Based on opencascade wasm.
Features in the docs.
Api coming soon.
No it was not, I started this before I even started using coding agents. It took many iterations and rewrites before settling on the current shape. After building the core features I started using claude to add more features, improve test coverage and generte docs.
Reminds me the days when I created a Windows app for accounting and someone asked did you code it in C++ Builder? As if writing form scaffolding by hand was sign of a skilled developer.
What I am trying to say - who cares? Most software create by one person is vibe coded, just with the AI, you don't have to spend ages typing actual code that you would have eventually typed anyway.
>What about when Zohran Mamdani or AOC or Kamala makes the EXACT SAME MOTION?
If they did, they'd make international news for the same reason.
They did not. A freeze frame of someone waving their hand ain't remotely close to the specific "from my heart to the stars" gesture that Elon Musk did twice in a row.
Which doesn't even matter as much as his long, established history of pushing white-supremacist views, supporting white supremacist movements, and using neo-nazi dog whistles (like posting 14 flag emojis at 14:14PM EST).
>But since when did using a business's product come to require sharing (or not sharing) political views with the business's owner?
Since 18th century at the very least; see: anti-slavery sugar boycott[1].
That's if you absolutely ignore the parent's point that political views are things like specifics of policy, not whether some people should be considered subhuman.
>Seems to me that this is what has changed.
It seems so because you don't know history, and didn't do a one-minute Google search for history of successful boycotts.
The article I'm linking is in the "bite-sized" category.
Different entities having different amounts of leverage in a negotiation is neither unusual nor inherently immoral.
If someone gives you the option to accept $ to sign a contract agreeing not talk about something that is legal but morally bad, and you say yes, then talk about the thing, you will correctly be losing the lawsuit, no matter how bad the thing is.
>Different entities having different amounts of leverage in a negotiation is neither unusual nor inherently immoral.
Having a leverage to force an NDA is not immoral, but breaking the NDA (no matter how unfair the situation that led to it being signed was) is immoral.
This goes to the issue of whether severance is compensation for past work or consideration for future work, which is a legal gray area.
The pro-compensation crowd assumes that because severance is taxed as compensation, that it is payment for past work, and therefore any non-disparagement clauses are illegal.
This is something I have seen just stated as if it was an iron-clad fact, rather than something that the courts don't actually uphold at present.
The pro-consideration crowd says that while severance is considered compensation after it is granted, the procedure of needing to sign a contract saying "you cannot disparage us if you want this payment" together with the fact that severance is optional and not mandated by law, means that it falls into the consideration category, and your end of the bargain is to not disparage the company if you want the severance, otherwise don't sign the contract and you wont get the severance.
That said, what is a more interesting take is whether states should make non-disparagement clauses illegal in the same way that many states have made NDA clauses illegal. That would basically force companies to not demand this in exchange for severance. This has the upside of being legally unambiguous but the downside of needing to actually fight for states to pass these laws, as opposed to just assuming that non-disparagement clauses are illegal under existing laws, which isn't an argument that will find much sympathy in the courts.
>The pro-compensation crowd assumes that because severance is taxed as compensation, that it is payment for past work, and therefore any non-disparagement clauses are illegal.
Here are more considerations:
- No person who did no work for the company gets to sign a "non-disparagement" clause, or get a severance.
- The severance amount is very commonly proportional to the length of service.
Insofar as the words "compensation" and work have meaning, severance is very clearly compensation for past work.
Fulfilling a non-disparagement clause is what no sane person would call work, no matter how many Orwellian mental hoops are jumped through to label it as such.
>This is something I have seen just stated as if it was an iron-clad fact, rather than something that the courts don't actually uphold at present.
Insofar as we're discussing the morality of these clauses, it's iron-clad enough.
>That said, what is a more interesting take is whether states should make non-disparagement clauses illegal in the same way that many states have made NDA clauses illegal.
The "pro-compensation" crowd argues that this indeed should happen, not that the clauses are currently universally recognized as illegal (the article we're discussing very clearly shows that it's not the case).
That's fine, but you understand that severance is completely optional. But paying someone for doing work is not optional, there are minimum wage laws. It may be a corporate policy to offer severance, but those policies are often changed and are not part of the employment contract people sign (or very rarely is this the case).
If severance was part of your compensation, it would be part of the contract you sign. Instead, it's something in addition to your contract.
So it's very hard to argue that severance is compensation for past work when the company can choose not to give any severance, or not give to someone who doesn't sign a contract.
Also, you only get severance after you sign the contract about non-disparagement, not before, so it's very much a consideration situation.
Basically the reality is that business offer severance as a type of bribe for people not to sue them or disparage them.
This is why the courts have rejected your line of reasoning.
