If that were true then it would be a non-issue. It isn't, however, is it?

You're free to tell our leaders to pound whatever you think is best. Google, on the other hand, sets up our leaders kids in nice, cushy non-profit no-show jobs at $250K/year. Guess how our leaders are going to vote?

It's done. The fix is in and you lost. Accept it. Adapt to it. That's the only rational plan left to you. The rest is some form of self delusion.

I know exactly why they're like this. Knowing that, and even knowing Google contributes the the problem, doesn't solve the problem Google has, however. When they aren't trying to take over HQ they're proudly indulging their bathroom confusion and creating other problems. So obviously Google wants a pipeline of workers from Asia that aren't all fucked up in the head.

Think about this from Google's perspective: when they hire US kids they get a bunch of hijab wearing LARPers that try to take over HQ. When they hire foreign they get compliant workers that show up to work.

What would you do? Honestly?

It's election year. All manner of populist things are suddenly bubbling up. Yesterday it was non-competes. Tomorrow it will be insulin prices or something.

Nothing I've said contradicts that. You are failing to employ sufficient cynicism.

Yes, the new rules will be challenged, and those challenges will take years, and could prevail. Yes, non-compete cases frequently don't make and are generally unwelcome. Yes, that doesn't really matter because the goal is achieved in any case.

If you are aware of any form of legal action less likely to succeed than proving an attorney was insincere, please enlighten me: I have failed to think of any. This is not something anyone worries themselves over.

The degree of cynicism necessary to grasp the actual state of things is rather high, and allows for the reality that practicing attorneys actively dupe their own clients into believing the can successfully pursue such cases: that these nasty scraps of paper have have actual value. Further, how much new money will the political class happily gobble up while the TLA and others "fight" this? You've noticed that this just appeared out of the blue in the midst of an election year, correct?

Now you're getting it.

True. Also, irrelevant. "The process is the punishment." Non-competes provide the standing an employer needs to bury a former employee in costs. Costs that are incurred, whether the employers case falls flat on its face or not. And not just legal bills.

IANAL. However, I suspect that conflating right-to-work and non-compete is naïve. Union law is from an entirely different legal foundation, and even age, than IP based non-compete contracts. A trivial attempt to find legal views on this corroborates my suspicion:

Non-Competes: Myths, Misconceptions & Lies

So, unless you are a lawyer, take a breath and accept that perhaps you aren't qualified for this guesswork.

See California, largest state in the union, setting the precedent. Colorado followed. Blue states.

And again, these were legislative acts.

Absolutely not. Every single employer I've had anything to do with since the early 2000's has required some kind of non-compete, including very small shops. I suspect it's the same for every "knowledge" worker.

I predict this will die a violent death in US courts. Every AG in every red state will be in one or more big zoom meetings by the end of the week preparing to kill this with fire. Don't expect this to be real for years, if ever. They're lining up the judges and injunctions right now. This is fucking with signed contracts and that isn't something that happens in the US without a public law voted on by a legislature, war powers or similar caliber maneuver.

Many of the great names in computing, both hardware and software, were started by motivated refugees from larger outfits, striking out on their own to pursue some market their employer failed to see. If there is an underestimate in any of this it's the positive impact it would have on opportunities for individuals. Just don't bank on it happening: if you make any actual decisions that put you at odds with some document you signed, understand that 10 years from now some corporate lawyer won't hesitate to wreck your world if this is all just an election year legal fiction.

Yes, no hate on Gnome. It's not my cup of tea, but I'm happy if others prefer it. The thing that inspires me, however, is how KDE has prospered, despite huge problems in its past. QT licensing issues back in the day are part of the reason Gnome exists. There was the 4.x debacle. Also, the dominant Linux distros "standardized" on Gnome, or Gnome derivatives.

By all rights KDE should have died long ago. All those issues have since been solved and KDE loyalists have hung in there for years. Now KDE is thriving, the major distros are all supporting it. It's a pretty cool story.

Didn't want that company anyways.

KDE has to be a thing for Fedora because there are a lot of KDE loyalists and distros really can't just forgo supporting them. KDE really is very good and its followers aren't going to tolerate Gnome. Canonical tried to kill Kubuntu in 2012, pulling funding and official support. Kubuntu not only survived it's thriving and is the best choice for Ubuntu based desktops today. Then there is SUSE, which has been tier 1 KDE since forever.

Sure.

It's all good though. Animators in the West are, doubtless, fully on-board with kumbaya one world goodness, so they have what their virtue insisted upon. Enjoy your subsistence level income.

Should simplify the next layoff roster.