LTT Expose by Gamers Nexus

[buzz88]

Iain Cutress taking both LMG and GN to the cleaners

He took "us"/ the viewers to cleaners as well.

"Some of you are fu*king idiots!"

- Ian at 24:38

Truth is everyone's enjoying the drama and milking views by making their "reaction"/"take" on it.

Most of them are, yes. It's the hot topic of the moment, nothing wrong in it. But I would not put Ian in that category. His attempt to report this seems sincere and serious enough and like he mentions Youtube is not his main thing/ job. He was the editor and CPU reviewer at Anandtech for more than 10 years and is a consultant for tech firms now. He has put himself as the sponsor of this video and his channel's earnings would be in like single digit percentage of his overall income, I wager.

 

[n1r0]

God bless Chrome extensions:

View attachment 176174

Google wants to own the entire internet, making modifying parts of websites like this impossible. They basically want us to be mushroom: feed on shit and stay in the dark

 

[rsaeon]

Iain Cutress taking both LMG and GN to the cleaners

As a preface, I was that kid back in the 90s who spent Rs 60 per hour at an air conditioned internet cafe and spent the rest of my pocket money to print out Anandtech cpu architecture articles to read in between school and exams. I would then gush excessively of what i'd learned to complete strangers seated next to me at weddings. So it's fair to say that Anandtech consumed much of my teenage years.

Ian's criticism lacks an important perspective that he could not have experienced in all his years in both the industry and academia — the relatively young, uninhibited rabid/toxic fanbase of current times. Steve's defensive/accusative choice of words and approach of 'stating the conclusion before/instead presentation of facts' way of speaking is exactly how you speak to the current generation of viewers to get your point across.

Ian's criticism also appears to be somewhat motivated by Steve's dismissal of Gary's background in benchmarking and reviews (Gary left Anandtech in 2013 to join Asus, Ian joined Anandtech a few years before). That appears to have clouded whatever his intentions were with this video. That said, there are worse ways that I've spent 90+ minutes so I don't regret watching the entire thing.

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

As a preface, I was that kid back in the 90s who spent Rs 60 per hour at an air conditioned internet cafe and spent the rest of my pocket money to print out Anandtech cpu architecture articles to read in between school and exams. I would then gush excessively of what i'd learned to complete strangers seated next to me at weddings. So it's fair to say that Anandtech consumed much of my teenage years.

Ian's criticism lacks an important perspective that he could not have experienced in all his years in both the industry and academia — the relatively young, uninhibited rabid/toxic fanbase of current times. Steve's defensive/accusative choice of words and approach of 'stating the conclusion before/instead presentation of facts' way of speaking is exactly how you speak to the current generation of viewers to get your point across.

Ian's criticism also appears to be somewhat motivated by Steve's dismissal of Gary's background in benchmarking and reviews (Gary left Anandtech in 2013 to join Asus, Ian joined Anandtech a few years before). That appears to have clouded whatever his intentions were with this video. That said, there are worse ways that I've spent 90+ minutes so I don't regret watching the entire thing.

Not interested in this LTT etc but I am curious about the bold part, can you elaborate?

 

[buzz88]

As a preface, I was that kid back in the 90s who spent Rs 60 per hour at an air conditioned internet cafe and spent the rest of my pocket money to print out Anandtech cpu architecture articles to read in between school and exams. I would then gush excessively of what i'd learned to complete strangers seated next to me at weddings. So it's fair to say that Anandtech consumed much of my teenage years.

Ian's criticism lacks an important perspective that he could not have experienced in all his years in both the industry and academia — the relatively young, uninhibited rabid/toxic fanbase of current times. Steve's defensive/accusative choice of words and approach of 'stating the conclusion before/instead presentation of facts' way of speaking is exactly how you speak to the current generation of viewers to get your point across.

Ian's criticism also appears to be somewhat motivated by Steve's dismissal of Gary's background in benchmarking and reviews (Gary left Anandtech in 2013 to join Asus, Ian joined Anandtech a few years before). That appears to have clouded whatever his intentions were with this video. That said, there are worse ways that I've spent 90+ minutes so I don't regret watching the entire thing.

He is holding Steve to a higher standard than everyone else because as he said Steve has proclaimed his standards to be so high. Steve can use that emotionally charged language that has become a staple for the YouTube audience. Still, had he covered all his bases, he would still face some criticism but it would feel weightless.

