I started following this same system, and after realizing how much sense it made, and how similar this system is to typical digital data storage system design, I concluded I should always design physical storage systems using the same mindset as data storage.
The VS Code developers observed that things can pretty tangled with open-ended plugins and HTML rendering, so they cordon off plugins to separate processes, and only offer limited UI control to plugins. This helps keep things stable and fast, but I think the ability to have plugins easily create new UI in an open-ended way is the coolest feature that Electron enables in an editor.
Atom offers a lot more UI control to plugins, and in my experience, is still acceptably fast and stable.
As others have said, it’s a question of what you want to get from learning.
Haskell primarily tries to answer the question, “What are static type systems capable of, and what new relationships can we achieve between code representation and code execution?”
Clojure primarily tries to answer the question, “How can we write programs more efficiently in the (relatively) short term?”
del.icio.us/popular used to be very similar to Hacker News as a source of fresh web-scene-relevant article flow.
Between /popular, and per-tag RSS feeds, in some ways del.icio.us used to be a better Reddit than current Reddit. Tags and tag feeds were a very flexible way to monitor interest topics. What is now a network of reposts between subreddits, used to just be the addition of tags.
Saving a bookmark to your own set of bookmarks also served as an "upvote". This created a nice incentive alignment; if something was interesting, you would want to keep track of it, and add it to your collection, with the tags relevant to you!
Because del.icio.us was not explicitly designed as a "hype machine" like reddit, it turned over a lot of really original content that would have been hard to discover otherwise. It helped that the peak of del.icio.us was during the rise of blogs and self-published websites.
I went through a similar process recently, and ended up getting the Spindle: https://spindlemattress.com/. It's also an "assembly your own" latex setup, although instead of shopping for layers individually, they sell 3-layer sets. I'm pretty happy with it.
I liked that the layers stay separate - you can break the mattress down to make moving easier, and you can replace layers individually, if you ever feel the need (with a 30% discount if you buy from Spindle again inside 25 years).
Microsoft (operating system, SQL database, programming languages / environments) and Oracle (databases, partial credit for programming language (Java)) could be considered hard-tech software companies with outcomes (so far) that are many multiples of those you mentioned.
Those ones (along with Google and Microsoft that are arguable hard tech) were founded prior to web 2.0. Since about 2002 no hard tech software startups achieved any scale- they are sort of all "moving up the stack". When they emerged (Android Inc) they are promptly swallowed. In the mid-2000s there were Yelp (from the software perspective, a simple website with Lucene backend and Youtube - a simple website with Flash player and ffmpeg transcoding command). It's probably a sign of consolidation of the industry.
How would you say Noms compares to Datomic[1]? Both projects are working on the same idea of representing a database as tree of commits over time.
From my quick inspection, it looks like Noms shows some focus towards working in multiple branches, whereas Datomic, at least in its marketing materials, just talks about preserving a single timeline.
As maxerickson said, this possibility should be covered in the shareholder agreement. For that reason, any shareholder is already responsible for factoring in the risk of a buyout-by-vote when they buy shares. They were already responsible for making their own decisions as to "fairness" of that agreement. No information was hidden before the buyout, according to the article, so no "evening out" should be necessary, as far as I can tell.
> this possibility should be covered in the shareholder agreement.
1. It's a statutory right, so it doesn't need to be and generally isn't covered in shareholder agreements: By law in Delaware (where Dell was incorporated) and probably most other U.S. jurisdictions, minority shareholders who don't vote for a buy-out, and don't otherwise consent to it, can't stop the buy-out from going through, but they have the right to demand a judicial appraisal of the "true" value of their shares. [0] [1]
2. Also, public companies normally don't even have shareholder agreements among all shareholders. The articles of incorporation and the bylaws are probably the closest approximation. In many jurisdictions, the board of directors can unilaterally change the bylaws without shareholder approval. (Shareholder approval is often required for changes to the articles of incorporation, though.)
And the buyer should have priced in (and probably did price in) the risk that this sort of thing can happen. I mean, this is not the first time this is happening. It's not like anyone hid the fact that minority shareholders who objected to the sale and met certain conditions could receive more money after going to court.
