Disclaimer: I'm an RStudio employee. But this post is my personal opinion and not representative of that of RStudio.
Separately, I'm also a licensed (non-practicing) attorney; despite that, this isn't legal advice.
Some of the things you've said are correct, but are kind of skipping a few important steps.
Buyout: Any corporate buyout, particularly of a Delaware corporation, opens the board up to scrutiny and requires the consent of the corporate constituency. In JJ's presentation he cited Revlon which is an example of a dispute over a buyout by a major shareholder. So, yes, technically benefit corporations can be bought out, but they must approve of the buyout using the corporate governance rules of a benefit corporation.
Converting to a benefit corporation isn't easy- you pretty much require unanimous shareholder consent and it's fairly close to the amount of consensus you need to convert to a pure nonprofit. Same with converting back to an "any lawful business purpose" corporation. So again, yes it's possible, but it's very unlikely unless something convinces basically everyone with a stake that it's worthwhile.
I'm not sure where you're getting that PBC status is not legally binding- I didn't see anything like that in the Harvard link. Corporate purpose statements have a very real legal effect. Would you mind explaining more about this statement? I want to make sure I'm not mistaken.
Note that the article you cite was written a year before the Delaware Benefit Corporation Law was signed by the governor- so some of the things it says might be a little speculative based on the legal realities at the time.
If you want to learn more in depth, I can recommend "Benefit Corporation Law & Governance" by Frederick Alexander.
Disclaimer: I work for RStudio. I previously worked heavily with SciPy.
The difference kind of goes to the fundamental difference between R and Python. R's nature as a statistical programming language is something you have to install packages in python to achieve: numpy, matplotlib, etc.
What you gain with RStudio are environment inspection tools[1] built for the kind of vectors, data frames, etc. that you'd only get with `numpy` in Python land, and therefore PyCharm and VS don't know about (or would need a plugin to know about). Same goes for the plot viewer and `matplotlib`.
Beyond that, a sizeable portion of RStudio's runtime is written in R itself; you can actually write addins for the IDE using R, as opposed to PyCharm where you'd have to know Java or Kotlin, and I assume VS where you'd be required to use .NET.
It's always going to come down to "what is the best tool _for the job_?" Knowing people who use python for data science, they don't seem to indicate to me that they're particularly fond of PyCharm (which is what I'd use for Python if it's too big a project to effectively grok in VIM). They tend to use Jupyter notebooks (not even iPython!) because more important than static inspection and quality tools (which devs care about) is a richly-featured REPL that saves detailed history forever (which a researcher cares about).
What do you mean by "discrete problems"? By my understanding, weather prediction is basically solving a large system of partial differential equations. Sure the grid methods are a discrete approximation of the true problem, but it is not what I would normally think of as a "discrete problem".
Training a neural network to map "current state of atmosphere" to "state of atmosphere in the future" is definitely possible to do with a neural network, and sounds like a good idea to me.
I actually did put in the work, however, and I agree with parent. You also don't become an authority by pretending you're some mystic wise man without saying anything of substance.
It's unconstitutional for many reasons, one of which is that the executive has no authority to block the entry of legal visa and green card holders without due process.
And yes, it deals a massive blow to the rule of law and faith in the stability of the nation when legal visitors and immigrants are blocked from entry due to an arbitrary dictate from POTUS.
It's a constitutional issue in every sense. The US Congress ALONE has the power to make policy. The POTUS can relax policy enforcement, but cannot enforce policy that was never made. What part of this is hard for you to understand??
Where did you get from? That's 100% wrong. The power to determine who is admissable to the US lies in the hands of the president when it comes to the security of the country.
TBH microservices do a good job of making you much more dependent on your tools, and selecting the wrong tool for the job won't become clear until you've used that tool for years.
As far as this metaphor goes, the data is already corrupting. Climate change needs to be acknowledged, and the President shoving his head up his ass about this issue isn't going to help.
One candidate was telling you that they were going to do nothing, the other was telling you they were going to do something, but planning to do little to nothing.
I guess my point is that if you want significant action on climate change (I do too!), you were always going to have to fight for it with your representatives (R or D) vs the industry donors.
I wasn't surprised when I found out it was a law firm either. I've had the good fortune to work with some of the good ones, but legal marketing in general requires a very sensitive a-hole detector.