Some of the criticism that he could have avoided :
1. Asking for a official comment from LMG (and not just Linus) before posting the video. IMO, he doesn't have to ask and he justifies it by claiming that Linus' opinions are already public. But he would have lost nothing if he did ask. At worst, Linus would try to cover up something, like settling matters with Billet before the video so that he can claim they already made it right with him. At best, he would have kept doubling down and it would have made Steve's argument stronger.
2. He could have avoided some insinuations where evidence is not present or it is just circumspect. This only makes his argument weaker. When one of his claims can be questioned like how LMG working with industry insiders is not an evidence of malice or corruption on their part, it makes all other claims also weaker in tandem even though the evidence backing those claims was much stronger.

I am more interested in how Steve takes this. I believe he's only going to focus on what he can improve upon.

 

[BullettuPaandi]

1. Asking for a official comment from LMG (and not just Linus) before posting the video. IMO, he doesn't have to ask and he justifies it by claiming that Linus' opinions are already public. But he would have lost nothing if he did ask. At worst, Linus would try to cover up something, like settling matters with Billet before the video so that he can claim they already made it right with him. At best, he would have kept doubling down and it would have made Steve's argument stronger.

I don't understand this criticism. How's trying to avoid such cover ups wrong? We now know Linus basically lied about how the Billet Labs situation was handled only thanks to Steve not reaching out to him prior.
I know Linus expressed it as 'not proper journalistic practice' but it is exactly the opposite.

2. He could have avoided some insinuations where evidence is not present or it is just circumspect. This only makes his argument weaker. When one of his claims can be questioned like how LMG working with industry insiders is not an evidence of malice or corruption on their part, it makes all other claims also weaker in tandem even though the evidence backing those claims was much stronger.

Claims with no evidence sure looked like jsut grabbing the opportunity, but I don't see how it makes others with evidence weak.

 

[buzz88]

I don't understand this criticism. How's trying to avoid such cover ups wrong? We now know Linus basically lied about how the Billet Labs situation was handled only thanks to Steve not reaching out to him prior.
I know Linus expressed it as 'not proper journalistic practice' but it is exactly the opposite.

It's not 'exactly the opposite'. He doesn't have to ask for a comment but he should, that's the gist of it. Steve could have asked both Linus and Billet and confirmed in the story that before he talked to Linus, Billet had confirmed that there was no talk/agreement in work for the compensation for the lost block. Not asking them harmed the story more than anything else.

Claims with no evidence sure looked like jsut grabbing the opportunity, but I don't see how it makes others with evidence weak.

When you put forth an argument in two-three parts and if one point can be refuted or questioned, it puts your competence in presenting it in doubt. If a part of Steve's argument can be explained by something other than the hard truth, like an ulterior motive to bring down a competitor, it makes the audience see the other parts of the argument in a different light. It's better to stick to arguments which are backed by clear and present evidence and not conjecture.

 

[BullettuPaandi]

He doesn't have to ask for a comment but he should

That is what I don't understand. He didn't have to but he should have? - Why? What does that even mean?

Steve could have asked both Linus and Billet

He could have. Considering his video is basically a journal and not a judgement, I think it wasn't necessary.

it makes the audience see the other parts of the argument in a different light

Sure. Sceptics and the cult of an audience would've done it regardless; makes no difference. Still don't think it makes it weak.

It's better to stick to arguments which are backed by clear and present evidence and not conjecture.

Agreed.

 

[buzz88]

That is what I don't understand. He didn't have to but he should have? - Why? What does that even mean?

It means there is no rule or code that requires him to ask for a comment, but it is considered a good practise among investigative journalists. Ian emphasises on this in his video. It would have also strengthened Steve's stand that he wanted to look at it without any bias. He talked to Billet and didn't talk to Linus, that does not make it look like there is no bias.

Personally, I am also on Steve's side in this. But I can see how those who don't want to take a side, like Ian, can find faults in Steve's methodology. And it would have been better if he had made his case as watertight as it could have been.

 

[Mr.J]

1. Asking for a official comment from LMG (and not just Linus) before posting the video. IMO, he doesn't have to ask and he justifies it by claiming that Linus' opinions are already public. But he would have lost nothing if he did ask. At worst, Linus would try to cover up something, like settling matters with Billet before the video so that he can claim they already made it right with him. At best, he would have kept doubling down and it would have made Steve's argument stronger.

LTT:

• Misplaced GPU given with the prototype cooler
• Didn't read provided manual because Linus 'doesn't like reading manuals'
• Used an incompatible GPU model
• Auctioned off the cooler instead of sending it back as asked by manufacturer.

But sure, GN is unprofessional for not asking for LTT's comments before publishing.

