even then, the "Irish backstop" would determine that the UK could only leave the Customs Union with the consent of the EU…otherwise there would have to be a customs border down the Irish Sea.
Until such point, Britain would have to conform to all EU rules while having no say whatsoever on their formulation. On the plus side (from the Brexiteers' point of view), freedom of movement was to end and the UK would be able to disentangle itself from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Common Fisheries Policies (CFP) and the European budgetary cycle after the transition period. There was no guarantee that British fishermen would be able to fish in British waters without the competition of their European counterparts – that would be determined later. On the minus side (again from the Brexiteers' point of view), during the transition period, the ECJ would retain jurisdiction over UK laws.
John Redwood MP wrote in his diary on 14 November, speaking for about 100 plus Tory MPs:
This is a bad deal. The government should drop it now. Parliament is unlikely to pass the necessary legislation for it. I will vote against were they to try. If we can't get a good future partnership before we pay them any extra money, why would we get one once we have signed away the cash?
The debate on the meaningful voteon the Withdrawal Agreement began on 05 December. It was in its fourth day, on Monday, 10 December when the vote was pulled. This is what Mrs May told the House of Commons in a statement that day:
I have listened very carefully to what has been said, in this chamber and out of it, by members from all sides. From listening to those views it is clear that while there is broad support for many of the key aspects of the deal, on one issue – the Northern Ireland backstop – there remains widespread and deep concern. As a result, if we went ahead and held the vote tomorrow the deal would be rejected by a significant margin.
Now it is true that a large majority of the 100 plus prospective Tory dissenters – not to mention the 10 DUP members – were exercised by what was effectively an EU veto on the UK ever leaving the Customs Union unless it de facto ceded sovereignty over Northern Ireland to the EU. But the backstop was by no means the only reason why to ratify this deal would have been an act of supplication.
For a start, there would have been no possibility of making trade deals which gave third states preferential treatment over the EU itself, even after the point where a Canada Plus-style trade agreement were agreed – and even if no backstop were to come into play. This is because the Withdrawal Agreement forbids the UK from negotiating tariffs (import duties) lower than those obtaining on EU goods.
Labour made clear that it was going to vote the deal down. Not because of the backstop – but rather because the Labour leadership believed that they could get a better deal. How they might achieve that remained unclear. As the Daily Telegraph's Juliet Samuel explained,[I] Labour MPs like Hilary Benn complain on the one hand that they don't like the deal because the backstop is of indeterminate duration. And on the other they complain that the deal is unacceptable because it doesn't tie Britain into the Customs Union permanently. Or, Yvette Cooper MP said that she didn't like the deal because it didn't guarantee access to the EU's security databases. Then she admitted that Mrs May had been trying to achieve that but mocked her for being rebuffed. Labour does not come out of this chapter with much dignity.
So the notion that all Mrs May might have to do next was to get assurances about the backstop from her fellow heads of government in Europe was always far-fetched. There would have to be a substantive review of the mechanism by which the backstop triggered. Assurances were never going to be enough.
Frau Merkel listened politely to Mrs May in Berlin on 11 December and then trotted out the tired formula that Brexit negotiations were a matter for Monsieur Barnier and his team – and that individual heads of government (even the Bundeskanzler), could do nothing to interfere. Similarly, Mrs May's appeal for help to the assembled EU leaders in Brussels on 13 December fell on deaf ears. Herr Juncker accused her – much to her chagrin – of making nebulous demands…
The evolution of the European Union
The European Union (as it has been called since the Treaty of Maastricht, 1992) – or the European Economic Community (EEC) as it was originally called – came about a decade or so after the foundation of the UN at a time when Europe was still rebuilding after the devastation of World War II (WWII). Britain was not a signatory to the Treaty of Rome (25 March 1957) which brought the EEC into existence. The original six were: France, West Germany (Germany was split between the capitalist west and the communist east), Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Five of those nations had been occupied by Nazi Germany in WWII – still a very recent memory.
