So let me get this straight.
- Linus screwed over a small two-person startup with his own incompetence by using the product in an unintended way and not using the GPU and instructions which were provided for him.
- Stole their prototype which they needed to develop their product further, even going so far as to sell it at auction.
- Goes on record to say “yes, we screwed up but it would cost $100-$500 to fix it so I’m not going to and no, I’m not apologizing for that”. (That amount of money is chump change to him.)
- Lies about offering to recompense the company. They didn’t do that until after getting called out.
- When he gets criticized for screwing over this company for his own mistakes, rather than owning up he tries to gaslight everybody into think he is somehow the victim?? “Today was so hard bros” oh poor wittle multi-millionaire Linus… I’ll be sure to pray for you while I struggle to pay my rent.
What a fucking piece of shit, fuck him. I hate people like this that simply can’t own up to mistakes and have to deflect all criticism.
It’s not just the Billet Labs thing, GN showed a pattern at LMG of rushing out bad test data and therefore wrong conclusions to keep up the frankly ridiculous volume of videos they put out.
I used to like LTT up until their “Linux Challenge” videos which were just a pain to watch. Shit like this coming from the biggest tech channel on youtube just drives me up the wall.
That bit made me cringe. You go to the file, and can download using the Raw button or using wget. It’s not hard, it’s ignorance.
It also has nothing to do with Linux and everything to do with how Github works. I actually give him a pass on nuking X while installing Steam, that shouldn’t happen(although he did get a nice big warning, but that warning was far from user friendly). But some of the other stuff they ran into was “This doesn’t work exactly like windows, therefore is bad.” type stuff.
How would someone who doesn’t use GitHub or linux know how to do that?
Woah woah woah woah!
I dunno how many times this has to be said!
He didn’t SELL it! He AUCTIONED it!
That’s a distinction that needs to be made!
And it was for CHARITY. Surely that obsolves him right?
I herby start the bidding on LMG! Do I hear $500?
While not being directly related it might be worth noting that a former employee of lmg has now come forward on twitter to describe in gory detail the kind of treatment she received while working there. The culture there sounds utterly disgusting and based on their history it is all extremely believable. Link to the post
Really makes me think they need a union. Also makes me wonder what all Linus learned from this guy who “taught me everything about management” if this is his style of management.
Is there an archive of the chain somewhere? I dont have twitter/x, and it won’t let me see anything other than the main tweet
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=X3byz3txpso
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Linus is always dropping shit, and this is no different.
Also, don’t fuck with tech Jesus
I agree with Steve on everything, this was a huge blunder and fail in messaging from Linus. But you are supposed to reach out and ask for comment before running a story. I was a news reporter and have a master’s in public relations.
Edit: Called Linus “Linux”
But you are supposed to reach out and ask for a comment before running a story.
In certain cases yes. This is not one. What comment could Linus have given that would contextualize the story in such a way to excuse factual information?
Steve was absolutely vindicated in refusing to ask for comment due to Linus’s behavior. Had he asked for comment, Linus would have contacted Billet prior to the release. Instead, Linus makes a statement that heavily (if not outright) implies that had Steve asked for comment he would have context to know that an agreement had been made between LMG/Linus and Billet Labs before the video dropped. Because Steve did not reach out for comment we now know that this was a lie or an attempt to obfuscate the truth.
If you are extolling factual information you do not owe the subject a comment. If your work could be damaged (see above) by doing so you do not owe the subject a comment. If a person has already commented publicly you do not owe the subject a comment.
Steve reported objectively factual information that cannot be excused with any context. The story that was written at the time would have been damaged had he asked for comment. Linus has a public presence and has made his feelings known about previous scandals before, and his actual response was entirely telegraphed in tone, if not also content, by long time viewers.
There is not some ethics masterclass that would have come to the conclusion that Steve violated journalistic integrity by running this story without comment from Linus. You may not like it, but you’re also not some ethics in journalism arbiter.
You ask for a comment regarding an accusation, this wasn’t something to get a comment for, it was the details and evidence itself which is not refutable.
If there was a claim against someone of an event that cannot be shown, you would ask them for their version of events, if the news had a clear video of an irrefutable event they would not require comment for what the video itself would clearly demonstrate.
Steve’s video was demonstrable information through explicit evidence, it wasn’t something that a comment would have shed light to as the only appropriate comment that could be made be a public response.
The content of the video could not have been changed and given what was demonstrated, it did not serve the viewerbase to wait for the response of the larger platform with greater reach.
Linus Tech Tips has the reach needed to be seen by at least as many viewers with their response.
Nope. You call them up and go, “This is happening and we’re running a story. Care to comment?” You should even have a list of questions to ask if they agree. They can give you bullshit answers if they want, then you point those out and add that to the story. It doesn’t have to affect the story. Facts are facts, and they can try to explain it away, but can’t. You’re still holding them accountable. You’re just also giving them a chance to apologize or own up to it. And if they dont’ comment, you include that.
Steve and crew are amazing tech journalists. They’re doing great work. But that’s a miss in this whole thing.
