brockers

But couldn't this same argument be applied to students at private, parochial, and specialized programs like Montessori schools? All of these are types of self selection.

Additionally your argument even per-supposes non-incidental socialization. For example, my brother home schools his kids but they are rarely ever "at home." For example last week looked something like this for them:

--Monday they attended a city library survey of Shakespearean tragedies. Then they attended the community chess club that evening.

--Tuesday the university museum of modern history has a weekly K-12 program open to both public and home schooled students. They go almost ever week.

--Wednesday was the robotics club at the community center. The home school association soccer program. And a STEM program (they are doing game development and working on their robot for the club competition) through a local STEM academy.

--Thursday is back to the university where a number of the individual colleges have courses for home school students on history, science, and math (my understanding is that these programs are open to anyone, but home schooled students make the largest block of attendees, followed by elderly retirees.)

--Fridays are at home for papers, research, and computer classes.

I guess I am saying that your perception of home schooling might not be a broad as it could be.

Almost all states have a required test to prove grade level equivalency for all students. As education is mandatory for "school age" children; these tests not only prove capability but that the parents are actually doing the legal duty to provide education.

College entrance is NOT an issue. After comparing SAT/ACT scores ever university I know prefers home schooled kids over most candidates, including all but the very best private school students. The academics I have talked to say that home schooled students are both more likely to graduate and do better academically than their non-home schooled counterparts (although I haven't seen any specific numbers to prove it.)

Because such a system is not reasonably doable with a student to teacher ratio of 28-1

I thought this was an Onion headline at first.

I fear the graphene will fall by the wayside due to legal and social pressure. News sources have already pointed out that it is significantly more dangerous, if inhaled, than asbestos; another material this is insanely useful for a number of applications but is effectively blackballed as a engineer-able material.

Another example is nuclear energy. Clean, abundant, and extremely safe. The fear of radiation exposer has turned it into a pariah in the world community; totally ignoring the fact the radioactive elements in coal emissions have kill more people in the last 30 years than 100 Three Mile Island incidences would.

systemd anyone?

I remember reading Krugman's article on CEO pay and just shaking my head. The reality is that he is an economic writer and not an economist any longer. I'm sure there are plenty here who will disagree but I think Krugman long ago lost his credibility as "a leading economist." Anyone who remembers the "broken windows theory and iPhone upgrade cycle" article couldn't help thinking, really?? This guy won a Nobel Prize?

Funny how something that hits so close to the truth is more scary than funny.

What I got out of the post was what happens to a person who spends a decade trying to make money instead of building value.

I'm not trying to make a judgment call but the emptiness of it almost hurt to read.

Now if they can just do the same thing with annotations...

Thank you! It is amazing how many people confuse good packaging with pretty packaging.

...and the congregation said AMEN!

France had true democracy in the late 18th century. It became a popularity contest to send political enemies to the guillotine.

Democracy isn't the same thing as liberty and unfortunately people have started to believe freedom == democracy. When in reality democracy is just a way to organize decisions.

To put is succinctly if unnecessarily crass, but one could argue that gang rape is democracy in action.

The best part of the whole article was the line:

>> "If you say something’s hard, and everyone starts screaming at you—sometimes literally—that it’s easy, then it’s really hard.

Another Apple ad on Hacker News? I wish we have a filter for "things that only apply to Apple users."

There are 20 year old binary formats that we cannot recover because we have lost their decoders. There are 4000 year old texts we have been able to decipher because text is so many orders of magnitude easier to decode. There are anthropologists who argue that it wasn't tools or speech that led humanity out of caves, but writing (and the abstract thought that is facilitates.)

>> Note that nobody else has built competing projects, and he didn't force any distribution to use them.

This is simply not true. Both systems were effectively pushed down everybody's throats because RedHat (through Fedora) made it that way. There were lots of competing options that we NEVER going to get consideration because they were "not invented here."

That is the thing that frustrates people most about him. That he may be a good developer, but what he does has less to do with engineering merit and more to do with politics.

Honestly, I wonder how many people here are going to worry about apt file signature verification while simultaneously running "bundle install" with a gemfile containing 50 sources including random github HEADs.

The location of the package isn't what makes it safe (i.e. cross-site vulnerabilities and such) but that the package signature matches the published signature from the author. Then it doesn't matter where you download the package. Does slackware do this verification for you?

It is really annoying when these HN links are to Mac only applications.

Why?

Maybe, but regardless I would prefer he finish "spilling the beans" before he turns himself in. Information is still being released (a slow release is really the only way to keep the issue front and center) and I would hate for that information to stop getting out.

...or grisbi?

...or kmymoney?

> No, its flat. A flat tax is not progressive. The point of a progressive tax system is that the marginal impact is greater at higher income levels.

