Are you sure? Because it often seems like just voting for "the other one", of two rich old white dudes, is enough to disqualify you from being seen as human by some people, no matter what language you speak.

They won't sell everything right at the opening. They probably want the momentum that comes with a quickly rising stock. When people jump on the bandwagon they can sell slightly higher than where it eventually stabilizes.

But don't you have to enter your money into a stake pool or something like that? Then it's not like locking your cash in a chest. Then it's like any other investment I can do. Keeping your ETH in your wallet is the equivalent of locking it in a chest.

The stake pool is like any other investment that takes ETH. In order to invest in the stake pool I need to buy ETH.
Same as if I need to buy Euro in order to invest in a fund that only takes Euros.

How is this different from any other investment?

There is a reason for the saying "It takes money to make money"

There is no gap. Being in a non-compete period is essentially being employed in this case.

In fact being so good that the previous employer is willing to pay to keep you away from the competition is as green as a flag can possibly be.

If someone sees this as a red flag, then I do not want to work there anyway.

But how they are allowed to fire me is an independent problem from how they are allowed to prevent me from working afterwards.

You can view the non-compete period as a "notice-of-termination period", where you don't have to be in the office.

If they pay for it and there are strict limitations for what it applies to, then I think it's fair.

In fact, getting fired and being paid my regular salary to not work for 12 months is kind of a dream scenario to be honest.

I think it's reasonable to use it on senior developers too, under certain conditions.

1: They keep paying 100% salary. Including average bonus and benefits of the last few years.

2: It's not so broad that it prevents *any* work.
E.g. If you are a programmer at Google that works on GMail front end. Then it can only prevent you from working on another email web-client. All other programming jobs are unrestricted.

If they are willing to pay for it, and it is so limited that it can't really be used to punish the employee, then it seems like a legit case of protecting their IP.

Sure, in that environment you can hear it, but that is also where it disturbs others the most. There are others too. There is a long tunnel near where I live, and in there you can REALLY hear the big V-twins coming from behind if they rev it a bit.

But the slogan is "Loud pipes save lives". Which is not what it does to any significant extent in slow moving urban traffic. Had the slogan been "Loud pipes save fender benders" I would agree with it.

My take is that it probably has some effect, but mostly where it is not so important and where it is very disturbing to others.

It really isn't. This has been debunked many times.
https://www.motorbiscuit.com/n...

Most people perpetuating that myth just like the sound.

Obviously it's only a good idea if the AI works reasonably well.

If it happens rarely it's not likely to have any real negative consequences for the debate. What post is so urgent it can not wait an hour?

There should also be a timer before you can send very aggressive messages.
Maybe an hour or so. Enough that you can cool down when you are writing in affect, but short enough that it is part of the discussion when it needs to be said.

After the timer has expired you can go to your quarantined messages, and see if you still want to say the same thing, and then send it.
This might also give a boost to politely written responses, since they will arrive first.

Of course, but their kids wants and needs is a completely separate question that is not related at all to whether they should do the foundation together, or not.

And their kids are (mostly) adults now anyway.

How are those related? The foundation requires that they occasionally work together. Being a couple requires that they are a couple.

One of those is orders of magnitude harder than the other if you don't get along.

Not wanting to sleep in the same bed is quite different from not wanting to have the same employer. Especially when they most likely can do their work separately.

Think of it the other way around. Why throw away their work at the foundation, just because they are not living together anymore?
This is of course assuming they still get along. But there has been no reports that say otherwise.

In fact, you could argue that their legacy in the foundation is so important they might keep it running, even if they didn't get along.

Yeah, why stay together as long as you are happy together, and then separate when you no longer want to be together? That's a real tough question right there...

It almost sounds like you don't think married people can be happy together at all. Why else would you question them staying together for 27 years?