Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

entropicengineering.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 187 posts

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#141

Post by echoangle »

firesteelrain wrote: post #124
fortran77 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cutting edge, avant garde creative companies have for centuries been staffed by non-conforming people. We could give a similar description for the staff of our consulting company. But we don't. We just use our work and our reputation. There's no "historical disadvantage" for a company that supports the hacker community to be full off all sorts of eccentric, non-conforming people.

Especially since this is JLCPCB type work. It should be fairly automated.

I would guess most of the work was the design, not the manufacturing.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#142

Post by echoangle »

atoav wrote: post #66
LMYahooTFY wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what line of work/business can you proceed to incur more expenses without approval from the paying client? This can't really be what they expected.

In any line of work, if you agree about it beforehand? E.g. many craftspeople bull you by the hour and give you a rough estimate how long it could take beforehand. If the thing they are fixing for you has 3 more faults that you didn't mention to you, they will mention to you that it costs more and if they should proceed. That is totally common, but the increased estimate needs to be communicated clearly and get an OK…

> they will mention to you that it costs more and if they should proceed.

Yes, they ask before proceeding. The parent assumed EE proceeded without asking, which is also how I interpret the situation. That’s not the norm, right?

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#143

Post by firesteelrain »

echoangle wrote: post #141
firesteelrain wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially since this is JLCPCB type work. It should be fairly automated.

I would guess most of the work was the design, not the manufacturing.

“ we sourced components, designed all of the hardware, wrote production test software, and organized all circuit board manufacturing, prototype manufacturing, facilitated large volume production manufacturing and logistics, and general project coordination. ”

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#144

Post by echoangle »

firesteelrain wrote: post #143
echoangle wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess most of the work was the design, not the manufacturing.

“ we sourced components, designed all of the hardware, wrote production test software, and organized all circuit board manufacturing, prototype manufacturing, facilitated large volume production manufacturing and logistics, and general project coordination. ”

Is that supposed to contradict my response? Because I see a “designed all of the hardware” in there, that’s what I was talking about.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#145

Post by tzs »

Aurornis wrote: post #42

DEFCON’s response was posted on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Defcon/s/NVw5T4LXQR Unsurprisingly, it contradicts some of the claims Entropic has been making. Entropic admits to having exceeded agreed upon budgets by a significant amount, which DEFCON corroborates. There is some disagreement about what has been paid, though, as DEFCON believes they have paid for the hardware development. Some of the other claims al…

To add some detail to what others have said, to be a work for hire in the US it must either be a work made by one of your employees within the scope of their employment or all three of the following must hold:

1. You specifically ordered or commissioned the work,

2. There is a written contract that states that it is a work for hire, and

3. The work falls into at least one of these 9 categories:

• a contribution to a collective work

• a translation

• a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work

• a supplementary work (e.g., foreword, illustration, editorial notes)

• a compilation

• an instructional text

• a test

• answer material for a test

• an atlas

For a long time contract software usually could not be a work for hire because it usually did not fall into one of those 9 categories. I believe in recent years some courts have decided that contract software usually does fall into one or more of them and so can be a work for hire. I don't know if that view has become widespread or is just confined to some federal court districts.

Practically what this means is that when hiring a contractor you either put in the contract that the contractor will assign the copyright to you or that you will be given a suitable license to use the code that is pretty much equivalent to owning the code (irrevocable, exclusive, allows making and distributing derivative works, you can sublicense to others on any terms you want, etc).

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#146

Post by firesteelrain »

echoangle wrote: post #144
firesteelrain wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ we sourced components, designed all of the hardware, wrote production test software, and organized all circuit board manufacturing, prototype manufacturing, facilitated large volume production manufacturing and logistics, and general project coordination. ”

Is that supposed to contradict my response? Because I see a “designed all of the hardware” in there, that’s what I was talking about.

You said most. It wasn’t most.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#147

Post by neilv »

itsoktocry wrote: post #138
neilv wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, [...] FWIW, I noticed that line as I read it, but it didn't make me prejudge the situation. I mostly noted it as a potential interesting bit of info that might reflect well on DEFCO…

> that they should know that progressive references can both help and hurt them, due to political polarization? Why is it "political polarization"? DC hired an engineering firm based on, at least in part, reasons that have nothing to do with engineering. The project fell apart. Should the procurement process not be questioned, along with selection criteria?

I don't know whether that was part of the selection criteria, and I can't tell from the quote.

The assertion of "they expressed that they specifically wanted to work with us" doesn't assert anything about the selection criteria.

Even if we parsed every word rigorously, and took it as absolute truth, it doesn't necessarily mean anything more than the usual excited to be working with you polite enthusiasm convention that many business people and creatives/talent tell each other at the start of a partnership.

It could also be an overture to establish friendliness, in context, like to delicately convey that they are not one of those people who might seem biased against some groups.

Or it could, as you suggest, be alluding to selection criteria (e.g., we need X, Y, and Z, and bonus points if the partner happens to not look like they usually do, because the org wants to appeal to and benefit from a larger pool of hackers who currently don't feel like this this event is for them).

Or maybe we can't even parse it that carefully. Where did someone say they "wanted to work with [Entropic] as a woman-owned, queer- and POC-driven engineering firm to develop an electronic badge with a gaming element for this year’s conference." What exactly did they say, and in what context.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#148

Post by echoangle »

firesteelrain wrote: post #146
echoangle wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that supposed to contradict my response? Because I see a “designed all of the hardware” in there, that’s what I was talking about.

You said most. It wasn’t most.

How do you know it wasn’t most of the work? Most effort, not most characters in a list of tasks.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#150

Post by firesteelrain »

echoangle wrote: post #148
firesteelrain wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said most. It wasn’t most.

How do you know it wasn’t most of the work? Most effort, not most characters in a list of tasks.

If you have ever done this type of work then you would know it’s not most
Post reply on HN