Are people seriously believing the Ethereum Foundation is looking for its members to commit suicide in case they don't publish full source-code? :P Either I'm massively misreading what the outrage is about, or I think this is the point I stop understanding how the world works. Are people taking that image seriously???
I mean, you've no doubt spent the last 10 years hearing about 4chan and donald trumps connection.
Just because something _could_ be considered some kind of satire, assuming we should all default to that interpretation basically dissolved the social system everywhere.
"its just a joke bro" is not a useful critical thinking skill.
No, what is the connection?
This is like the typical nonsense when you're negotiating with a company where their actual practice has diverged from their standard contracts. You point something out, and the response comes back "that's just boilerplate, we don't enforce that." OK, that's cool. If you don't enforce it then you can take it out of the contract. At no point is my response ever to say "OK, I trust you, I'll sign as-is." Even if I do trust them.
Contacts are still contracts even if you put pictures in it. You definitely don't understand how the world works if you don't get that.
- The money is significantly better than my other options
- I believe the company not to be serious about the suicide clause
- I believe the suicide clause to be non-binding in any jurisdiction that applies to myself or the foundation
- I didn't believe the company / foundation would take my refusal to kill myself at a later time as a license to have me killed
The last one is a bit out there, but in the world of crypto, you can never be too sure.
Also, regardless of whether I would sign, I think it's in pretty poor taste and a bright amber flag (but not quite a red flag) if an employer thinks this is a funny or acceptable thing to put into a contract.
It's also in very poor taste and reeks of coercion to send out a manifesto or mandate like this on a Friday and expect people to sign or agree by Monday or lose their jobs. They likely wouldn't be able to have it reviewed by a lawyer over the weekend if they chose to do so.
How is this in any way NOT a red flag? In what universe is this a neutral signal about the health of an organization that manages a significant amount of capital?
> It's also in very poor taste and reeks of coercion to send out a manifesto or mandate like this on a Friday and expect people to sign or agree by Monday or lose their jobs. They likely wouldn't be able to have it reviewed by a lawyer over the weekend if they chose to do so.
In sum total, "this sounds very very bad but not necessarily a red flag". Absurd.
If it doesn't matter, it shouldn't be in the contract. I don't tend to have a lot of drafting power in employment contracts, but pushing back on meaningless contract provisions is a lot easier than pushing back on substantive ones.
It's at least worth getting them on the record, in writing, as 'we absolutely insist on this (bullshit) contract provision being in here, it is required for your continued employment'.
You wouldn’t say “Dogs are mammals. Therefore mammals are not mammals.”
The text of the first amendment only asserts that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech", so signing away your ability to speak isn't in conflict with the Constitution.
you sure as shit can of your own volition and/or with a private company