3 ms·

While I agree that it's not correct and damaging, this part is foolish to say... > It is so extremist that one must advise not to listen to anything tptacek ha

While I agree that it's not correct and damaging, this part is foolish to say... > It is so extremist that one must advise not to listen to anything tptacek has to say.

droithomme 10y ago
I disagree with you on this. There are some positions that are so extreme that they permanently flip the bozo bit and make clear the person saying them is a deranged crank or troll with nothing valuable to contribute. Among these positions are statements such as asserting that Hitler did nothing wrong and claiming that questioning or refusing a legally binding contract that quite possibly will be problematic to sign is an unprofessional act. Such advice is so far off the mark that one can only regard the suggester as a crank that simply must be disregarded.
- joshmanders 10y ago
  > make clear the person saying them is a deranged crank or troll with nothing valuable to contribute. Clearly you don't know who tptacek is if you think he fits that bill.
- jerf 10y ago
  I see no claim that you should not question a legally binding contract. I do see a claim that you should take it to your lawyer if you have concerns. This does not seem like it can be correctly summarized as "questioning or refusing a legally binding contract that quite possibly will be problematic to sign is an unprofessional act".
- throwanem 10y ago
  You might have a point if the comment to which you so intemperately responded said what you say it does, but it doesn't, so you don't. What it actually does say, that it's borderline unprofessional to refuse every NDA on principle, strikes me as reasonable enough - one might liken it to refusing on principle to accept any role that requires working with nonfree software (in the GNU sense) at any level of the application stack. I'd call that borderline unprofessional, too, for anyone who wants to work anywhere outside FSF itself. It's a little disappointing to see someone, who's participated actively on HN for what appears to be quite a long time, so completely fail to appreciate nuance as you have done here. No doubt you're simply having an off day, but in any case, perhaps it might be worth your while to consider your comments a little more closely before posting them. It might help you avoid further spurious "Hitler did nothing wrong" comparisons and similar such statements of the sort which one tends to find wince-inducing in retrospect.
tptacek 10y ago
I'm not clear on what's "damaging" about the statement we're talking about. I suspect there are a couple misunderstandings underneath this thread: 1. People are confusing the standard advice given to founders about VCs with advice for the consulting world. It's true that NDAs are basically verboten in VC pitches (they shouldn't be: I've personally been a party --- twice --- to large VCs flagrantly abusing data that would have been NDA'd in any other normal business conversation). But that's not a norm in consulting; the consulting norm is precisely the opposite. 2. People are confusing NDAs with noncompetes and IP agreements. Naturally, I don't think it's a good idea to accept a noncompete, or really (at the client prospect stage) any general purpose IP contract. Obviously, I don't think it's the case that refusing to sign any specific contract is unprofessional! Companies put all sorts of janky things in proposed noncompetes. Absolutely, you should get your contracts reviewed. But ultimately, before you do any significant work with any company that is actually likely to pay you when you're finished, you're almost certainly going to sign some kind of NDA. In fact: if you're not asked to sign an NDA (really, if you're not asked to sign a standard consulting agreement that includes far more intrusive terms than an NDA), my advice is run don't walk from that client. They're not going to pay you for your work.

While I agree that it's not correct and damaging, this part is foolish to say... > It is so extremist that one must advise not to listen to anything tptacek has to say.

droithomme 10y ago

I disagree with you on this. There are some positions that are so extreme that they permanently flip the bozo bit and make clear the person saying them is a deranged crank or troll with nothing valuable to contribute. Among these positions are statements such as asserting that Hitler did nothing wrong and claiming that questioning or refusing a legally binding contract that quite possibly will be problematic to sign is an unprofessional act. Such advice is so far off the mark that one can only regard the suggester as a crank that simply must be disregarded.

joshmanders 10y ago
> make clear the person saying them is a deranged crank or troll with nothing valuable to contribute. Clearly you don't know who tptacek is if you think he fits that bill.
jerf 10y ago
I see no claim that you should not question a legally binding contract. I do see a claim that you should take it to your lawyer if you have concerns. This does not seem like it can be correctly summarized as "questioning or refusing a legally binding contract that quite possibly will be problematic to sign is an unprofessional act".
throwanem 10y ago
You might have a point if the comment to which you so intemperately responded said what you say it does, but it doesn't, so you don't. What it actually does say, that it's borderline unprofessional to refuse every NDA on principle, strikes me as reasonable enough - one might liken it to refusing on principle to accept any role that requires working with nonfree software (in the GNU sense) at any level of the application stack. I'd call that borderline unprofessional, too, for anyone who wants to work anywhere outside FSF itself. It's a little disappointing to see someone, who's participated actively on HN for what appears to be quite a long time, so completely fail to appreciate nuance as you have done here. No doubt you're simply having an off day, but in any case, perhaps it might be worth your while to consider your comments a little more closely before posting them. It might help you avoid further spurious "Hitler did nothing wrong" comparisons and similar such statements of the sort which one tends to find wince-inducing in retrospect.

tptacek 10y ago

I'm not clear on what's "damaging" about the statement we're talking about. I suspect there are a couple misunderstandings underneath this thread: 1. People are confusing the standard advice given to founders about VCs with advice for the consulting world. It's true that NDAs are basically verboten in VC pitches (they shouldn't be: I've personally been a party --- twice --- to large VCs flagrantly abusing data that would have been NDA'd in any other normal business conversation). But that's not a norm in consulting; the consulting norm is precisely the opposite. 2. People are confusing NDAs with noncompetes and IP agreements. Naturally, I don't think it's a good idea to accept a noncompete, or really (at the client prospect stage) any general purpose IP contract. Obviously, I don't think it's the case that refusing to sign any specific contract is unprofessional! Companies put all sorts of janky things in proposed noncompetes. Absolutely, you should get your contracts reviewed. But ultimately, before you do any significant work with any company that is actually likely to pay you when you're finished, you're almost certainly going to sign some kind of NDA. In fact: if you're not asked to sign an NDA (really, if you're not asked to sign a standard consulting agreement that includes far more intrusive terms than an NDA), my advice is run don't walk from that client. They're not going to pay you for your work.