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

91–100 of 187 posts

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#91

Post by ibejoeb »

commercialnix wrote: post #25

[flagged]

The first paragraph is immaterial to the complaint. I know what they're trying to do, but they don't seem to realize that only a fraction of the population makes evaluations on an identity-first basis. If I were advising this company, I'd point out that this is going to factor into future vetting.

No prospective client wants to invite a public flame war over a contract dispute. Nobody wants to be constantly vigilant pending some publicity stunt. A froggy company that does this kind of stuff is probably going to be too risky for a lot of clients.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#92

Post by red_trumpet »

krisoft wrote: post #72

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…

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...

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#93

Post by krisoft »

flumpcakes wrote: post #83
krisoft wrote: post #72

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…

I think this is a very balanced take and probably one that most people should follow. However, I do slightly favour defcon in this mess - why did Entropic take on a project that was nearly "impossible". Why did the firmware engineer add a crypto beg for a "joke".

> I do slightly favour defcon in this mess

I do favour Entropic slightly. Simply because DEFCON being the larger entity has more power in the situation to dictate terms, and also because the end result favours DEFCON. They have their badges using the work Entropic put into them.

But I recognise that this is entirely feel and vibe based. Which is not the proper basis to decide anything.

> Why did the firmware engineer add a crypto beg for a "joke".

He seen the relationship between EE and DEFCON going bad, and decided that it is not okay and took a stance to protest it. Half of his stance was the screen in the firmware, the other half was him making a scene at the main stage.

If he didn’t do that we wouldn’t know about the issue.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#94

Post by ksplicer »

Fokamul wrote: post #87

[flagged]

"I always avoid working with EU firms, they are way too lazy. You give them a clear deadline and the next thing you know they tell you everyone went on vacation."

I'm sure you've heard that before. It's exactly the same kind of shit "woman-owned, queer- and POC-driven" firms hear. I'm sure they are happy for the occasional person that wants to hire them due to prejudices considering how much more work they are losing for the same reason.

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#95

Post by krisoft »

red_trumpet wrote: post #92
krisoft wrote: post #72

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…

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...

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 developer had no contract with anyone. That is very bad. But whose bad it is?

If there is a contract between EE and DEFCON which states clearly that EE is responsible for the firmware that is very bad for EE then.

If there is no contract between EE and DEFCON, or it is not clear enough who delivers the firmware then that is very bad on DEFCON. (I would be surprised if that is the case, but who knows in this whole mess.)

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#96

Post by [deleted] »

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

#97

Post by krisoft »

firesteelrain wrote: post #58
jmward01 wrote: post #49

It sounds like an independent third party needs to review what happened.

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?

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#98

Post by trickstra »

krisoft wrote: post #72

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…

So how do you deal with the claim that they were sending regular cost updates and estimations throughout the development? (assuming they really did that). Shouldn't DEFCON stop it as soon as they realized some miscommunication about the price?

Re: Entropic Engineering DEFCON 32 Statement

#99

Post by [deleted] »

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

#100

Post by trickstra »

firesteelrain wrote: post #58
jmward01 wrote: post #49

It sounds like an independent third party needs to review what happened.

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.

Post reply on HN