The reality of an easily verifiable situation is independent of your understanding or agreement with it. I'm unconcerned about convincing you because I've determined you're here in an anonymous capacity to defend no-competes.

I can't really figure out why you would. They only benefit very large organizations attempting to stifle competition and drive down skilled worker wages. Smaller companies can't really afford to consistently enforce them and lots of smaller companies use open moonlighting agreements and a lack of no-compete as a selling point.

But I also don't care. I am not obligated to convince you. Nor am I obligated to pay your little shufflepuck game that ultimately ends up with research behind a paywall you will refuse to follow.

This story: your tactic. It's not new. It's old. I've seen it done before, I've seen it executed better as well. There is nothing more telling than looking at an obvious example of abuse sourced off a reputable news site and saying, "But this is an anecdote and I wanted data."

I am sure you will post protestations about how unfair this is. And it is, somewhat. You bear the burden put upon all anonymous accounts before you. But to be honest, given your complete refusal to even google something and count the results makes me think you're actively defending this practice as opposed to genuinely curious.