> You can even sign away constitutionally protected rights, like free speech.

The text of the first amendment only asserts that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech", so signing away your ability to speak isn't in conflict with the Constitution.

Unfortunately I have worked with smart, nice people who would take this contract literally, are overly invested in their jobs and would be likely to take me out - even preemptive to any order from the company - if I violated my "contract".

I dont understand why you have all these requirements. A suicide pledge in a contract is unenforceable (both socially and legally), so signing it or not doesn't really matter.

The one group of people that you should take literally in contracts are the Ethereum / smart contract folks. Code is law is the founding principle of Etherium!

> Also, regardless of whether I would sign, I think it's in pretty poor taste and a bright amber flag (but not quite a red flag) if an employer thinks this is a funny or acceptable thing to put into a contract.

How is this in any way NOT a red flag? In what universe is this a neutral signal about the health of an organization that manages a significant amount of capital?

> It's also in very poor taste and reeks of coercion to send out a manifesto or mandate like this on a Friday and expect people to sign or agree by Monday or lose their jobs. They likely wouldn't be able to have it reviewed by a lawyer over the weekend if they chose to do so.

In sum total, "this sounds very very bad but not necessarily a red flag". Absurd.

I don't understand the concept of "a meme on page 11 of [a contract]". If it's in a contract, it's part of the contract. Decorations or jokes in a legal document are... Not a thing. Or at least must not be a thing.

> The final published version presented the suicide pledge in an illustration instead of including it in the main body of the mandate, as it had been in the draft version.

The image is in a binding contract. Why would I not take it seriously? Do I think they mean it? No. Would I sign it? No.

This is like the typical nonsense when you're negotiating with a company where their actual practice has diverged from their standard contracts. You point something out, and the response comes back "that's just boilerplate, we don't enforce that." OK, that's cool. If you don't enforce it then you can take it out of the contract. At no point is my response ever to say "OK, I trust you, I'll sign as-is." Even if I do trust them.

>Nearly 80 of the foundation’s 250 or so employees voted to nix the suicide pledge after the draft was released, according to the lawsuit, but leadership at the Ethereum Foundation ignored their objections and included the pledge word-for-word in the final version of the mandate.

Contacts are still contracts even if you put pictures in it. You definitely don't understand how the world works if you don't get that.

Read it again. It was in the contract. What skepticism do you have? What aren't you getting?

ok, so I'm really curious what you think people are suppose to do in the world of "skepticism".

I mean, you've no doubt spent the last 10 years hearing about 4chan and donald trumps connection.

Just because something _could_ be considered some kind of satire, assuming we should all default to that interpretation basically dissolved the social system everywhere.

"its just a joke bro" is not a useful critical thinking skill.