This video is not monetized. This video covers our serious concerns regarding the data accuracy of Linus Media Group, including Linus Tech Tips, ShortCircuit...
They’ve already paid what Billet requested, hopefully they also get some publicity out of this to help with the nonmonetary damages as well.
It’s clear that it wasn’t done maliciously, but there must be something seriously wrong with their processes for this to happen in the first place. The other comments they made were just adding insult to injury.
Edit:
To clarify, they claimed to have accepted a quote that Billet sent them according to Linus on the forums. This ended up being a lie according to Billet.
They haven’t yet tho, they only responded to billet with a blanket statement that they’ll reimburse them for it. After GN called them out on it, and minutes before making a community post in which they said they have already come to a agreement.
Malicious or not isn’t the point! It’s unprofessional as fuck, is what it is. I knew LMG was unprofessional (I mean, look at their infra up to very recently), but not to that extent. That is properly flabbergasting.
The timeline wasn’t known when I made my original comment. His original response implied that they had agreed to the quote long before, though after the second GN video it was made clear that this wasn’t true.
Having worked in jobs where you ship and receive stuff, you do certainly acquire a drawer full of strange stuff that is stuck in ownership limbo of “its not ours but we can’t get it to the proper owner for one reason or another either” (especially when its an item crossing largely unrelated subsidiaries of a company)
I can 100% see a communication breakdown of “oops we need to send this back” then it not getting sent out and remaining in limbo, but the person in charge of the collection of ownership limbo items should be damn well aware that these are items that probably need to go back and should have stopped it from being auctioned off!
There’s “shipping things back” and there is “handling confidential samples”. I can understand if you end up with a few extra versions of a product you made a test run of, and no party actually wants to store it, because it has no marketable value past the demonstration of its existence; but anyone sending a “hand picked golden sample” for review would be expecting it back… There’s no world in which such a sample would acceptably be auctioned off.
What they did to Billet Labs is evil. I hope LTT gets sued for it.
They’ve already paid what Billet requested, hopefully they also get some publicity out of this to help with the nonmonetary damages as well.
It’s clear that it wasn’t done maliciously, but there must be something seriously wrong with their processes for this to happen in the first place. The other comments they made were just adding insult to injury.
Edit: To clarify, they claimed to have accepted a quote that Billet sent them according to Linus on the forums. This ended up being a lie according to Billet.
They haven’t yet tho, they only responded to billet with a blanket statement that they’ll reimburse them for it. After GN called them out on it, and minutes before making a community post in which they said they have already come to a agreement.
I made my comment before the second GN video came out confirming the timeline, it seems pretty scummy.
Linus said on the forum that they had agreed to pay Billet’s quote, after the 2nd GN video it seems like this wasn’t true.
Sounds like GN is interested in reviewing it properly.
Linus decided to not explain at all how this cooler went up for sale instead he doubled down on it as a glitch and no changes will be made to the SOP.
“We’ve investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong” basically
Malicious or not isn’t the point! It’s unprofessional as fuck, is what it is. I knew LMG was unprofessional (I mean, look at their infra up to very recently), but not to that extent. That is properly flabbergasting.
No they haven’t, Linus didn’t even offer compensation until this video came out.
The timeline wasn’t known when I made my original comment. His original response implied that they had agreed to the quote long before, though after the second GN video it was made clear that this wasn’t true.
Having worked in jobs where you ship and receive stuff, you do certainly acquire a drawer full of strange stuff that is stuck in ownership limbo of “its not ours but we can’t get it to the proper owner for one reason or another either” (especially when its an item crossing largely unrelated subsidiaries of a company)
I can 100% see a communication breakdown of “oops we need to send this back” then it not getting sent out and remaining in limbo, but the person in charge of the collection of ownership limbo items should be damn well aware that these are items that probably need to go back and should have stopped it from being auctioned off!
There’s “shipping things back” and there is “handling confidential samples”. I can understand if you end up with a few extra versions of a product you made a test run of, and no party actually wants to store it, because it has no marketable value past the demonstration of its existence; but anyone sending a “hand picked golden sample” for review would be expecting it back… There’s no world in which such a sample would acceptably be auctioned off.
do we know how much was paid to ltt (or charity) for the cooler at auction? I haven’t seen a figure