The Theory. Walking through the halls of CCA during class time will be a remarkable experience. In every classroom, teachers present rigorous lessons, and students rise to the challenge. CCA teachers hold students to high academic expectations and are able to focus on effective instruction because consistent classroom-management expectations are enforced by every teacher. Teachers deliver great lessons, students are engaged and on task throughout the entire class period, and there is a “buzz” of learning in class. Classes run fluidly, with clear communication between students and teacher. Teachers proactively plan to avoid misbehavior. Consistency in application of consequences drives student actions away from negative behaviors, while positive incentives encourage students to succeed. Overall, however, academic success and opportunity serve as the greatest motivators. Teachers use school-wide systems, individual techniques, strong student- teacher relationships, and strong teacher-family relations to promote and reinforce behavioral excellence. Students hold each other accountable and support each other in reaching ambitious goals. Our values are internalized, and students make good decisions even when they know no one is watching. Parents feel welcome at the school, and teachers feel that they are well supported by school leaders. The staff, teachers, students, and families of CCA work together to achieve a college-preparatory environment. Students are capable of making choices. Students can choose to follow the rules or to break the rules. At CCA, there are positive motivators for when a student chooses to follow a rule or procedure and negative consequences for when a student chooses to break a rule or procedure. Students quickly learn that when they do good things, good things happen, and when they do bad things, bad things happen; every positive contribution results in a positive motivator, and conversely, every negative infraction results in a negative consequence. This is the basis of our student Code of Conduct. Students who choose not to meet the school community’s clearly defined standards for reasonable and acceptable behavior will not be permitted to disrupt the education of others. Without a firm and consistent discipline policy, none of what we envision for the school can happen. Straightforward rules, coupled with consistently applied consequences, make clear to students what is expected of them and what is unacceptable. No misbehavior goes unchecked a...
The Theory. Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx (1969) provide a theoretical framework for a computer oriented solution of record linkage which is still nowadays considered a milestone. In the following we recall the main aspects of this theory. Let us consider the number of pairs composed by the A and B units: A × B ={(a, b): a ∈A, b ∈B} . Record linkage aims at partitioning the A×B set into the disjunctive subsets M and U, where: M = {(a,b)∈A× B : a = b} U ={(a,b)∈A× B : a ≠ b} The M and U subsets are named matched and unmatched datasets respectively. Each unit in the population is identified by the k variables recorded values. Two distinct record generating processes, one for each of the two population, give rise to one record for each population unit. These records, denoted as α(a) and β(b), contain the k variables values observed on the a and b units respectively. The assignment of a unit pair to the M or U subsets depends on the k variables values observed on the a and b units. A comparison is to be made in order to decide whether or not the compared units represent the same person.
The Theory. You don’t have to have a discount on either, but they are pretty normal. As we discussed, they are very similar to a SAFE. The investor then gets shares in the future when they convert at your series-a. A startup raising $500k from 10 angels ($50k each) has different considerations than raising $2m from a single institutional investor Founders and investors got confused as to which round the pro rata applied. There are only a few things to agree. SAFE doesn’t have this issue as it is built in. The difference being that they have a maturity date (deadline), they are longer, and there is an interest rate (which makes them debt). Convertible notes are less certain as they dilute one another etc as I mentioned before. The reality is more nuanced. Interest accumulation There is no interest accumulation on the SAFE as there is no interest rate. The original safe was intended to be a replacement for convertible notes. No maturity date A Convertible Note has a ‘best before date’ of say a year. I promise you the math to calculate SAFE are not simple. Yes, I know that’s a pain, but if you keep learning you will eventually know a lot. Conversion into the same class of shares as the next financing round Assuming both converts at a ‘normal’ round where preference shares are being issued, then both SAFE and the Convertible Note get preference shares (normally) and the same terms as the investors. This can cause some issues when the maturity date comes a knocking. It’s that simple. Once you reach the date of maturity, you have two choices: Pay back the principal plus interest (if you have enough money to do that), or Convert the debt into equity Paying back your principal is rationally not going to happen if you aren’t doing well (and even if you are doing well!), and investors want their cash back. Because simplicity is one of its primary goals, SAFE offers a straightforward option. It was created by the Silicon Valley accelerator Y-Combinator as a new financial instrument to simplify seed investment in 2013. You’re taking a huge ass risk on setting up a company and you want to save cash on your ownership structure? Why is a convertible note better for founders? Read more here: Convertible note terms that you don’t understand Deferred equity In both cases, the SAFE and note will convert into equity. Both investors don’t know what the exact terms of the shares will be. In the words of Xxxxxxxx Xxxx, the YC partner and former Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx lawyer who created the SAFE “[t...
