The issue is that they stole a prototype they were entrusted to care for. Agreed to return it, but then didn’t. Got mad when they were kindly asked to return it. Put it on auction, sold it to someone for charity. Potentially unintentionally facilitating corporate espionage. Then got mad when they were publicly called out.
This is not the first time even. They have lost, misplaced or destroyed other’s properties before.
And now they want to project LMG and their new concept, Lab, as a beacon of consumer protection journalism. They have to make a choice. Either they are an entertainment company, or a serious tech review magazine that tests technology to provide consumers with accurate info to make purchase decisions. They can’t be both, the jank and fooling around of one doesn’t work nicely with the journalistic ethics demanded of the other.
“They” didn’t agree to return it. Someone responding to an email did. Linus himself and the other 100+ employees probably had no idea the thing even existed. It is really on the person who responded to the email and the planners of the auction which is probably 2-3 people at most.
Got mad when they were kindly asked to return it.
Where? That did not happen until after the video was published.
Put it on auction, sold it to someone for charity.
Which was an accident, which is being paid for.
This is not the first time even. They have lost, misplaced or destroyed other’s properties before.
Do you have any examples? And if that is the case maybe Billet Labs should have done more due-diligence before giving them a supposedly very important prototype. Linus is literally known as the guy who drops things.
And now they want to project LMG and their new concept, Lab, as a beacon of consumer protection journalism. They have to make a choice. Either they are an entertainment company, or a serious tech review magazine that tests technology to provide consumers with accurate info to make purchase decisions. They can’t be both, the jank and fooling around of one doesn’t work nicely with the journalistic ethics demanded of the other.
Fair enough but I disagree. I think you can have for-fun videos and serious videos mixed together. However they should definitely be more clearly labeled as such, or maybe even keep them on different channels completely.
“They” didn’t agree to return it. Someone responding to an email did. Linus himself and the other 100+ employees probably had no idea the thing even existed. It is really on the person who responded to the email and the planners of the auction which is probably 2-3 people at most.
Tell me you’ve never had a position of actual authority without telling me you’ve never had a position of actual authority.
No, go away. You obviously have no interest in reasonable conversation. As you are willfully ignoring already mentioned facts and arguments from the video in order to be contrarian and hard headed. I will not indulge you.
LMG is the company that did these things. Billet was under the impression they were talking with a representative of LMG, for which all that they agreed with, was binding. If someone, an individual, failed at their job to fulfill their agreements with Billet, then LMG, the company, failed. If Linus wants to be taken seriously and have LMG considered a big adult company, they better start acting like it. And that starts with taking responsibility and owning up to their mistakes responsibly. Not letting their CVO and owner go on idiot circular incoherent rants.
The issue is that they stole a prototype they were entrusted to care for. Agreed to return it, but then didn’t. Got mad when they were kindly asked to return it. Put it on auction, sold it to someone for charity. Potentially unintentionally facilitating corporate espionage. Then got mad when they were publicly called out.
This is not the first time even. They have lost, misplaced or destroyed other’s properties before.
And now they want to project LMG and their new concept, Lab, as a beacon of consumer protection journalism. They have to make a choice. Either they are an entertainment company, or a serious tech review magazine that tests technology to provide consumers with accurate info to make purchase decisions. They can’t be both, the jank and fooling around of one doesn’t work nicely with the journalistic ethics demanded of the other.
“They” didn’t agree to return it. Someone responding to an email did. Linus himself and the other 100+ employees probably had no idea the thing even existed. It is really on the person who responded to the email and the planners of the auction which is probably 2-3 people at most.
Where? That did not happen until after the video was published.
Which was an accident, which is being paid for.
Do you have any examples? And if that is the case maybe Billet Labs should have done more due-diligence before giving them a supposedly very important prototype. Linus is literally known as the guy who drops things.
Fair enough but I disagree. I think you can have for-fun videos and serious videos mixed together. However they should definitely be more clearly labeled as such, or maybe even keep them on different channels completely.
Tell me you’ve never had a position of actual authority without telling me you’ve never had a position of actual authority.
No, go away. You obviously have no interest in reasonable conversation. As you are willfully ignoring already mentioned facts and arguments from the video in order to be contrarian and hard headed. I will not indulge you.
LMG is the company that did these things. Billet was under the impression they were talking with a representative of LMG, for which all that they agreed with, was binding. If someone, an individual, failed at their job to fulfill their agreements with Billet, then LMG, the company, failed. If Linus wants to be taken seriously and have LMG considered a big adult company, they better start acting like it. And that starts with taking responsibility and owning up to their mistakes responsibly. Not letting their CVO and owner go on idiot circular incoherent rants.