michaeldhopkins

DE Shaw is a quant firm and tends to hire out of STEM fields, not arts like business.

That's not true. I have the experiences of having prepared taxes professionally and counting and reporting donations at a church. By combining those I can observe that the majority of donations are proportional to income, not whether the donator can fill out a Schedule A. (The ability to fill out a Schedule A and deduct donations essentially depends on whether the taxpayer has a mortgage, for middle class.)

I think the author of the article used it intentionally. The premise of the article is that sometimes developers find themselves having to or choosing to do a death march despite knowing it's unsustainable long-term, and there are ways to make the death march more productive and mitigate the negative effects.

I know a couple of Delphi developers; good developers. I don't think that they would recommend learning the language today because the number of legacy systems still in Delphi are declining, few new projects use Delphi, and while there are web frameworks, app development frameworks, etc., they really only exist to help existing developers and are not remarkable enough to be worth learning the language.

Germany has not had nearly the problems with homeschooling that you imagine. Its prosecution of homeschooling families has been appalling, though. Seizing children (at gunpoint) and forcing them to go to a public school against their parents' wishes, and not allowing the family to leave the country, is not healthy for the children, the parents, the classmates or the country.

I think it actually has a good reputation here. The people who seriously oppose it today either are committed to mandatory state education for political reasons or have not met many homeschoolers. Most of the hard political battles about the right to homeschool were won 20-30 years ago. Most public and private schools have programs or arrangements for homeschooling families that wish to take some classes or enroll in some extra-curricular programs, as do junior colleges, so even many professional educators have positive things to say about the method.

That is not true. Parents use quality textbooks and lesson plans. They also get together to pay specialists to teach difficult subjects one or more times per week. Also, by the time a homeschooled child is of the age that their subjects can only be taught by specialists, they either know how to teach themselves or take courses from local junior colleges or correspondence courses.

There is no one proper pedagogy. Teachers use a lot of different methods, as do parents, whether they have an education background, a science background, or are just using well-reviewed curricula.

The ability to give a child a customized, one-on-one education is an advantage over the classroom model. The parents have time because one parent does not work or does not work very much; they are a full-time educator and put in a lot of work to be good at it.

Regarding your earlier remark about abuse: abuse does not really happen. The safest place for a child is in a home with intact parents, and most homeschooling families are intact.

I mean this kindly when I say you are completely ignorant of what homeschooling is like. I encourage you to acquaint yourself with actual homeschoolers. There are probably several communities in your area and you would be invited to observe some of the co-operative activities and talk to the parents.

No comment on Monsanto in particular, but it's frequently, but not exclusively, lobbying and regulatory capture that libertarians dislike about large corporations. This tends to especially be true when about a company that sells something that affects basic life (eating.)

The Napoleon of Notting Hill is a story about this.

This is a good idea. I would just like to be able to ask questions without using the camera, and to have a favorites list that would make it easier to email or text the URL to the question.

You said that $3,600 was nothing. I explained its relation to $15,000 and $100,000, two numbers you apparently thought were significant, and how an extra $3,600 per year can turn into those numbers.

You also quoted savings amounts in response to someone talking about income, so I explained that poverty is usually measured by income.

I am not saying anything beyond explaining those things to you.

$3,600 is a little less than 25% of $15,000, and it's about 3.5% of $100,000.

If a person spent as much as they earned in a year and had no savings, $3,600 a year would accumulate $15,000 in savings after five years. A couple, spending as much as they earned, who wanted to save $100,000 before starting a family, each receiving $3,600 and investing it moderately, would save $100,000 after 10-12 years.

However, poverty is usually defined as an income level and not a level of savings.

He quoted part of your post directly and responded to it. It was this part: "Talking of bankruptcy in that context is a nonsense introduced by politicians intent on doing away with it for ideological reasons."

I'm just explaining to you that he quoted you since you were unsure.