>If severance was part of your compensation, it would be part of the contract you sign. Instead, it's something in addition to your contract.
What you are pointing out is a legal loophole.
In the same way I got legal psychedelic mushrooms after making a donation to the institution that distributed them as religious sacraments.
I didn't get a receipt, so it was not a "sale", legally speaking.
In normal human terms, I bought those mushrooms, and I earned my severance pay.
It's can be an unspecified part of the compensation package, but one that is absolutely counted on.
A company known for no severance for high level positions would struggle to hire people unless they offered something to compensate for it.
>So it's very hard to argue that severance is compensation for past work when the company can choose not to give any severance
Same applies to year-end bonuses, so I can't accept this part of the argument.
>Basically the reality is that business offer severance as a type of bribe for people not to sue them or disparage them
We wouldn't have this discussion if it were the case. Bribes aren't enforced in courts.
The legal thing to do is to do the opposite of what you are bribed to do.
The reality is that businesses figured out a way to withold compensation unless the employee agrees to a gag clause, by exploiting a legal loophole.
They'd put it in the employment contract if they could get away with that.
>This is why the courts have rejected your line of reasoning.
Again: we're in agreement regarding the current legal status of non-disparagement clauses.
The issue I have is people considering those as fair, seeing severance as a privilege, and seeing violation of the non-disparagement clauses a moral failure.
In particular, there are multiple comments putting the credibility of Sarah Wynn-Williams in question, as well as seeing the gag order as justified.
If we roll with the bribe analogy: doing the thing that you were bribed not to do is seen as a laudable thing to do.
But here, we see people siding with the entity that pays bribes.
That's before we even get to the discussion of how certain things should not be bought and sold at all, as a matter of principle.
We universally agree that one shouldn't be allowed to buy or sell people (including oneself) into slavery.
Disallowing purchase or sale of sex isn't seen as problematic by many people.
Non-compete clauses are illegal in California, which is equivalent to saying that the freedom of choice who to work for (i.e, the right to accept a job offer when you're unemployed) may not be sold. You can't sign it away in a contract (including a severance contract).
Going back to what you said: bribes are generally illegal, even though the actions that are bought with bribes are.
That's because when it comes to, say, government officials, we decided that their choices and decision-making power are not things that could be, in principle, bought or sold.
The same, I argue, should apply to the right to disparage (colloquially: talk shit about) anyone and anything, including one's former employer.
It shouldn't be a thing one can buy or sell.
Particularly in a country founded on freedom of speech being a moral value.
On that note, when the courts get involved in enforcing those "non-disparagement" clauses in the US, I consider it to be a 1st Amendment violation (the government punishing people for speech). There's no provision in the Amendment that excepts speech which someone was privately paid to not produce.
The laws establishing the legality of non-disparagement clauses quite literally abridge the from of speech.
I fully understand that, somehow, they are, as of today, considered constitutional.
You could say the same thing about the right to abortion access in the US until Roe vs. Wade was overturned (or equivalently, before Roe vs. Wade).
Comparisons to physics are unwarranted.
Laws change, and they are interpreted when applied. Very few things are black-and-white to begin with, and legality of non-disparagement clauses is one of them.
Yes, we agree on how the legal system works. Should existing laws be reinterpreted or new laws passed such that severance is treated as compensation for work already performed, then the arguments you've been making will begin to hold merit.
Until then, statements building from "severance is compensation for past labor" are imagined theories about a hypothetical reality with different laws than the world we live in.
Laws don't describe reality though. Severance is compensation for past labor in the real world, just not from a legal standpoint in the US.
In the same vein, I didn't purchase psychedelic mushrooms; I merely made a donation to the institution that subsequently dispensed them to me as a religious sacrament.
From a legal standpoint, it wasn't a sale.
From any other perspective grounded in reality, it was.
> Laws don't describe reality though. Severance is compensation for past labor in the real world, just not from a legal standpoint in the US.
Ah, the "I'm right, it's the world that's wrong!" argument.
> In the same vein, I didn't purchase psychedelic mushrooms; I merely made a donation to the institution that subsequently dispensed them to me as a religious sacrament. From a legal standpoint, it wasn't a sale.
There's actually some pretty strict laws surrounding donations and gifts to prevent exactly this. You haven't found some legal loophole, you've just reinvented tax evasion and fraud.
You're at least consistent in the amount you know about sales law and severance pay.
>Ah, the "I'm right, it's the world that's wrong!" argument.
Not the world. A particular small component of the US legislation.
It's amusing that you don't understand the difference between the two.
>You haven't found some legal loophole, you've just reinvented tax evasion and fraud.
I didn't invent anything. I'm telling you of a real-world experience I've had in Zide Door Church in Oakland, CA[1], at one of the few places in the US where you can get psychedelic mushrooms legally.
