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.