Britain, Ireland and Denmark joined the EEC in 1973. Norway was planning to accede at the same time but its people voted to stay out in a referendum. Greece joined in 1981; Spain and Portugal in 1986. East Germany (the DDR) acceded to the EU when Germany was finally re-united on 03 October 1990. Sweden, Finland and Austria acceded in 1995.
The former Eastern Bloc countries: Poland, the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia joined on 01 May 2004 – as did the Mediterranean island states Malta and Cyprus. Bulgaria and Romania acceded in 2007. Croatia was the most recent recruit in 2013.
Britain is not the first country to leave the EEC/EU. Algeria, which was a part of France until it achieved independence in 1962, left immediately thereafter. Also, Greenland, a Danish dependency, having achieved home rule from Denmark in 1979, withdrew from the EU in 1985 but remained subject to a number of EU treaties.
A number of countries have tried to join the EU but negotiations have run into the sand. Morocco was rejected in 1985, though apparently it still aspires to join. Turkey has been a candidate member of the EU since the mid-1980s but no one now believes that it will become a full member and its desire to become one has dimmed. Montenegro and Serbia are currently officially negotiating to join but in the last two years Serbia has pivoted towards Russia.
The issue of the Irish border
I don't really recall the matter of the Irish border having been discussed during the referendum campaign of 2016. But since the UK withdrawal negotiations began in June 2017 the Irish border has emerged as the key factor in shaping a final agreement. The EU negotiating machine – whose key players were Michel Barnier, Martin Selmayr and Sabine Weyand – Federalists to a man and woman, and lawyers all – came up with what I call the trope of the Irish border.
This is the idea that it would be entirely unacceptable for a farmer from the Republic, driving a consignment of lamb or milk from County Monaghan to County Armagh, to fill out a customs declaration online. (Even though he has to submit a VAT return online as things stand today.) Why? Because that would constitute a "hard border" which – so it is argued – would be a flagrant violation of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement (1998). And yet, as I understand it, there is nothing in the Good Friday Agreement about customs arrangements. Whatever, the EU negotiating gambit worked.
What makes the trope of the Irish border even more absurd is that only a very small proportion of the Republic's exports actually cross that border.Most Irish exports to the UK are shipped from Rosslare to Fishguard (Pembrokeshire) or from Dublin to Holyhead (Anglesey). Irish trucks bound for Europe tend to go Dublin-Holyhead and then Dover-Calais. There are also freight ferry links from Rosslare to Roscoff and Le Havre in France.
Moreover, only about 27 percent of Northern Ireland's exports are sold to the Republic of Ireland[ii] while the rest-of-UK remains Northern Ireland's biggest market by far. So the volume of goods crossing from Belfast to Liverpool and from Larne to Stranraer (Dumfries & Galloway) is much bigger that the volume of goods crossing the Northern Irish border. If there were to be a customs border between Northern Ireland and the UK that would be much to Northern Ireland's disadvantage.
The Customs Union
The Customs Union is a fundamental mechanism of the European Economic Community (EEC) as established under the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and, since the Treaty of Maastricht (1993), by the European Union (EU). No customs duties are levied on goods bought and sold within the Customs Union. Unlike a free trade area, members of the Customs Union impose a common external tariff on all goods entering the EU from third-party states.
Such tariffs or import duties are collected by the governments of the member states and paid over to the EU less an administration fee of about ten percent. A precondition of the Customs Union is that the European Commission negotiates for, and on behalf of, the EU as a whole in all international trade deals and occupies a single seat at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Member states have no competence in trade negotiations individually whatsoever.
Turkey has access to the tariff-free exchange of some goods via its membership in the EU–Turkey Customs Union (1995). Similarly, Ukraine enjoys mostly tariff-free trade in goods under the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement (2014). The EFTA countries are not inside the EU Customs Union.
One of the curious effects of the Customs Union is that most of us, when we go shopping at the supermarket, have no idea which goods are subject to import duties and which are not. Suffice to say that, if the UK were to leave the Customs Union, those delicious Kenyan pineapples would be about ten percent cheaper while those Dutch (hydroponic) sweet peppers would be ten percent dearer. It is not unimaginable that we might be able to reconfigure our supply lines accordingly.