Bad clients are bad clients, but speaking from experience, it can be taken to an entirely new level when the bad client in question happens to be a law firm. Some of the less savory high volume practices can be especially bad, and they all go out of their way to project an air of competence and professionalism that disappears pretty damned quickly. Personally, I think part of the problem with those guys is a serious sense of arrogance and entitlement, as if their being a law firm will force you to go away despite not being paid. And if you don't, well, they can always play games to delay and string you along. After all, you're paying for representation directly. They can at least swallow the opportunity cost of dealing with you somewhat easier.
Nowadays, if I'm contacted by a law firm for work, I look into their reputation very carefully. In my experience, corporate law firms--regardless of size--aren't a big deal compared to some of the high volume personal injury/immigration/divorce/etc. firms. And yes, I realize I'm doing a lot of generalizing here.
If it's a law firm, then to me it is surprising that they would actively interfere with this guy's other professional relationships. If this really is as it appears to be, the potential damages both from interference with existing relationships and from defamation surely put this in "worth talking to a lawyer" territory in most places.
In my country, if they'd interfered with existing business relationships causing expected revenues to be lost, they'd made potentially libellous statements that caused a major source of expected future revenues to permanently block access, there was ample written evidence that they did these things deliberately and that actual losses were and would continue to result, and there was ample evidence that the victim had previously been well-regarded and able to command a certain rate for their services, I wouldn't want to be their position, law firm or not. Situations like this are exactly why defamation cases can result in such huge damages being awarded.
Well, maybe I'm just jaded by a recent experience with a former business partner who was an attorney himself. They guy had provably stolen over $100K from the company and our attorney basically charged us $20K to let him go. It was a valuable lesson to me to never go into business with an attorney again.
Not all attorneys are crooks. My daughter is attorney for business (Droit commercial, France) and she is definitely not a crook. In fact they spend a significant amount of work time trying to get the due money from clients. Please don't generalize.
The real problem is that there is no efficient system to weed out the crooks. There are no efficient pressure against them. Psychopats are king.
I know they are not all crooks. The problem is that you assume that somebody is not when you enter a partnership with them. If that partnership has to go to court you are at a significant disadvantage if your partner can represent himself against you, aside from the fact that he probably knows the law better than you do.
While I knew a few who successfully worked full time at large legal firms, I once worked full time for a smaller firm (about 60 staff). Never again. I left after 6 months and vowed to never work for a law firm again. Life is too short and there is plenty of opportunity out there for talented people.
The ironic thing is that my experience was nearly 20 years ago. While so much has changed in the last 20 years (in Internet time, that's like 400 years, and I have more RAM in my phone than the Unix server supporting 40 users on serial terminals), some things haven't, especially where humans and the legal profession are concerned.
I don't intend to paint all attorneys with the same brush--I now have good relationships with several attorneys that I use for businesses; I still would seriously question any job working for a legal firm.
React, Angular 2, Vue 2 and some other SPA frameworks or view systems all support server-side rendering with very little coercion nowadays. That combined with google executing javascript during indexing means that SEO isn't nearly the issue it used to be.
Separately, I'm also a licensed (non-practicing) attorney; despite that, this isn't legal advice.
Some of the things you've said are correct, but are kind of skipping a few important steps.
Buyout: Any corporate buyout, particularly of a Delaware corporation, opens the board up to scrutiny and requires the consent of the corporate constituency. In JJ's presentation he cited Revlon which is an example of a dispute over a buyout by a major shareholder. So, yes, technically benefit corporations can be bought out, but they must approve of the buyout using the corporate governance rules of a benefit corporation.
Converting to a benefit corporation isn't easy- you pretty much require unanimous shareholder consent and it's fairly close to the amount of consensus you need to convert to a pure nonprofit. Same with converting back to an "any lawful business purpose" corporation. So again, yes it's possible, but it's very unlikely unless something convinces basically everyone with a stake that it's worthwhile.
I'm not sure where you're getting that PBC status is not legally binding- I didn't see anything like that in the Harvard link. Corporate purpose statements have a very real legal effect. Would you mind explaining more about this statement? I want to make sure I'm not mistaken.
Note that the article you cite was written a year before the Delaware Benefit Corporation Law was signed by the governor- so some of the things it says might be a little speculative based on the legal realities at the time.
If you want to learn more in depth, I can recommend "Benefit Corporation Law & Governance" by Frederick Alexander.