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

171–180 of 187 posts

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#171

Post by krisoft »

ranger_danger wrote: post #163
krisoft wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m aware of that claim. I can’t verify it of course. But even if I take it as true, doesn’t mean that DEFCON couldn’t have believed he was subcontracting for EE. Similarly if it was DEFCON who introduced the firmware author to EE, EE might believe the firmware author is with DEFCON. Obviously the contracts should be crystal clear about who is with who, and who is responsible for what. We hear that the fimware develo…

> We hear that the fimware developer had no contract with anyone. I see this occasionally with small companies, usually it's more of a personal request from one of the employees to provide some code on a volunteer basis, perhaps solely because they are passionate about that sort of thing and someone knew that about them. In the end, if the favor is upheld and they provide the code/binary/whatever to the company (who…

> I see for this is legal liability for the company if they end up unable to provide for their customer,

That is not the only legal liability. If EE has a contract with DEFCON saying that they will give DEFCON the firmware and the rights to distribute it. But EE does not have those rights (because they haven't signed a thing with the developer) that can go very wrong for EE.

Basically the developer can sue DEFCON, since they are distributing his code. DEFCON believes they have the rights to do so, because of their contract with EE, but basically EE is giving away something they don't have. That can be a lot worse than just failing to deliver the contracted firmware. In my opinion.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#172

Post by krisoft »

firesteelrain wrote: post #64
krisoft wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does not appear to be the case? If not for him we would not know that there is a dispute between EE and DEFCON. DEFCON would be still pissed with EE that they went overbudget, and EE would be pissed that they were not paid what they think are owed. EE would also be pissed that their logo was removed from the case which (rightly or wrongly) they thought was part of their compensation. Without his actions we would be n…

It’s none of our business. He is some sort of poorman’s vigilante and even embedding an unauthorized Easter egg with a BTC address.

> It’s none of our business.

Thank you for your opinion. I will decide what is my business and what is not.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#173

Post by ranger_danger »

krisoft wrote: post #171
ranger_danger wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We hear that the fimware developer had no contract with anyone. I see this occasionally with small companies, usually it's more of a personal request from one of the employees to provide some code on a volunteer basis, perhaps solely because they are passionate about that sort of thing and someone knew that about them. In the end, if the favor is upheld and they provide the code/binary/whatever to the company (who…

> I see for this is legal liability for the company if they end up unable to provide for their customer, That is not the only legal liability. If EE has a contract with DEFCON saying that they will give DEFCON the firmware and the rights to distribute it. But EE does not have those rights (because they haven't signed a thing with the developer) that can go very wrong for EE. Basically the developer can sue DEFCON, si…

To me that sounds the same as "unable to provide for their customer".

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#174

Post by DandyDev »

koonsolo wrote: post #168
DandyDev wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No worries! 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 giv…

What I meant with capitalism is that the company that hires the more competent female candidates will have an advantage over the one who refuses.

I’m not 100% convinced of that. I think many companies will be successful despite not hiring the best people. In fact, for big corporates this is the norm.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#175

Post by dmitrygr »

echoangle wrote: post #137
red_trumpet wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The firmware author themselves write[1]: > I was not anybody’s contractor or subcontractor. I’m not employed by entropic nor by you [DEFCON]. I did this in my free time so attendees could have a fun badge. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Defcon/comments/1ep00ln/def_cons_re...

This statement seems to be intentionally inaccurate to me. He’s not someone’s contractor, subcontractor or employee, but he still has to have someone he’s communicating with about the project, either at EE, DC or both. Why not state what the situation was? Was he working with EEs team, DC directly or did he switch at some point?

Everyone talked to me and i reported to nobody. DC made only two requests total (color of frame around screen, auto-boot to game instead of menu). EE made no requests but gave me info on hardware as i needed it to write the SW.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#176

Post by dmitrygr »

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…

> As far as I can tell, the firmware was produced as part of the agreement between DEFCON and Entropic

Nope, DC knew that i was writing firmware and i am not a part of entropic, nor report to them. From the very start of this project they knew this. The first email at the start of the project stated this.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#177

Post by dmitrygr »

firesteelrain wrote: post #59
kalleboo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's complicated and the information is all over the place hidden in reddit comments, the whole thing is a mess

The firmware developer is really the one causing most of the problems. If not for him, this would have handled amicably between EE and DEFCON.

  >The firmware developer is really the one causing most of the problems. If not for him, this would have handled amicably between EE and DEFCON.
Defcon stopped paying and talking. They would have brushed this all under a rug

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#178

Post by dmitrygr »

djfergus wrote: post #57

How does one reconcile the statement below with DEFCON’s claim that they were 60% over budget? > 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.

defcon folks rarely looked at those status emails, and more than once ADMITTED having not looked!

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#179

Post by dmitrygr »

threatofrain wrote: post #6
tptacek wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who, Dmitry? Dmitry had no arrangement with DEF CON. Entropic? I've been (I think!) where Entropic has been many times , and you've never read about any of them because, like most professionals, I didn't make a huge stink about it.

If Dmitry had no arrangement with defcon, why was he invited (looks like consideration), and why did he do work after the request to stop work? Dmitry maintains that he was not doing contractual work for Entropic. Was anything ever written down on paper with regards to Dmitry's relationship to anything?

Nothing was ever on paper between me and anyone.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#180

Post by echoangle »

dmitrygr wrote: post #175
echoangle wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement seems to be intentionally inaccurate to me. He’s not someone’s contractor, subcontractor or employee, but he still has to have someone he’s communicating with about the project, either at EE, DC or both. Why not state what the situation was? Was he working with EEs team, DC directly or did he switch at some point?

Everyone talked to me and i reported to nobody. DC made only two requests total (color of frame around screen, auto-boot to game instead of menu). EE made no requests but gave me info on hardware as i needed it to write the SW.

How did you get into the project? I’m assuming DEFCON contracted EE and you were contacted by someone later to write the firmware? Was that EE or DEFCON? And to whom did you deliver your firmware code/binaries during development? Did you deliver to EE while they were still contracted by DEFCON and to DEFCON directly after the stop work order?

Sorry for the many questions but you’re the only real source to get more info on this situation here.

Post reply on HN