this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
287 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37740 readers
709 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

My personal thoughts

At first it came off a bit whiney, but I watched the entire thing and I'm glad I did. It shows a pattern of carelessness and in some cases complete douchebaggery of LMG.

What they did to Billet Labs is absolutely un-fucking excusable. LMG and Linus, in particular, needs to be mercilessly shamed for that until Billet Labs gets a clear and unequivocal apology and paid restitution for damages. Fucking shameful. What a bunch of pricks.

Video Description

This video is not monetized. This video covers our serious concerns regarding the data accuracy of Linus Media Group, including Linus Tech Tips, ShortCircuit, and TechQuickie, particularly as it relates to rushing content out the door to favor -- by staff's own admission -- quantity over quality. As the company continues to expand into its LTT Labs direction, the importance of accurate data increases; however, even as 'only' entertainment, there are still certain responsibilities to the consumer and the manufacturers to report fairly (and to have defined corrections processes in place). We tried to approach this as objectively as possible and hope that viewers are able to listen to the evidence we present, particularly as it relates to significant and frequent data errors that now present in nearly every technical review video.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 46 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Is it real that Linus publicly said that they can't justify putting in another half day to ensure the data is correct before publishing it? Why would anyone watch their low quality content which they admit to be worthless?

[–] JCPhoenix@beehaw.org 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The weird part of that is the the amounts he's saying it would cost/time to re-run the test -- $100-500 (probably like that pay for a employee's day) -- are nothing in the context of a company. Especially one that was sold or offered $100million. My company run on like a $3million budget. A few hundred dollars is nothing to us. That's a staff lunch or our bar tab sometimes. If the retesting costs like $5000....OK, that's certainly something to pause and think about. But a few hundred? A day or half a day for an employee to re-do the test? That's too much?

Maybe to the average person, the average viewer, that sounds like a lot of money. But not to a business. Certainly not one as large as LMG.

[–] SpathiFwiffo@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

Even more ridiculous when LMG could monetize that 500$ of time spent into another video and make the money back.

[–] QHC@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

The video from GN had footage from WAN show where he said that, so yes. I have not personally looked up the context, but it also sounds very much in character for how Linus thinks these days, so I am not at all surprised.

I also think it's an excuse to cover up the real problem: complete disorganization and the extreme pace of production. In the video itself, Linus seems legitimately upset with his employee that didn't even realize they had the wrong GPU. He did not seem surprised, however, which is very telling.

[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

IIRC, his justification was something to the effect of, even if the data presented is incorrect the conclusions were reached with the right data, so the conclusion wouldn't change.

But how do we know for sure they used the right data for their conclusion? If they can't take the time to fix issues during the edit, how do we know that the entire process isn't flawed?

He thinks hes got it figured out because he knows something we don't know, but if we are to trust him, WE NEED TO KNOW.