3 ms·

Could we please keep the argument impersonal? Saying something like "you should acquaint yourself with the idea" forces me to either respond "I was in fact alr

Could we please keep the argument impersonal? Saying something like "you should acquaint yourself with the idea" forces me to either respond "I was in fact already familiar with the idea" or keep silent and let you make presuppositions about what I don't know. The former makes for boring reading; the latter is unfair. And to the other commenter who has accused me of lacking perspective and being disrespectful: it must be nice having enough money where you're not forced to choose between accepting a contract that strips you of your right to work on what you want in your own free time, or letting your cat die from cancer you can't pay to treat. If that's not some form of slavery, then apparently I do lack perspective. (If there's some confusion as to how this relates to the original topic, it's because the exact same form of law is being applied in both cases: it's considered normal and fair for companies to offer contracts that default to stripping programmers of their right to work on what they want in their free time, and it's up to programmers to be extremely careful not to accidentally sign something that does so. Apparently even Carmack isn't free from this, and that's what prompted my original comment.) As for the argument, I should choose to bow out rather than write a lengthy expansion of my thoughts, as this is the wrong subthread for it. Maybe I'll post a toplevel comment later if there's sufficient interest, but there are probably more important topics to discuss.

anigbrowl 13y ago
I can only go by what arguments you choose to present. I'm not a big supporter of 'freedom of contract' (as a strategic response to regulation), but it's such an obvious objection to your slavery argument that I was surprised you didn't address it. As for the more general, companies have interests, just like individuals, and seek to maximize them. Numerous people have pointed out that they are able to negotiate exceptions or get such clauses removed from their employment contracts. I'm sorry about your sick cat, but I also think that economic/contractual negotiations are a fact of life that it's better to prepare for than expect protection from.
eropple 13y ago
I'm sorry about your cat, but taking a job--of your own free will--that results on you not being able to work on your own stuff in exchange for more money than well over ninety percent of humanity makes in a year is so very far from slavery that superlatives fail me. You are equating the life of a pet with the forced bondage of tens of thousands of people today and the historical bondage of millions--and in the process you conflate "it will emotionally hurt me to quit" to "I will be hunted down and forcibly brought back or murdered if I attempt to quit". You do not have perspective--whether it is overstating the impact of your own situation or perhaps not understanding the extremity of fucking slavery, man--and I think saying so is eminently fair.
- sillysaurus3 13y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aslavery https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aslavery a condition compared to that of a slave in respect of exhausting labor or restricted freedom. I've been using this definition the whole time. I really didn't want to have this debate, but you're hunting me through the comments and forcing me to. How is it disrespectful to use a word in the way that it's defined? I'm genuinely curious and looking to learn.
  - rfrey 13y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aslave https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aslave a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. Nothing about a programming job, even with restrictive contract terms, is anywhere close to being considered legal property. It's disrespectful to people affected by real slavery because it draws equivalence between not liking some aspect of a contract freely entered into, with being born into a situation where your children could be taken from you and sold to someone else. You accused another commenter of aristocratic myopia ("It must be nice to have so much money..." etc). I suggest a bit of introspection is in order before leveling that accusation at others.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    With loaded terms, it might be better to define how you're using them up front instead of expecting readers to infer the context. Nobody knew at the outset that you were feeling constrained by medical expenses, for example, and it's not always easy to distinguish between hyperbole and fallacy from short textual comments.
nostrademons 13y ago
To make the "freedom of contract" argument more concrete - I am shortly leaving my job. One major reason - though not the only one - is that I want to be free to work on projects of my choosing and not have them owned by my employer. The reason I can do this is because I have enough money saved up from several years of service with them to live unemployed for a while. I would not have this money had I not agreed to forfeit my right to own my side-projects for the duration of my employment, because the company would not have found it profitable to employ me if I was just going to burn all my mental energy on my own pet projects. So giving up the right to own my own work, temporarily, has given the me the economic freedom to concentrate on my own work in the future. This I think is what the poster meant by "lacking perspective". When you want to change a policy or law, you have to consider all effects of the change, including its effects on other peoples' behavior. And you don't get to reach into somebody else's mind and tell them how they're supposed to act without their consent - that is slavery. So you have to consider the employer's perspective as well, which is that if you're just going to be working on your own thing, why should we pay you? What's the alternative that you propose? Do you want the ability to own the stuff you produce on your free time? You already have that ability - you can work as a contractor and set clear limits on the company's ownership of your work-product. I've heard of contractors even maintaining ownership of any frameworks or reusable libraries they build in the course of the job, they just need to negotiate this into the contract. And in order to do that, you need to provide enough value to your client that they don't mind you keeping that ownership, but that's how things work: you don't get things unless you give them.