The Norway Option
The chattering classes have been talking about a pivot towards the Norway Option, even as a temporary arrangement, as a way of getting out without a cliff-edge Brexit – assuming that Mrs May's deal will not get parliamentary approval.
A number of distinguished commentators have consistently advocated membership of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA)since 2016 – amongst them Dan Hannan MEP and Cristopher Booker of the Sunday Telegraph. The oft-repeated argument is that we could join EFTA automatically since we were a member of the trade bloc from its inception in 1960 to the moment we joined the EEC (as it was then) on 01 January 1973.
The EFTA countries[iii] – Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and tiny Liechtenstein – are members of the EU Single Market and of the Schengen Area, but they are not in the EU Customs Union. That means that they have to harmonise their commercial regulations with those of the EU, on which they are consulted, though they have no direct input into their design. They enjoy border-free travel to Schengen states (unlike the UK and the Republic of Ireland) and they are committed to the four freedoms – of goods, services, capital and labour (the latter being termed freedom of movement). However, there is a mechanism – akin to the emergency break so desired by Mr Cameron – according to which they can limit migration from EU states in certain circumstances. Most importantly, since they are not subject to the tariffs agreed under EU trade treaties, they are able to make free trade agreements (FTAs) with third-party states.
Norway is neither in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) nor the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Norway had two referendums on whether to join the EEC/EU – one in 1972 and another in 1994. In both referendums the metropolitan areas voted for EU membership but the coastal communities – Norway has one of the largest fishing industries in Europe – were opposed. Norway jealously preserves its fish-rich territorial waters for Norwegian fishermen alone. There are many British fishermen, not least in Scotland, who envy that.
The Daily Telegraph reported on 01 December that eight cabinet ministers – including Chancellor Hammond – had discussed a "Norway Plan B" given the negligible chance of the May-Barnier Withdrawal Agreement passing through the House of Commons. According to the report, these cabinet ministers believe that the Norway model could win the support of 70 Labour MPs, the DUP and even some SNP MPs.
The Norway-plus idea advanced by Nick Bowles MP and others is that we would be out of the political institutions of the EU and no longer bound by the mantra of ever-closer-union – but that we would remain in the Customs Union temporarily. We would not be subject to the ECJ. We would have to make financial contributions – as Norway does – but they would be relatively modest. Under the EFTA/EEA framework Britain could suspend free movement if it causes "serious economic or societal difficulties". Supposedly, Liechtenstein has invoked this cause for the last 22 years.
It seems that the EFTA members would have no objection to our membership. However, the EU would oppose it as it would erect a supposed "hard border" in Ireland. (The Republic would be in the Customs Union but Northern Ireland outside.) Once again, the wretched trope of the Irish border trumps all.
There are arguments against the Norway option on both sides. The Bank of England (a bastion of Remain) thinks that the City could be disadvantaged since we would be a rule-taker (as indeed we would be under Mrs May's deal). Brexiteers, like Steve Hilton, argue that not even Norway likes Norway.
The Single Market
The European Single Market, Internal Market or Common Market was only finally achieved on 01 January 1993. It guarantees the free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour – the "four freedoms" – within the European Union (EU). The single market encompasses the EU 28 member states (including the UK), and has been extended, with exemptions, to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through EFTA and to Switzerland through bilateral treaties.
A number of potential EU accession candidates have Stabilisation and Association Agreements with the EU, which allow for limited participation in selected sectors of the Single Market. These include Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. In addition, through three individual agreements on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) with the EU, the former Soviet states of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have also been granted limited access to the Single Market in selected sectors.
New terminology evolved at the end of 2018 to describe various no-deal scenarios. Accidental no-deal means that we muddle through the late winter and spring and then wake up on 30 March to find that trucks cannot cross from Dover to Calais because they do not have the right paperwork – and no one on either side of the Channel knows what the correct paperwork looks like.
Mitigated or managed no-deal means that, come the day, truck drivers will be equipped with all the necessary documentation and that customs checks on both sides would be conducted by officials expeditiously.
