Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement • Hacker News Board

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#101

Post by firesteelrain » Sun, Aug 11, 2024, 11:46 AM UTC

trickstra wrote: post #100

firesteelrain wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that’s entirely unnecessary and unrealistic. This happens nearly every day between a Buyer and Seller. Entropic was basically on a Time and Materials (T&M) contract. Buyer (DEFCON) had every right to terminate when it looked like costs were starting to soar. Entropic appears to pulling at some emotional response with their initial introduction in regards to LBGTQ, etc. That’s irrelevant information.

> when it looked like costs were starting to soar. But it appears they waited until the end.

This is unfortunate however it is common. DEFCON still had the right to terminate and try to salvage what they did by sending their own team. EE got in over their head.

Contractual terms and timeline should have been better. Starting this in January was probably too late. Badge issues have been common in past years.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#102

Post by trickstra » Sun, Aug 11, 2024, 11:47 AM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #48

rcxdude wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking it may have been something like that. But it's still shitty to a) wait until the project is complete to tell them they're not getting paid, and b) erase credit (I don't see any good justification for this. It's literally the reason they were getting a discount in the first place, and they went to quite some effort to do it)

They didn’t wait until the project was complete. They issued a stop work order due to being over budget and also some “bad faith” charges they noticed. DEFCON then sent their own team to handle the production run. Credit was not erased from the PCB nor the software, which were the parts Entropic was contracted to do. They declined to include entropic on the plastics, which is understandable given that Entropic didn’t…

> They didn’t wait until the project was complete

These two statements cannot be both true at the same time 🠉 🠋

> Once a month, we billed for our work and submitted an updated estimated per badge final cost - committing as costs built to discount our work as necessary in order to hit DEFCON’s per unit cost targets.

https://www.entropicengineering.com/defcon-32-statement

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#103

Post by t0mas88 » Sun, Aug 11, 2024, 11:51 AM UTC

commercialnix wrote: post #25

[flagged]

On one side I understand why a minority owned/driven company would use that positioning as a marketing advantage, and they have every right to do so. But on the other hand I think doing company positioning around gender, race etc is a bad idea. Those factors should be ignored in selecting vendors in either direction.

If you want to encourage equality, demand that every vendor has a policy on it and takes steps to avoid discrimination. If many companies do that it will spread quickly.

Doing "positive discrimination" is not making things better in the long-term. It emphasises differences that should not be a factor and causes more polarisation instead of less.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#104

Post by trickstra » Sun, Aug 11, 2024, 11:52 AM UTC

firesteelrain wrote: post #101

trickstra wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when it looked like costs were starting to soar. But it appears they waited until the end.

This is unfortunate however it is common. DEFCON still had the right to terminate and try to salvage what they did by sending their own team. EE got in over their head. Contractual terms and timeline should have been better. Starting this in January was probably too late. Badge issues have been common in past years.

> This is unfortunate however it is common.

It is quite common for a big entity to act shitty towards smaller makers. So *if* this is the case, DEFCON are the bad guys, no matter how common it is.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#105

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 11, 2024, 11:53 AM UTC

krisoft wrote: post #97

firesteelrain wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that’s entirely unnecessary and unrealistic. This happens nearly every day between a Buyer and Seller. Entropic was basically on a Time and Materials (T&M) contract. Buyer (DEFCON) had every right to terminate when it looked like costs were starting to soar. Entropic appears to pulling at some emotional response with their initial introduction in regards to LBGTQ, etc. That’s irrelevant information.

> Entropic was basically on a Time and Materials (T&M) contract. What is your source for this?

[deleted]

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#106

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 11, 2024, 11:53 AM UTC

kalleboo wrote: post #74

firesteelrain wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that’s entirely unnecessary and unrealistic. This happens nearly every day between a Buyer and Seller. Entropic was basically on a Time and Materials (T&M) contract. Buyer (DEFCON) had every right to terminate when it looked like costs were starting to soar. Entropic appears to pulling at some emotional response with their initial introduction in regards to LBGTQ, etc. That’s irrelevant information.

You've seen the contract?

[deleted]

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#107

Post by olalonde » Sun, Aug 11, 2024, 11:59 AM UTC

> They expressed that they specifically wanted to work with us as a woman-owned, queer- and POC-driven engineering firm

Why would someone's gender, sexual orientation or skin color be relevant to developing a badge? This is so weird.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#108

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 11, 2024, 12:08 PM UTC

trickstra wrote: post #104

firesteelrain wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is unfortunate however it is common. DEFCON still had the right to terminate and try to salvage what they did by sending their own team. EE got in over their head. Contractual terms and timeline should have been better. Starting this in January was probably too late. Badge issues have been common in past years.

> This is unfortunate however it is common. It is quite common for a big entity to act shitty towards smaller makers. So *if* this is the case, DEFCON are the bad guys, no matter how common it is.

[deleted]

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#109

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 11, 2024, 12:25 PM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #71

firesteelrain wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a time and materials contract. DEFCON has the right to cancel at any time for any reason.

No one posted any contract (that I’ve seen). And even if true, there’s still nothing amicable about it. Btw you may have been commenting too much on something that’s “none of our business” according to you.

[deleted]

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#110

Post by maxlin » Sun, Aug 11, 2024, 12:31 PM UTC

Who starts an article, especially one questioning responsibility with the lines in the sort of "woman-owned, queer- and POC-driven ... " ??

It's impossible to try to remove the sense of entitlement one gets from this company after that, given the rest of the situation seems to weight in to that way especially given I've heard of procurement of these badges having no such problems before.

EDIT: That said, Defcon doesn't end up looking too good either after this. Nothing good can come of this given things like this are usually probably done in quite good faith.