Marginal impact is greater. Using the numbers I listed above your marginal tax rate at a income of $10k/year is NEGATIVE 100%, at an income of $100k/year it would be 0%, at $500k/year it would be 8%, at $1m/year it would be 9%... asymptotic increasing towards 10%.

> ...there is always a positive incentive to higher income

Sorry, you are correct. I should have said there is increased income doesn't increase disincentives.

> Only if the flat rate is set very high compared to the existing rates paid by most of the population.

The point wasn't being made on total net revenue but on cost per dollar collected due to compliance enforcement and bureaucratic overhead. Regardless the flat tax rate CAN be set very high as long as there is a corresponding offset in the MBI. Ultimately the ACTUAL rate people pay could be similar to the amount they currently pay but normalized over the population as a whole.

> If this includes taxing capital gains as income

> To do this, government has to alter the definition of taxable income

Which is why I specifically mentioned ALL income.

> This does not eliminate their ability to make similar decisions in the future

This is very true, and probably the strongest argument you made in your post. Hopefully such exemptions would "stand out" with such a simplified tax structure but any government that exists will continually work to expand it's power at the expense of the governed.

> Everybody feels the effect of rate changes now

Everybody does NOT feel the effects of a rate change as often lower tax rates are unmodified while higher tax rates are adjusted.

> Define "market freedom".

Sorry, "market freedom" is both to general and arguable incorrectly used in this case. I should have said it equalizes market manipulation by the government.

The author is a little confused about the history of Libertarian thought on this issue. A minimum basic income (MBI) is NOT a social progressive concept first thought up by western social democrats but was originally a fundamental tenant of a flat tax system. Something Libertarian's have been arguing in favor of for a long time.

The basic design is simple. You give every person a single dollar amount as a MBI and then ALL income (besides the MBI) is taxed at a flat rate of X percent. For example (and just using simple numbers for maths sake) pretend that the MBI is $10,000 and the tax rate is 10%. Everyone making LESS than $100,000 would actually receive a subsidy because their overall paid tax would be less than the $10,000 they received from the MBI. Everyone over $100,000 would pay a progressively higher tax approaching 20%. The results are:

1) A tax rate that is perfectly progressive providing a MBI and fully scaled real tax rate for everyone. 2) Increased income has no tax disincentives (your tax rate doesn't change because you move into a higher income.) 3) Simplifies that tax code dramatically (which would also increase revenue.) 4) Doesn't artificially encourage capital gains manipulation by large income holders. 5) Removes government manipulation of social policy by giving them ONLY two number to play with... MBI and tax rate! 6) Finally, it provides a real mechanism for everybody to feel the effects of tax rate changes. Making it MORE responsive to economic factors like income inequality. For example, if 90% of people would get more money in their pocket by increasing the MBI to $15,000 while also increasing the tax rate to 30%... the likelihood of that change actually passing through Congress is dramatically higher that it currently is because such a system is transparent to your own pocketbook.

ALL of these effects without negatively affecting market freedom. Again, we see Libertarian thought is both MORE "fair" AND more compassionate.

Supply and demand is a economic model that exists in ALL economies that have finite resources and free exchange. The only ways to overcome supply and demand in the long run (as even the law of gravity can be overcome in the short run), is to either limit free exchange by force or have access to unlimited resources.

Your correct from that standpoint that all stories are simplifications of more complex realities. That said, Ben & Jerry's is used as a textbook example of the effects of untended consequences when attempting to artificially manipulate cost structures in a market economy. It is even arguable, these consequences directly caused Ben and Jerry to loose control of their own company.

All that aside, I don't have a problem with curtailing executive compensation (for example CostCo does it in a way that maintains their corporate identity while allowing them to compete in their market.)

That would have my vote

Ben & Jerry's used to have a company policy that limited the pay of top employees to 5x an entry level employee. Of course it was dumb-foundingly stupid and they ultimately had to drop it when they were unable to find a CEO capable of managing a $75 million dollar company for $88,000 a year. The company suffered from mind-boggling mismanagement as some positions remained unfilled for years and were then often filled with grossly incompetent hires who were willing to work for such pay.

We no longer live in a manufacturing economy. In service industries the value of an employee is almost entirely reflective of their responsibility and/or the amount of money they bring to a company. Most of you work in software... how much more valuable is a GREAT engineer vs a mediocre engineer... or an awful engineer?

This is childish sophomoric ideological baloney based on jealousy, not on need. How many Swiss do you know that are dying of starvation or lack of health care? The world bank says the average income in sub Saharan Africa is a little over $1,300 a year. Maybe we should tie all out incomes to a maximum of 12x THAT number. Would that make the world more fair? Would that actually help anyone in Africa? Would it help economic development or encourage more people to start businesses?

It is hard to see this stupid legislation as anything more that rich people in rich countries bitching that someone's Bentley is bigger than their Mercedes.