That place is still there, and has been for years; it is operating legally, with a permit.
>You're at least consistent in the amount you know about sales law and severance pay.
How ironic. Both the sale of psychedelic mushrooms (within the legal framework of religious rights) and the "non disparagement" extortion (within the legal framework of contact law) are, very clearly, legal, on the account of both taking place in the open and persisting through legal challenges.
Yet you don't see them the same way, and call the first practice "tax evasion and fraud".
What gives? By your logic, you'd be illiterate to say so, given how it's been established to be legal.
> Making a bonus contingent on engaging in your fetishes is definitely not OK
And yet here you are shaming me for my kink of making compensation contingent on provided service...
Severance is compensation given up front in exchange for the labor/service of signing and following through with the severance agreement.
It is not compensation for work that was performed. It is compensation for work that will be performed.
It is not something you are entitled to by virtue of having worked somewhere. The company is free to fire you with no severance whatsoever if they want (in the US).
>And yet here you are shaming me for my kink of making compensation contingent on provided service...
The service to get a severance has been provided prior to termination.
You're aware that severance is commonly proportional to length of service, right?
Not length of expected lifetime after being fired.
Keeping one's mouth shut isn't a "service".
Neither is a non-compete clause, for that matter (which is illegal where I am), so better figure out how that is possible given that it perfectly fits your definition of "compensation contingent on provided service".
>Severance is compensation given up front in exchange for the labor/service of signing and following through with the severance agreement.
Calling putting a signature on a piece of paper and staying silent "labor" wins the Orwellian dictionary redefinition of the day for me.
Didn't know I was doing labor by doing nothing at all.
Pray tell, where do I get to perform such hard labor and get paid handsomely for it?
Hope the answer isn't "some of the companies that I performed labor for in the past" (in a normal, human, dictionary sense of the word "labor"), because the payment that you get after performing labor - and only after doing so - is called "compensation".
> The service to get a severance has been provided prior to termination
And here is the root of your misunderstanding.
You seem to be under the impression that because some companies occasionally scale severance based on tenure, it's comp for work already performed. Severance is like tipping in that it's not required at all.
Keeping one's mouth shut is a service. They're paying for it. So would be not competing with the company, if it were legal to enforce. Not sure why you think otherwise, just your personal vibes I guess? Maybe look up what an economic "service" is.
Maybe you're confused because as you say, no one has ever offered you money to keep your mouth shut?
This service only gets paid for when the recipient has credible things to say.
Similarly, some people get paid tons of money to just say their opinion, and here you are doing that labor for free too. The people getting paid have valuable information to offer, which someone else either does or does not want shared.
>Severance is like tipping in that it's not required at all.
Great comparison. Tipping is also a form of compensation for work already performed.
It's not required in the legal sense indeed. It is, effectively, required in every other sense. It's a basic expectation of a reasonable customer.
Positions where tipping is expected (e.g. waiters) typically have lower wages; furthermore, in the US, the minimum wage for waiters is lower because of that.
Tips are compensation, as in: payment for work. It is the part of the compensation that you can refuse to pay and not have the cops called on you.
Severance is like that indeed, except you're asking the server to hereafter refer to you as "daddy".
>So would be not competing with the company, if it were legal to enforce.
See, you understand that some things (like "not competing") aren't considered "services" that you can sign a contract to "perform" in exchange for severance.
"Not disparaging", in my opinion, belongs in the same category for the same reasons.
>Maybe look up what an economic "service" is.
Please provide a definition according to which not disparaging constitutes a service.
I wonder what definition you're using, because it makes blackmail a "service" (you're paying me for not to beat you up, see).
>Maybe you're confused because as you say, no one has ever offered you money to keep your mouth shut?
I've signed NDAs and signed severances with "non-disparagement" clauses in the past, so I understand the concept full well.
But come on. You're conflating legal and moral arguments, as well as legality and reality.
>The people getting paid have valuable information to offer, which someone else either does or does not want shared.
This is not what non-disparagement is. It's not restricting factual statements.
> Please provide a definition according to which not disparaging constitutes a service.
Happy to. A service is any activity that one party performs (or refrains from performing) in exchange for consideration from another. That's basic contract law. Every lawyer learns this in 1L.
> it makes blackmail a "service"
No, because blackmail involves a threat to do something you have no right to do, or a threat to reveal information as leverage. A company offering severance isn't threatening you with anything. They're offering you money you aren't otherwise entitled to. You're free to walk away with nothing and disparage to your heart's content.
