Because someone who might invest some money, maybe wouldn't invest that money if they didn't get the preferred class protections?
This is similar to how different credit risks get assigned different interest rates.
Companies failing (or close enough to failing that they restructure and wipe out common) is not uncommon in start-ups. If you want a more or less sure thing, you'll have to work at a more or less sure employer, and the risk/reward will be different.
Now, whether those who exercised their Philz options and paid for the shares, were really aware in what they were doing -- I don't know! But there doesn't seem to be anything explicitly sinister about the way this was set up, or went down -- simply, the business didn't do well enough. Which is too bad, because I think their coffee is actually good.
If you raise money, sometimes you just want the money. Other times, you are happy to cede some ownership and/or control. If things go pear shaped, investors want some protection. If things go really well, sometimes they band together and kick you out of your own company. At some point rules have to be codified: the systems for doing this are share classes, voting rights, information rights, articles of association, board resolutions, etc. While you can start a totally new system and run your company using a magical talking stick and rubber duckies on the blockchain, the reality is that just makes it unfamiliar and hard for conventional institutional capital to invest in, it also makes it hard for slow-moving conventional institutions such as banks and lenders to grok your operational process and internal structure, which in both cases generally limits your upside.
Yes. Preferred shares give investors their investment back first if things go wrong.
If an investor gives you a million dollars for a piece of your company, and you turn around and sell the company for a million dollars, then the investor gets their million dollars back and you get nothing. Obviously. Any other outcome would be shenanigans.
Under standard deal terms investors get 1x, i.e. their money back. That's all.
I mean, look at Meta. The stock you can actually buy through your broker is not actually a stock that can control the company, so in a very real sense it's not a "share" in Meta. Zuck controls nearly all the "preferred" shares that have supervoting privileges, so he can operate it as though it's essentially a private firm. The board, which in a conventional public company could exercise control over the CEO, has no ability to remove him.
I would say type signatures that don't really describe the state of the program. Especially when someone has objects with a bunch of optional fields that either shouldn't be optional or should be represented in a different way, like as a discriminant union.
Does it though? It seems like the Principal Agent problem arises when they're theoretically supposed to act on behalf of each other, but in reality they have their own incentives that undermine that effort. With legislation, the two parties are inherently in opposition, almost by design.
so… it is typical. Find me an article on lesswrong that says climate change should be taken as seriously as AI, it might exist (probably with trigger warnings all over it) but let’s see what the comments are like.
Someone arguing on the forums that EA cares too much about climate change supports your point, and someone arguing on the forums that EA doesn't care enough about climate change also supports your point? What exactly would they have to say to damage your point?
Someone in the movement said "maybe we're NOT all gonna die in the next 1° C increase in average temp" = Everyone in the movement are climate change deniers
The thing I’m confused about from the article is that, if I read it correctly, the temple was found a few miles from the coast. Did the Nike delta use to extend that far? Or what? That seems to be pretty far.
The entire sentence says, "The former city, now underwater and about 4.3 miles (7 kilometers) from Egypt's modern-day coast, was destroyed when a major earthquake and tidal waves caused the land to liquefy and sink into the Nile delta."
That seems pretty clear. The land sank below sea level during the earthquake.
Per the legend, atlantis was a chain of islands connecting Europe and America; when the last one of those sunk, Sahara had risen, turned into a desert, and the tidal waves washed away Egypt.
Per legend, it’s past the Mediterranean, past the pillars of Hercules and towards the apples of Hesperides.
Well, Plato clearly thought it was in the Atlantic Ocean, but the legend came via Solon from an Egyptian priest. The whole point of the story was that Athenians didn’t know their own history— as they fought off the Atlantians.
There are a few reasons to believe that it refers to the pillars of Hercules in the Black Sea— and the apples of Hesperides are in the East (first stars seen at night) by the mountains where Atlas held the earth (Caucasus mountains).
Just saying, underwater archaeology in the Black Sea is going to be very, very exciting.
Reading the Plato on it, vaguely sounds like someone describing continental drift, but in a way that would be easier for people of the time to understand.
I'm just imagining this im sure, they couldn't have known about it.
There's islands out there (canaries, azores). My guess is a big tsunami event happened, washed out some town, survivors show up in ports around the med saying the place has sunk because that's a pretty good descriptor of a tsunami for ancient people, and the legend goes from there.
The melting of the icecap raised the oceans worldwide by 400 feet. Sometimes very quickly (as meltwater lakes broke through barriers). (OTOH, tsunamis go away.)