anigbrowl 13y ago

I can only go by what arguments you choose to present. I'm not a big supporter of 'freedom of contract' (as a strategic response to regulation), but it's such an obvious objection to your slavery argument that I was surprised you didn't address it. As for the more general, companies have interests, just like individuals, and seek to maximize them. Numerous people have pointed out that they are able to negotiate exceptions or get such clauses removed from their employment contracts. I'm sorry about your sick cat, but I also think that economic/contractual negotiations are a fact of life that it's better to prepare for than expect protection from.

eropple 13y ago

I'm sorry about your cat, but taking a job--of your own free will--that results on you not being able to work on your own stuff in exchange for more money than well over ninety percent of humanity makes in a year is so very far from slavery that superlatives fail me. You are equating the life of a pet with the forced bondage of tens of thousands of people today and the historical bondage of millions--and in the process you conflate "it will emotionally hurt me to quit" to "I will be hunted down and forcibly brought back or murdered if I attempt to quit". You do not have perspective--whether it is overstating the impact of your own situation or perhaps not understanding the extremity of fucking slavery, man--and I think saying so is eminently fair.

sillysaurus3 13y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aslavery https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aslavery a condition compared to that of a slave in respect of exhausting labor or restricted freedom. I've been using this definition the whole time. I really didn't want to have this debate, but you're hunting me through the comments and forcing me to. How is it disrespectful to use a word in the way that it's defined? I'm genuinely curious and looking to learn.
- rfrey 13y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aslave https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aslave a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. Nothing about a programming job, even with restrictive contract terms, is anywhere close to being considered legal property. It's disrespectful to people affected by real slavery because it draws equivalence between not liking some aspect of a contract freely entered into, with being born into a situation where your children could be taken from you and sold to someone else. You accused another commenter of aristocratic myopia ("It must be nice to have so much money..." etc). I suggest a bit of introspection is in order before leveling that accusation at others.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  With loaded terms, it might be better to define how you're using them up front instead of expecting readers to infer the context. Nobody knew at the outset that you were feeling constrained by medical expenses, for example, and it's not always easy to distinguish between hyperbole and fallacy from short textual comments.

nostrademons 13y ago

To make the "freedom of contract" argument more concrete - I am shortly leaving my job. One major reason - though not the only one - is that I want to be free to work on projects of my choosing and not have them owned by my employer. The reason I can do this is because I have enough money saved up from several years of service with them to live unemployed for a while. I would not have this money had I not agreed to forfeit my right to own my side-projects for the duration of my employment, because the company would not have found it profitable to employ me if I was just going to burn all my mental energy on my own pet projects. So giving up the right to own my own work, temporarily, has given the me the economic freedom to concentrate on my own work in the future. This I think is what the poster meant by "lacking perspective". When you want to change a policy or law, you have to consider all effects of the change, including its effects on other peoples' behavior. And you don't get to reach into somebody else's mind and tell them how they're supposed to act without their consent - that is slavery. So you have to consider the employer's perspective as well, which is that if you're just going to be working on your own thing, why should we pay you? What's the alternative that you propose? Do you want the ability to own the stuff you produce on your free time? You already have that ability - you can work as a contractor and set clear limits on the company's ownership of your work-product. I've heard of contractors even maintaining ownership of any frameworks or reusable libraries they build in the course of the job, they just need to negotiate this into the contract. And in order to do that, you need to provide enough value to your client that they don't mind you keeping that ownership, but that's how things work: you don't get things unless you give them.