In principle, the UK could take up its own seat at the WTO in Geneva on Monday, 01 April 2019. From that day onwards the UK could endeavour to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU (which is the stated intention of the Political Declaration) as a WTO state – dealing directly with the world's largest trading bloc. Since both sides would start from a position of enjoying identical regulatory regimes (and the UK would not seek to modify regulations for its own sake) that task should be completed much more swiftly than, for example, the EU-Canada FTA which was signed in 2016 after seven years of wrangling.
All this begs the question of whether a Withdrawal Agreement is necessary at all. When the British Empire was dismantled in a kind of closing-down sale during the 1950s and '60s, there were no withdrawal agreements – just treaties that recorded the change of jurisdiction and the transfer of state assets from the British Crown to the newly independent states. Of course, Britain should meet any outstanding obligations, as should the EU; and, of course, the framework agreements regarding, for example, cooperation in scientific research should be perpetuated wherever possible.
I note, however, that it is Europe that is kicking the UK out of the Galileo Programme – much against its will – not Britain flouncing out. That is not necessarily a bad thing. One of my advisors in the realm of aerospace – an ex-NASA guru – informs me that the UK is better off out of Galileo and pursuing its own alternative system with new partners. A fresh start could incorporate much new technology available since the Galileo system is already out-of-date.
It is true that even the best mitigated no-deal would cause some dislocation in supply chains for the first 3-6 months or so: but that is not necessarily an excessive price to pay for the greater prize – the ability to reshape our trading relations in a way that maximises opportunities for us.
Our Japanese friends who have invested heavily in the UK should not fret: tariffs are not really the problem at all as these are generally modest and can be easily budgeted for. The impact of tariffs on the export of Nissan cars will be much inferior to the competitive advantage conferred by the depreciation of the pound since 2016 of around 15 percent. The real issue is that goods should still flow freely – tariffs or not.
In the run-up to Christmas there was a groundswell of Remain-oriented sentiment in favour of a second referendum.
On 11 December, Sir John Major (PM 1990-97) declared that Article 50 should be revoked forthwith. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) had ruled the day before that the UK could unilaterally rescind Article 50 without the agreement of the EU-27 – but not in order to stall for time in further tedious negotiations. It is likely, however, that if parliament decided to revoke Article 50 in order to hold a second referendum the Europeans would buy that.
Those who argue in favour of a second referendum – a so-called People's Vote (as if the first one was not a people's vote) – do so because they believe that there is a fighting chance that the 52-48 outcome might flip back to Remain.
There is very little evidence, however, that public opinion has shifted fundamentally on this – as Professor Curtice of the University of Strathclyde occasionally reminds us. Personally, I have encountered many people who voted Remain who are appalled by European arrogance during these negotiations. True, many of us underestimated how difficult it would be to unpick the thousands of agreements that bind the UK to Europe in every domain – but that, in itself, has shed light on the extent to which governments from the 1980s (including Mrs Thatcher's) transferred powers to Brussels without adequate national debate.
For those who advocate the People's Vote there are three main questions.
First: on what basis would a second vote be a more legitimate expression of public opinion than the first? Why not hold a third if the desired result is not achieved? We know that this has been a tactic used by the EU elite – for example in Ireland and Denmark. When the French rejected the European Constitution in 2005 the EU just re-packaged it as the Treaty of Lisbon and drove that through anyway.
Second: what would the question be? If it is another binary choice between Mrs May's deal (which Labour opposes) and Remain, then that would surely be unacceptable to Leavers who oppose Mrs May's deal. If it were a three-way choice between No-deal, May-Barnier and Remain, then what merry Hell would be unleashed if the British people, in their infinite sagacity, accorded 33 percent for each option? I contend that there is no question format which could achieve consensus. The outcome would therefore be moreconfusion and recrimination.
Third: what does Remain mean? Is it to go back to the balmy days of the status quo ante bellum? It is by no means clear that the British rebate and exemption from the Euro and the Schengen Agreement would still be available. On one reading of the Maastricht Treaty (1993) Britain's opt-out from the Euro will expire in 2023. And what about Mr Cameron's emergency brake on EU migration negotiated in February 2016? Is that still on the table?
