151–160 of 187 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling something that’s trying to fool people into tipping into a crypto wallet controlled by the person who inserted it an Easter-egg is really stretching it. It’s obviously trying to insert the potential for financial fai into the software which falls well within the definition of malware. Just because the author calls it a joke doesn’t mean it’s suddenly not a serious breach of the confidence placed on them.
How is it trying to fool people? Unless the address on the screen doesn’t belong to EE, it’s not dishonest in any way right? It says the badge was designed by EE and has a donation address, how would that fool anyone? Isn’t it correct?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, there is a lot of unconscious bias where race and gender are taken into account already, in a way that reduces hiring changes for people who are not white cis hetero males. At least that has been the case in the past sadly. So companies are now sometimes over-correcting by applying positive bias towards minorities
So you want to make the problem worse by actually giving everyone a reason to believe the white cis hetero males are more competent. Nice one. Edit: Also, do you ask candidates their sexual preference and if their current gender was the gender they were born with? WTF???
2. I’m not suggesting anything to make any problem worse. I was just observing why companies are over compensating. I’m not voicing any opinion on that. But if you want my opinion: we should remove bias from the hiring process as much as we can, either way, so that all candidates have equal opportunities
3. “WTF???” comes across as overly emotional and does not serve any purpose in a leveled discussion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> undisclosed malware in the FW Lol, its literally just an easter-egg screen. If you see something that benign as malware, you may actually have some in your brain.
At DEFCON of all places. I mean, they steal your password and post it on a board as a joke. Didn't someone set up fake charging devices a few years ago to hack people's phone and gave a talk about it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you want to make the problem worse by actually giving everyone a reason to believe the white cis hetero males are more competent. Nice one. Edit: Also, do you ask candidates their sexual preference and if their current gender was the gender they were born with? WTF???
1. I explicitly didn’t mention sexual preference. The negative bias toward minorities that has historically been part of the hiring process has been based mostly on immediately visible properties of the candidates, like race and gender 2. I’m not suggesting anything to make any problem worse. I was just observing why companies are over compensating. I’m not voicing any opinion on that. But if you want my opinion: we…
I based it on your statement of "white cis hetero males". That's also why I did the WTF. I agree with you it doesn't serve the discussion much :).
> we should remove bias from the hiring process
I agree with you on that one. In the end, capitalism will favor hiring for competence and not the other attributes discussed here, either avoiding certain groups or favoring them.
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.
Citation needed. I have never heard this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it trying to fool people? Unless the address on the screen doesn’t belong to EE, it’s not dishonest in any way right? It says the badge was designed by EE and has a donation address, how would that fool anyone? Isn’t it correct?
I might be misunderstanding what was embeeded, but since the author stating that they put the is in “as a joke” in the same context they were explaining that they basically were not working on behalf of entropic and “just doing it cause I wanted people to have badges” I was under the assumption that the crypto wallet was controlled by the author. In any case, putting a tip screen in software you’re creating for other…
I don’t know if the wallet belongs to Entropic or Dmitry and he intended to forward the money to them.
As per usual nobody comes out of these things looking good. To really understand who is right and who is wrong here we would need to read the letter of the agreements between these entities, and cross reference them with facts. Of course neither the contracts, nor the facts are available to us. As is, the best I can do here is to put all participants on my personal “do not work with” list. Who needs the drama. In par…
Exactly. Let's see the formal contract. The deliverables, the payment schedule, and any emails indicating DC agreement to subsequent requests for changes of terms. The way EE phrases it, they were paid much less than they were owed, but owed according to what? Their internal accounting, or what they'd mutually agreed on with DC? Only the latter matters. Emails saying "it's going to cost $X more", if any of EE's email…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. I explicitly didn’t mention sexual preference. The negative bias toward minorities that has historically been part of the hiring process has been based mostly on immediately visible properties of the candidates, like race and gender 2. I’m not suggesting anything to make any problem worse. I was just observing why companies are over compensating. I’m not voicing any opinion on that. But if you want my opinion: we…
> I explicitly didn’t mention sexual preference. I based it on your statement of "white cis hetero males". That's also why I did the WTF. I agree with you it doesn't serve the discussion much :). > we should remove bias from the hiring process I agree with you on that one. In the end, capitalism will favor hiring for competence and not the other attributes discussed here, either avoiding certain groups or favoring th…
Regarding capitalism favoring hiring for competence, I’m afraid history has not shown this. I’ve seen in my own environment that male candidates were hired where more competent female candidates were available. And this has been consistently shown throughout history. Minorities really did have less chances in the past, despite capitalism.
So I think the question is how we can hire for competency while giving everyone equal opportunities.