It seems like BS eh. Other folks I’ve seen are suggesting its just because they want to ditch easy anti-cheat to go with EA anti-cheat which (apparently) is windows only with no plans to develop for linux.

Exactly; the statement will have been reviewed by lawyers who would have suggested rewording it.

I just want to jump in here as the whole thing about the tonnes of factual errors stuff…

A lot of the allegations about the accuracy of their data basically came down to arguments about the validity of statistics garnered from testing methodology; and how Labs guy claimed their methods were super good, vs other content creators claiming their methods were better.

My opinion is that all of these benchmarking content creators who base their content on rigorous “testing” are full of their own hot air.

None of them are doing sampling and testing in volume enough to be able to point to any given number and say that it is the metric for a given model of hardware. So the value reduces to this particular device performed better or worse than these other devices at this point in time doing a comparable test on our specific hardware, with our specific software installation, using the electricity supply we have at the ambient temperatures we tested at.

Its marginally useful for a product buying general comparison - in my opinion to only a limited degree; because they just aren’t testing in enough volume to get past the lottery of tolerances this gear is released under. Anyone claiming that its the performance number to expect is just full of it. Benchmarking presents like it has scientific objectivity but there are way too many variables between any given test run that none of these folks isolate before putting their videos up.

Should LTT have been better at not putting up numbers they could have known were wrong? Sure! Should they have corrected sooner & clearer when they knew they were wrong? Absolutely! Does anybody have a perfect testing methodology that produces reliable metrics - ahhhh, im not so sure. Was it a really bitchy beat up at the time from someone with an axe to grind? In my opinion, hell yes.

You don’t put out a statement saying “This company looked at us & found this:” without running the statement by the company in question first.

Well, you can, but you’ll usually find yourself in hot water if the things you’re claiming the company found run contrary to what they actually found.

This! Would you hire a mechanic who you know does what you say but 1/3 cars they “repair” ends up breaking again 6 months later?

As noted above, I think the statement is that allegations were made and they were not ignored, and/or were addressed.

This is silly.

If it was reported, it was reported. The whole point of Roper Greyell being involved is to identify if there were events that weren’t reported, or were reported and not acted upon.

That’s not the only way to read that at all. Your interpretation is that sexual harrassment was not ignored & was addressed; but the sentence is actually that allegations were not ignored and were addressed.

Nobody trying to make money on YouTube is going to stop click bait; its a necessary evil to get your videos fed by the algorithm. It sucks, but its here to stay until the algorithm starts punishing it.

I think you’re expecting something that is unlikely to happen - there’s a bunch of privacy related issues, employment law restrictions etc that potentially mean they will never comment further on it.

LMG is 200 odd people. You could say Nvidia with >10k employees is colossal perhaps, or you could say Cisco with >80k is. 200 people is barely a medium sized enterprise. Christ, the company I work for is nearer 2k people.

And in any of those cases, the size of the entity doesn’t matter - its a very common journalistic practise to seek comment. I tend to think that because GN chose not to, that it veered away from a purely journalistic exercise because they are essentially a competitor. They still have the right to publish it and make the claims they want but it changes the framing of the video quite a bit for me.

Bear in mind that I think all benchmarking is over hyped in its reliability and importance so pretty much none of that side of things holds any real credibility with me at all - so i’m mostly judging GN based on they way they’ve presented this issue.

Finally, Linus didn’t sell the startup’s prototype, LMG did. And unless you’re ignoring the whole trail of fact on that its pretty clear it was a stupid mistake but also how that came to be isn’t some evil genius plan.

Alternative take - playing up to the YouTube algorithm is what has allowed LMG to expand to the point where it provides jobs for over 100 (is it near 200 now?) people. Those people work hard, yet the majority seem to stay with the company which suggests any alternative employment isn’t attractive enough to motivate them to leave their current work conditions.

And LMG would likely be blasted if it wasn’t Linus presenting it as well. Damned if you do / don’t.

That cuts both ways. eg: GN didn’t have the decency - while claiming to do journalism - to do a standard journalist thing and approach LMG for comment. This is all I need to know about GN.

Right? So the CEO is offsite this week. A week runs Mon-Sun. They shot the video probably on Friday.

I would contend that most of the YouTube tech channels, even the ones with great reputations for quality such as Hardware Unboxed and Gamers Nexus are barely educational as well.

While they can point to fewer mistakes made as a result of their methodologies, I don’t believe there is any real scientific value in the conclusions they reach from testing that is far too limited with far too small a sample size. They can paint broad recommendations - product A should be better than product B because our testing showed 20% better numbers.

But when the metric variances between products are small, none of the testing methodologies can really tell you which of the products will work better in your system. They haven’t tested enough of them, and in enough situations to have a clue. And I think any of them claiming that there is inherent value to their methods are really just defending their product which is the video they’re getting eyeballs in front of so they can make money from advertising.

Toxic behaviour should be called out when it happens. That is the time.

When do you think they made the video if not this week?

Face to face means something completely different in 2023 than it did in 2019.

I guess its not just anonymous surveys though is it, its that, plus a low turnover, plus 1-1 feedback sessions and other things I’m probably forgetting. But don’t overlook the conclusion where if you read between the lines, more personnel changes are likely as a result of this.

I think your last point is highly unlikely, there is too much light on this for the issues alleged by Madison to be true, and for LMG to do nothing. But the tricky thing is that the full truth about Madison’s issues is unlikely to be made public, and equally the full action taken by LMG will not be made public. HR, and employment issues kinda require privacy - this isn’t a government or public department, its a private company with responsibilities to employees past & present mandated by law.