> you're conflating legal and moral arguments
I'd say that's been your move this entire thread. You keep asserting that severance is compensation for past work as though it's a legal fact, when legally it isn't. It's a voluntary offer. Then when the legal framework doesn't support you, you pivot to "well it's a basic expectation," which is a moral argument. I'm fine having either conversation, but pick one.
> It's not restricting factual statements
Agreed that overbroad non-disparagement clauses are bad. But "this clause is sometimes too broad" and "this clause is inherently coercive" are very different claims, and you've been arguing the latter.
>Happy to. A service is any activity that one party performs (or refrains from performing) in exchange for consideration from another. That's basic contract law. Every lawyer learns this in 1L.
By that definition, blackmail (or extortion) is a service, performed by the party doing the blackmailing.
It refrains from doing some activity (like beating you up, or reporting you to police) in exchange for consideration from you.
>No, because blackmail involves a threat to do something you have no right to do
I have the right to report you to the police for a crime.
What I don't have is the right to perform the service of "refraining from performing" this act in exchange for consideration from you.
That's extortion, if I offer this "service" to you.
Nor do you have the right to pay me to perform that "service". That's obstruction of justice (or you figure out what crime it is to pay someone to keep their mouth shut after they witness a murder).
The point of this exercise is that saying "it's a service" doesn't establish either morality or legality, as both extortion and bribery fit that definition (extorter is performing the service of not fulfilling the threat, briber is buying a service of adverse actions not taken against them).
That's to say, this definition of "service" is quite contorted.
No sane person sees extortion as a bonafide service perfomed by the extorter. It's a perversion of the English language to consider it as such.
That's in the same vein as when mafia collects a "protection" fee, we understand that it's not the same thing as a business purchasing services of a security company.
Mafia doing the protection racket is not performing a "service" for the business it's racketeering in the human, English language sense of the word "service".
The contact law language defines this word differently for formal convenience, just in the same way that normal, open, closed, and so on mean something very specific in mathematics that has nothing to do with what these words mean out there in the real world.
We are in the real world, talking about the real world, where keeping your mouth shut isn't a service that someone performs, even though it may — under some limited circumstances — be considered one under contract law.
My argument is that the extent of these limits shouldn't include the context of a termination agreement, just like it currently doesn't include the context of reporting a crime.
I hope I've made myself clear enough here for the legally minded.
>You keep asserting that severance is compensation for past work as though it's a legal fact, when legally it isn't.
At no point in this conversation did I assert that it's a legal fact. The article we're discussing establishes the opposite.
My entire point is the mismatch between the legislation and reality.
Severance is compensation for being fired at will after working as an employee for some length of time.
That's all it is.
In France, for example, it's legally mandated for certain types of contracts.
In the US, it isn't.
The laws don't determine the meaning of a concept.
You wouldn't be doing hard drugs if you smoked weed two years ago, even though then it was a Schedule I drug in the US, along with heroin.
That legal clarification was a mismatch between reality and the legal definition of a "hard drug".
Marijuana isn't, and has never been a substance comparable to heroin, yet legally they were in the same class.
Tacking a non-disparagement clause into a termination agreement is not, and has never been comparable to advance payment for future work (or service), yet legally they're in the same class today.
It's particularly Orwellian to insist that the termination agreement marking the END of one's SERVICE to a company, is, in fact, rightfully a contract that enters someone into a service to the same entity, in perpetuity.
War is peace, termination of service is perpetual service. Utterly brilliant.
Please do yourself a favor and read Orwell's essay on the English language[1] to understand what I'm referring to here (even if you already read his other books).
> "this clause is sometimes too broad" and "this clause is inherently coercive" are very different claims, and you've been arguing the latter.
That's correct.
The employee doesn't get to determine any of the terms of the agreement, nor do they get any heads-up (like they would in other countries, where termination requires an advance notice under most circumstances).
A less coercive approach would be a termination agreement that contains no "non-disparagement" clauses, and a separate non-disparagement "contract" that the employee would be able to accept or reject — neither covered by an NDA.
That would separate the non disparagement shenanigans from the concept of severance (we pay you for letting you go and skip the hassle of going to court for that), and would help establish a fair market value for each of these components independently.
> Sorry, what was forced about the NDA?
> Did I miss the part where a gun was held to their head?
She was not forced to sign the NDA. That is correct. Take note, however, that she would still be forcibly silenced by the government if you want this contract upheld. And that will "hold a gun to their head".
> She can just reject the offer. Nothing can compel you to sign a contract you don't want to.
Not an argument. Yes, she can reject the offer. The guy up top is saying that the non-disparagement clause shouldn't be enforced, a claim that you are just dodging.
After all, why should we be okay with government censoring people on behalf of businesses?
Which operations are supported? (Booleans? ...)
Where's the API link?
...finally, was this vibe-coded?
Inquiring minds want to know!
reply