muerdeme

The benefit of S-corps is to pass through taxation to the owner's personal tax return in order to avoid double taxation. There is no added benefit with lower corporate taxes because they are effectively 0% at the corporate level.

Thanks for the pointer. Are you referring to Sections II C&D? Tables 4A and 4B seem like they would have the same categorization issue I described above. As I read it, the "Never drugs" column refers to a given offender never having a drug offense as the most serious offense for a conviction. This doesn't mean that the offender was never charged with a drug offense.

If a violent offender that was also charged with a drug offense is classified in the "Violent" category, how can you draw any conclusions about how likely they are to have ever been charged with a drug offense? The data seem to only show that you are unlikely to end up in prison with a drug offense as your most serious crime.

This jives with David Simon's description of the prevailing attitude of enforcement in The Corner. The justice system is too overwhelmed to press charges for mere drug offenses, so you are less likely to end up with a conviction without a more serious crime attached.

I'm a huge fan of spaced repetition and a regular Anki user. I think the value proposition is a little too vague here. It seems like your target market is people that don't already know about or use spaced repetition. In order to win them over, I think you need a more specific reason to use the product.

I saw another YC company recently that is using spaced repetition as a means for corporate training. I'm not saying it's the best or correct market, but that strategy seems plausible to me.

Good luck!

Footnote 9 seems like a glaring issue with this analysis:

9 Technically speaking, the claim that “a large majority of those admitted to prison never serve time for a drug charge” means that for that majority of inmates the most serious charge was never a drug charge. Many inmates are convicted of multiple charges, and someone convicted of a violent or property offense along with a drug charge will be classified as a “violent” or “property” offender, not a “drug” offender.

Opponents of the War on Drugs believe that a significant portion of violent and property crimes are causally linked to strict enforcement of prohibition. Prohibition gives an implicit monopoly to criminal organizations, which causes violent crimes in the form of territorial disputes. This monopoly also increases the price of drugs for addicted users, which drives property crime, e.g. stripping copper to sell for scrap. An analysis that categorizes a heroin dealer that shoots a victim as a "Violent" offender but not a "Drug" offender seems flawed.