GN spends the first segment of their GN News to responding to Linus's comments, and reveals that Linus mislead people on the Billet compensation.
GN spends the first segment of their GN News to responding to Linus's comments, and reveals that Linus mislead people on the Billet compensation.
According to Billet themselves, they heard nothing about compensation or payback until about 3 hours after the original GN video went live.. Which Billet hadnt even replied to before Linus made his post saying they've already made the deal on compensation.
You're viewing a single thread.
I am glad I cherrypick carefully what to watch off of LMG's channels. Usually it is just the 5 minute weekly news bits. I never trusted their channel for authentic information. GamersNexus, Hardware Unboxed, Phoronix, AnandTech and other dedicated testers are goats.
With the DeArrow browser plugin it's possible to identify the 1 in 12 videos that's not shitty clickbait and worth checking out.
Last one I watched was something about plugging as many USB devices in as possible. That was fun. Most of the rest sucks these days.
I liked that one video on Cuba and piracy. But there is not much substance in all the content they make.
Ah I haven't watched that one, will give it a try. Thanks!
I generally take everything tech related with a healthy dose of skepticism. Even if the information is accurate, I want to do my own checking before I start using or endorsing a product. I work in tech, and generally I find myself often in a position where I'm suggesting or recommending hardware and/or software.
I'm definitely not going to take some half baked reporting from any one source and immediately start pushing it onto the people who depend on me to make well informed decisions. As is my job.
I watch LTT for entertainment, and at most discovery of new software and hardware.
Even what's happening right now, it's all very entertaining to me. What sucks is that I'm certain many people rely on LTT as a reliable source of information, the same way that the people I know rely on me for the same, and that's a bit frightening, since the people who listen to the advice, and act without doing any other verification or investigation are potentially going to end up in situations where they're calling someone like me to fix the problems... I don't want to take those calls.
I make privacy guides that thousands of people use, and long writeups I write, and it refined me so much in articulating and conveying facts to people besides having the journalistic integrity that nobody really has these days. There have been people who have used libel and slander too, giving me a complete insight into what it means to do a journalist's work over the course of years.
Mainstream sources, not just LTT, need double or triple checks before I can even think of testing something out, and then recommend to people. Same goes for whatever a bunch of basement "experts" claim, and I only trust when I can see the transparency and integrity with not a speck of dust on the expert's testing methodologies, plus a solid record, plus a detachment from geopolitical nonsense. (The moment I see an expert whining about China or Russia, they drop lower than LTT for me.)
I understand. I have been tasked, at times, with writing fairly simple documents to guide co-workers to complete a task; bearing in mind that my coworkers, for all intents and purposes, are very smart, experienced, and otherwise knowledgeable people doing the same job I am (more or less). Most technical jobs essentially require, as an unwritten rule, a certain level on improvisation, and the ability to extrapolate information from an incomplete dataset.
However, I generally need to run through the process 2 or 3 times before I can complete the task of writing the docs for it, the first time, I go through and mostly figure it out, make some general notes on what I'm doing, so I can repeat the process myself.... The second time, I'm generally collecting screen shots, and filling in any blanks in the process I may have glossed over in my notes from the first pass, then before I'm "ready to go to print" I'm re-reviewing the entirety of my new document in an editing mindset, rephrasing and clarifying things as best as I can; then I'll usually follow my own document to make sure that if I only do the steps listed, the process will complete successfully.
At which point, I have a draft.
I then, usually, ask my least skilled coworker to give it a once over to see if it makes sense to them, and offer any constructive criticism that they may have, with a second (revised) draft going to another low-skill coworker for final "review".
That's 2-3 people examining the material before it ships, and I've personally gone over it two or three times to check spelling, grammar, accuracy, etc.
And that's for an internal document about a process that 90% of my team can probably half-guess their way through, even if they've never touched the related thing before. It's a certain level of consistency and accuracy and I won't accept any less from myself. I want to ensure that if my document is given to a client, or Joe worker, they can complete it without issue down the line.
This is the level of integrity that I expect, both from myself and from any organization that I would trust to provide reliable information. The blunt fact is that LTT doesn't seem to be even double checking their work at all, meanwhile I'm putting myself to the standard of double checking, and ensuring my information gets peer reviewed before going to "print" (so to speak).
Granted, most of the stuff I do is generally less complex, usually guides and instructions on fairly mediocre technical topics, not full reviews of embargoed devices using pre-release firmware and drivers, but still, the methodology for the consistency of the information should be there. As GN had clearly demonstrated, it is not. And that's just regarding their technical inaccuracies. I'm not going to touch the issues surrounding transparency and decisions made at the highest levels, like the recently developed issue stemming from this regarding the handling of the prototype waterblock. For me, the most recent developments there are simply deeply disappointing, and demonstrative of the fact that they're willing to state things as fact before things become fact.
I usually just watch them when I'm baked, it's a great show for stoner's who want to watch people dick around with technology and get nothing out of it.
I've never used them as a legit review channel, just dumb entertainment, like the real housewives show.