That's not necessarily what this means though. Is it.

I bought a house while on H1B in 2014.

If the climate was like it is now back then, I would have waited for my GC or, for everything to calm down.

But I wouldn't have left...

Edit: BTW it was far far from a low-risk venture in 2014.

Just add a radius.

Same for me. It's always an add-on but same provider and policy.

This has been true with multiple providers on the east and west coast.

Yes, but the point is it is an add-on. Administratively (and in terms of deductible, etc.) it is different from the medical plan.

For many, the reason to pick a console over a PC is as true today as it has always been: UX.

I do wish they'd bring Gran Turismo to PC. If that happens, I think it will signal the end of PlayStation as we know it.

I used one to find the location of rattles in my car.

Still have my W800. It was a marvel at the time, still is really. The only thing that irked me what the proprietary connector - which has perished now.

All true but she still signed the document, and later acted against the agreement with the very same trillion dollar company.

Agreements like that should be considered unenforceable

Then she would get no money either.

I don't think that's true in most situations. I think most companies would still pay a severance out of a general effort to smooth things over, and some sense of social loyalties.

And some aspects of the agreement would be fine. No spilling actual business relevant secrets, nothing that would count as libel or slander, etc.

Nope, they'd have security show you the door and maybe threaten to sue you into the ground if you talk. They choose mkney because money is easier, but if you take this option away, you just get the stick and no carrot.

Part of smoothing things over is implicit of explicit understanding that employee also smooths things over that is shut up after receiving the bribe.

Companies are people, many people have positive feelings towards co-workers and people like them

True but not the ones who will be firing you. At least not in big corp, it would be some HR worker who doesn't know you from Adam and couldn't care less about you.

They always have the manager, and the director and possibly VP will be in the loop and know what going on.

The immediate manager will be informed, but they can do nothing about it or in any way change the process or the result.

But then Facebook would have had no incentive to offer the agreement to her. And she must have been very happy with what she got in the deal, given she gave up the option of talking about all the apparently horrible misdeeds she witnessed while they were still fresh, rather than a decade later.

Plenty of companies have nonenforcable clauses in their contracts. Either by momentum or stupidity. That's despite the inclusion of such conditions can often void a contract in its entirety.

Is there an incentive to have unenforceable clauses? Yes, of course. The same way one might be incentivized to say they will harm you if you do not do what they want even if they have no intention of harming you.

It's called "a bluff". Play some poker, you'll see how effective this strategy really is.

A company can craft whatever document they want. That doesn't make them legal. The laws of the jurisdiction they're in always beat whatever you're signing.

Best example in software are non competes.

A company can make you sign something that doesn't allow you to do any software development when you're a developer. You can sign that today then do the opposite tomorrow because that's just against the law.

See:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/did-califor...

Good for her!

Petulant arguments are why RFK needs to find the cure.

If "touch sensitive" means it's a load cell then that's not so bad, simracing has used load cells for years and they work very well.

Of course it depends on the nature of the business but push that too far and you can lock yourself out of projects that require work to be performed on US soil.

I work for a very small company and we've seen by that stipulation a couple of times on anything _remotely_ close to defense/MIC/security.

And the administration can tighten those screws further if it desires.

(I am the only H1B in the history of the company, now a citizen. It would have been impossible to have taken this path with this alleged financial burden)

It had two disasters?

;-)