There's probably some price where it's worth the hassle. I feel like every OSS project starter should have at least a firm notion of where that line is before they publish. On one hand, maybe you'll get it, but mostly it helps clarify what your time is worth so that you don't feel guilty about rejecting requests on your time that don't meet your own standards for value.
As a possibly former employee (who among us can recall every place they've worked in the past?) who may not have looked at any number of prior employment agreements in an awfully long time, and completely apropos of nothing, I just want to note that endemic is such a good and relevant vocabulary word for current events. I mean, there's the global pandemic, and other things people are talking about, all kinds of uses! Very relevant!
I'm roughly the same age, and while I can remember all the brick-and-mortar places I've gone to work, there was a period where I did temp work and I'm sure I couldn't name all the agencies I worked for and certainly not all the clients.
If you're younger and grew up in the gig economy, that might be much more common.
In my 30s here but I think I more or less remember. For a year or so I worked as a temporary admin assistant in a few locations, the details on some of those are getting a little fuzzy these days. But if anything I remember the feeling of working there a lot better than what the workplace looked like.
Nice bait - you pull me out of lurker mode to respond. I remember most jobs I have had that were paid - including that one kelly temp services job I had that I drove 1.5 hours out into the middle of no where to stand on the start of a one way bridge with a stop sign on a pole and wear a hard hat in the hot sun to 'help' direct truck traffic to a quarry. I was only there 4 hours, but still remember why I was so determined to complete an education.
I like this because it's a really off the wall take, but it also feels a little bit like the sort of reasoning that gets you tangled up with a Bernie Madoff type figure.
It's true that unscrupulous people are often very effective. But it's also true that they are unscrupulous. Leaning into lack of scruples probably isn't the most stable of pro business strats, but I imagine it works out sometimes.
I was recently having a conversation where I speculated that with how bad some programmers are at naming things, some code reviews might actually be easier if you ran them through a code obfuscator first, so you can focus on what the code does rather than being tricked into making invalid assumptions by misleading names.
This gives me a great inspiration for a programming puzzle and learning method:
Replace all variable/function names with generics. Your only job is to give names to every variable (trying to figure out what each does). After you're done you can compare to de-obfuscated names to see if they do what you expected (if they're named sensibly).
Would that it were so simple to assess the value and integrity of individual voices vying for attention among the roaring cacophony that is the internet.
I would be very careful about considering any actions that Facebook, in particular, takes to be accidental. From the very beginning, intentional recklessness ("Move fast and break things") has been their credo.
When you're being reckless on purpose, none of the damage you create is accidental.
What's you're point? This is a normative discussion. The presence of NDAs says nothing about what is morally correct. For example, Harvey Weinstein systematically used NDAs to silence his victims and cover up his violent crimes.