Even more contentious: will we have to sign up to President Macron's European Ministry of Finance with its tax harmonisation agenda? And will the European Army be able to deploy British regiments in conflicts; or to summon Europe's largest aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, at whim?
A second referendum is a very bad idea – and talk of Remain-after-all is simple-minded. As I wrote in December, even if you believe we have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire that is not an argument for jumping back into the frying pan.
The UK's arteries of commerce
When people talk about the impact of a no-deal Brexit they usually foresee that there will be gridlock in Kent (principally on the M20 and M26 motorways) as the flow of goods between Dover and Calais grinds to a halt. And it is true that most freight transported on wheels passes through Dover, the other ferry routes such as Harwich (Essex) to Hook of Holland and Newcastle-Rotterdam having been downgraded in recent years. But less than 45 percent of our trade is conducted with the EU and less than half of that travels by truck.
The UK now has state-of-the-art deep water container ports at Felixstowe (Suffolk) and at the new London Gateway upstream from Tilbury (Essex). Liquid natural gas (LNG) comes into the Isle of Grain (Kent) and most crude oil imports and chemicals are received at Immingham (Lincolnshire) and at other major refinery sites such as Milford Haven (Pembrokeshire).
As people who live in Kent (like me) know – the French closing the port of Calais is a fairly frequent event. Operation Stack – when Kent Police force all trucks to pull over to the hard shoulder on the A20 – has been triggered an incredible 211 times in the last ten years. This is usually because a Leninist French trade union is having tantrums about its privilèges…We could do better to re-route much of our Dover-Calais exports to Antwerp and Zeebrugge anyway…
Of course, things may have changed by the time you read this: but where I am (pre-Christmas) it looks like no-deal is the most likely outcome. The House of Commons will pass as many motions as it likes – like Turkeys registering their moral disapproval of Christmas – but, in the end, it will mean nothing.Come 23:00 on 29 March – Big Ben will chime (or maybe not since it is under renovation – how very British…).
But if I turn out to be right and we shall awake to a no-deal Brexit on 30 March, let me tell you which stocks will bomb…
First and foremost the major German automotive manufacturers will nosedive – that's BMW (ETR:BMW), Daimler (ETR:DAI) andVolkswagen (ETR:VOW) and Porsche (ETR:PAH). In any case, I suspect that there are more scandals to emerge from these privileged players who are part of the deep German state…What is clear is that corporate governance in Deutschland AG is going down the drain…
Then dear old Rolls Royce (LON:RR.) will be in the firing line. A senior Airbus Industrie (EPA:AIR) exec told me over lunch in France over the summer that they are "losing patience" with the performance of RR's "problematic" Trent 1000 aero-engine. But cut RR some slack: they are supplying that engine, despite problems, to most of the new generation of Boeing 777 Dreamliners. RR will survive – though no thanks to Europe.
Logistics companies like Stobart Group (LON:STOB) will come under severe pressure – but, on the other hand, global shippers, especially Chinese ones, like Evergreen Marine (TPE:2603) will take up some of the slack when the European blockade begins.
On the long side (as I shall share shortly) I am beginning to think that supermarkets may have been oversold. The pivot away from European foods to home-grown ones could do wonders for margins. I cannot understand why downmarket supermarkets like ASDA (owned by Walmart (NYSE:WMT)) stock no organic British pork but instead offer vile Dutch and Danish pork products which have been raised in wretched conditions. If Sainsbury's (LON:SBRY) does not do something about that after the proposed merger I shall be wearing agilet jaune at their next AGM.
But Waitrose/John Lewis (private) gets it. I think that one of the big themes of 2019 will be ecology – and if the European blockade against the UK reduces food miles, that will be great for the environment. Any supermarket chain that can correctly claim to have reduced plastic packaging will be kicking at an open goal…
Unfortunately, the stock markets are likely to be quite stressed in 2019 for reasons well beyond Brexit. But then, if you don't like the heat, you can always get out of the kitchen.
[i]See Hard Remainers should be careful what they wish for, The Daily Telegraph, Saturday, 15 December 2018, page 21.
