> This is the ultimate humble brag. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But the point still stands: that non-compete is draconian. Whilst I highly doubt Amazon would

> This is the ultimate humble brag. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But the point still stands: that non-compete is draconian. Whilst I highly doubt Amazon would be interested in me, I would not be interested in working for them or any other company that could potentially bar me from making a living for any significant period of time after leaving. At the most basic level I need to pay my mortgage and household bills, I need to buy groceries, I need to fuel and service my car; maybe I've got a family I need to provide for. And what's the point of saving from a great salary if you need to spend 18 months burning through those savings after you leave the job? And in what world are most employers going to be willing to wait 18 months to take you on? Seldom enforced is not the same as never enforced. Humblebrag or not, it sounds like a smart decision to me.