 

[BullettuPaandi]

but it is considered a good practise among investigative journalists

Didn't know that. But, not reaching out is what sounds like good practice to me, who's not an investigative journalist

Anyways, the way I see it - He's not playing the Judge here; he's just making the case. It is rather healthy for viewers to assume that he is biased and see what he has to say.

 

[buzz88]

LTT:

• Misplaced GPU given with the prototype cooler
• Didn't read provided manual because Linus 'doesn't like reading manuals'
• Used an incompatible GPU model
• Auctioned off the cooler instead of sending it back as asked by manufacturer.

But sure, GN is unprofessional for not asking for LTT's comments before publishing.

I did not call them 'unprofessional'. And I was not defending LTT either. If you had read my earlier comments, you'd know that I really really like Steve and have always disliked LTT.
LTT did shady stuff and GN did a shoddy job in reporting it (according to the high standards Steve sets for himself.)
Are these two facts mutually exclusive?

Didn't know that. But, not reaching out is what sounds like good practice to me, who's not an investigative journalist

Anyways, the way I see it - He's not playing the Judge here; he's just making the case. It is rather healthy for viewers to assume that he is biased and see what he has to say.

You really should watch the lengthy but informative video by Ian Cutress that is posted above on this thread. He goes into much detail about the point you are making.

 

[rsaeon]

Not interested in this LTT etc but I am curious about the bold part, can you elaborate?

It's been my experience (I supervised junior doctors and medical students over last decade or so) that the current generation of young folk need/want to be told what to think or do. The vast majority of them do not engage in critical or independent thinking, or follow a trail of logic to arrive at a conclusion. Another way of putting it is to say they're results oriented and do not spend time in understanding/exploring the process or procedure.

A very simple example would be for someone to tell them, "Don't sit on a metal bench at mid-day, it's hot and uncomfortable." They'll take this little nugget of knowledge and plan out their lunch break avoiding all metal benches, whether they're in the sun or not, or whether it's sunny or not. They'll take the advice/instruction and start from there, without actually confirming or understanding what is being said. But they'll take what you've told them, and run with it, and depend on it, and build upon it.

That's basically the reddit/youtube hivemind mentality.

It's not just a manner of thinking either, so much of our world is going that way — taking something someone else has said/done as a starting point and incorporating that as the basis of what you're doing instead of learning/understanding. A very good example would be how web/app development is all frameworks and templates and very few people, if any, are actually coding from scratch.

approach of 'stating the conclusion before/instead presentation of facts' way of speaking is exactly how you speak to the current generation of viewers to get your point across

The scary/troubling part of this is that this generation of young people want this. They don't consider it as a handicap or disadvantage.

And it's not new behaviour either, I first witnessed this mentality on reddit around 2015, where a post about a month-long diy remodel of a backyard shed would be downvoted if the person didn't include the finished result as the first photo of the album. The vast majority of people would see that final result, upvote, and scroll to the next post. Never mind that they were browsing a diy community where the whole point of it was to share how something was done.

It feels like we, the slightly older generation, needed to understand things to form a conclusion while the younger people these days are happy to take that conclusion as fact and focus on something else to take them forward in life. At this point I'm rambling here and I'm pretty sure I did a poor job of explaining it.

 

[BullettuPaandi]

You really should watch the lengthy but informative video by Ian Cutress that is posted above on this thread. He goes into much detail about the point you are making.

I have only skimmed through the transcript, so maybe I missed it, but don't think went into any reasoning for why GN should've reached out to LMG. I read he mentioned situations when GN did reach out with other corporations, but there was no reasoning as to why he thinks GN should have in the case of LMG.

Rest of what I read was basically him going through general shortcomings, I'd say. He chalked off much of LMG's shortcomings to conjectured poor scaling of operations & expressed GN is being opinionated & excessively nit-picky and just added more conjecture in few instances like - GN coming off as jealous of LTT having edit feature. Much of what he said, like - his 'analysis of wording and structure', expression of opinion, question of objectivity - can be applied to his very video as well, and any piece of journal/article/video for that matter.

 

[Mr.J]

LTT did shady stuff and GN did a shoddy job in reporting it (according to the high standards Steve sets for himself.)
Are these two facts mutually exclusive?

But from what I've seen, GN didn't do a shoddy job. I also have no problem with 'emotionally charged language'. If I wanted pure facts, I'd just read the numbers.

 

[Black_Hawk]

New video released by LTT:

 

[rsaeon]

Looks like they've listened to nearly every criticism that the last video got. They've addressed everything Steve's mentioned and they've said enough to make Ian's video a nothingburger, haha.

Interestingly, they left just enough room for speculation with the phrases "our turnover may rise" and "we have no plans for layoffs" and "the vast majority of this team is world class."