[ii]See ONS at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/internationaltrade/articles/patternsofnorthernirelandtradebydestinationproductandbusinesscharacteristics/2012to2016
[iii]The European Economic Area (EEA) is EFTA minus Switzerland.
Due to Brexit the political situation, as well as the outcome of the stock market was really uncertain. The UK stock markets were adversely affected by it. It has become essential to do complete market research before investing. I am currently looking forward to investing in trending small-cap stocks, blue-chip dividends, lithium stocks, best penny stocks listed in the UK stock market. Hope these will not be adversely affected by any news and will uphold the market volatility.
In this weekly summary, Mark Watson-Mitchell updates his readers on pr...
The Brexit Beast Encaged?
Mr Johnson occupies Downing Street but he is a prisoner of a Remainer parliament and the rule of…
What kind of remain do Remainers really want?
Britain is undergoing a constitutional crisis engineered by forces which want to reverse Brexit.…
I am writing this the week before Christmas whereas you will be reading this in early January. So…
America's dramatic January
New Decade – New Challenge…


text:
module AwardHelper
end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Big Flame - The Socialist Paper for Merseyside [Poster]
Big Flame
[Big Flame]
Printed single-sided poster, approximately 290mm x 460mm in size, n.d. early 1970's?
Slightly soiled, horizontal crease from old fold to centre.
Big Flame was a socialist group (1970-1984) largely based on Merseyside, but with other regional groups, the name was taken from a television play written by Jim Allen and directed by Ken Loach. Though quite a small group it produced a newspaper and a wide range of pamphlets
Elephant Folio
Liverpool?
ENQUIRE ABOUT BIG FLAME - THE SOCIALIST PAPER FOR MERSEYSIDE [POSTER]
'We Pity the Plumage, But Forget the Dying Bird' - An Address to the People on the Death of the Princess Charlotte
The History of the Poor; Their Rights, Duties, and the Laws Respecting Them. In a Series of Letters
What An Outrage!
The Psalms and Hymns with the Ode or Anthem Sung at the Magdalen Chapel WITH The Psalms and Hymns Used at the Asylum or House of Refuge for Female Orphans
Big Flame - Merseyside Socialist Paper [Poster]


text:
Wake Up Yoga
Home Classes and Passes Workshops Teacher Training About
HomeClasses and PassesWorkshopsTeacher TrainingAbout
Stephanie Berliner
Stephanie discovered yoga in 2001, and it was love at first asana. Unlike anything else, the practice just made sense to her, and it has led her to countless "aha!" moments, both on and off the mat. She always felt compelled to share the grace and light of yoga with others and completed the 250-hour Foundational Teacher Training program at Wake Up Yoga in 2011. Since then, she has completed an additional 300+ hours of training at Laughing Lotus Yoga Center in NYC, alignment-focused training at Maha Yoga in Philadelphia, and Alex Auder's Eye of the Teacher Training at Magu Yoga in Philadelphia. Stephanie is registered at the 500-hour level with Yoga Alliance. She is delighted to share her alignment-based vinyasa flow style with students, simultaneously meeting them where they are and challenging them to be their brightest selves.
What do you love most about Wake Up Yoga?
I love the dedication of the students at Wake Up Yoga, many of whom I have known on the mat for nearly a decade.
How do you express your creativity?
I've been a musician for most of my life, and I love to play music and sing (and sometimes chant with the harmonium!). I also recently learned how to make pottery on the wheel, which is my new favorite creative pastime.
Where are you originally from and what brought you to Philadelphia?
I've been in Philadelphia since August of 2000, and I've lived here longer than I've lived anywhere! I moved here to study music at University of the Arts, but Philadelphia has truly become my home. I absolutely love Philadelphia sports, and I was at the World Series game in 2008 when the Phillies won (both days)!
215-235-1228 info@wakeupyoga.com
215 - 235 - 1228 | info@wakeupyoga.com | © twenty nineteen | subscribe


detaliurala ru production jaw crusher sm 16. schekovbaia drobilka sm 16 glass crushingmachines in turkey 40521377 Standarharga2010 2 Documents Dokumen.tips .
This Pin was discovered by Invader Zim. Discover (and save!) your own Pins on Pinterest.