Smeeoh

Then how do you know it’s a problem? You stopped watching…and when you do it’s in the background…

Then how do you know it’s a problem? You stopped watching…and when you do it’s in the background…

Then how do you know it’s a problem? You stopped watching…and when you do it’s in the background…

I know for a fact I've heard Linus say he reads all of the comments, so I'm not sure where they don't read the comments comes from. 

Sounds like a personal personal computer issue

I would think improvement is always better then just... not improving 

Then how do you know it’s a problem? You stopped watching…and when you do it’s in the background…

Then how do you know it’s a problem? You stopped watching…and when you do it’s in the background…

Internally this is a living document, and may change as we move forward, but as part of our push for further transparency, we are publishing it in its current form to help our community better-understand how we classify errors and what action we will be taking to rectify them.
 
Types of errors
Flubs: the host simply misspoke
Incongruencies: information within the video is not in agreement (e.g. host says “$45” while the product page shows “$47”
Bad spec: a table or MOGRT contains incorrect information (e.g. “48MB” instead of “96MB”
Bad data: a graph or visualization contains data (generated by us) that is erroneous, misplaced, or spurious. 
Bad info: a statement or representation in the video that is misleading or factually inaccurate
Types of error correction
Proactive (before the video is posted)
Video pickup: the segment is re-shot with both audio and video
Human audio pickup: new audio is recorded for the segment (visuals have coverage)
AI audio pickup: new voiceover is generated. In the best case this uses a voice model that sounds like the host. However, using a robot voice  can still work.
Text on screen: the editor overlays clarifying or correcting text
This will not be received by viewers who are not (or cannot) watching the screen
Reactive (after the video is posted)
Video Replace: replacing the video with a new version without re-uploading
This relies on YouTube and takes some time. There are fairly strict guidelines around the use of this tool and strong justification must be provided for all changes. This is preferred to a re-upload, but there is likely a soft-limit on how often we can use this resource.
Re-upload the video: Set the original, erroneous video to Private and upload a new version. This will have algorithmic effects, but must be done if replacement is not an option
Pinned comment: add a comment describing the correction. 
This will not be received by viewers who do not check the comments (common, especially for those watching on a Smart TV) and should only be used for low-severity errors.
 
Assessing & Responding to Errors
If any of the following types of errors are discovered prior to filming (e.g. during script review) , fix them before the shoot.
 
1. Very Low Severity
- The statement could possibly be misunderstood, but it’s generally true and most people would be fine with how it’s currently presented.
- eg. The host says, “One of DisplayPort’s main advantages over HDMI is its higher bandwidth,” but this is only true when comparing certain generations of the standards. HDMI 2.1, for example, has much higher bandwidth than DP 1.1.
 
Action: no action
 
2. Low Severity
- The statement is incorrect, and we should try to clarify it better in the future, but we can leave it for now because it doesn’t meaningfully impact a viewer’s purchase decision or general knowledge.
- eg. The host says, “This monitor features moderate pixel response times and contrast because it uses an IPS panel”, but the panel manufacturer is actually AUO, rather than LG, so it’s not an IPS panel - a term which is trademarked by LG - but rather an IPS-type or IPS-like panel.
 
Action: Pinned comment
Note: Pinned comment text must be approved by the Community Coordinator before being posted.
 
3. Medium Severity
- The statement is incorrect, and a minority of the audience could be upset or misled, even if it doesn’t really affect the outcome of the product evaluation for the majority.
- eg. The host says, “This GPU has AMD’s AMF video encoder, which is basically the same as NVIDIA’s NVENC,” but while the stated functionality is the same, NVENC offers better image quality, which could be important to a small minority of buyers.
 
Action: Video replaced if possible according to YouTube policy, otherwise pinned comment and above fold mention of the issue in the video description
If doing a video replace, a pinned comment should communicate this is coming and note the expected changes. This comment should be un-pinned when the video replace is complete. 
Note: Pinned comment text must be approved by the Community Coordinator before being posted.
 
4. High Severity
- The statement is incorrect, and a significant portion of the audience could be misled or make a poorly-informed purchase decision.
- eg. The host says, “This is a great gaming monitor,” when in fact, the monitor is a 60Hz VA display that, while ‘fine’ for playing games, lacks important gaming-centric features that could be easily had for the same price, making it a poor choice. 
 
Action: Video replaced if possible according to YouTube policy. Otherwise, set unlisted and disable monetization until corrective action can be taken. 
If doing a video replace, a pinned comment should communicate this is coming and note the expected changes. This comment should be un-pinned when the video replace is complete. 
Note: Pinned comment text must be approved by the Community Coordinator before being posted.
 
5. Very High Severity
- The statement is VERY incorrect—basically the opposite of correct. There is no charitable interpretation that could make this anything but completely irresponsible.
- ex. The host says, “Most games require only one high-performance core to perform their best,” when that hasn’t been true for over a decade.
 
Action: Video removed or remade

Because they want to distract from Ian Video that clearly showing mistake done by Steve in their video about LMG.
 
They cannot accept that Steve is being unethical in his video by omitting a lot of information and framing his oppinion as fact

Noting that Gary worked for Asus, and that Asus was a sponsor for LTX and connecting that to LMG not going hard enough at Asus (In Steve's opinion) in the warranty case is an accusation or insinuation rather than a data backed claim. 
There is no hard proof/data of causation. 

Also worth mentioning, it's not unknown for companies to check our your socials.
Especially if you're aiming for a job in social media.
 
If you've called out previous employers before there's a chance they may refuse to hire you and as far as I'm aware no company is forced to admit why they've refused to hire you unless there's a posibility of discrimination such as racism, sexism, ageism or ableism (etc).
You may never even know why you weren't hired.
 
Madison could run into this issue if she wants to persue a career or future jobs in social media or more tech centric companies.
 
I don't agree with companies snooping on your socials but some definitely do.
 
My personal opinion on the situation regardless of who's telling truths or lies is this is not the right way to approach it.
I feel that if I were in a similar situation, I'd want to move on and forget about it and leave it be.
(Edit: For clarification I'm talking that leaving a company is past tense and it's over and done with, obviously if you're experiencing something similar to what Madison suggests then take action while it's either happening or recent history, don't sit on it)
 
Obviously she's receieved DMs etc prompting her for a response, unsure if this is a new surge of DMs where people are poking her to join in on drama.
I honeslty don't think anything she has to say will sway LMG and bring them to their knees or anything crazy, if she's speaking the truth they may have some internal process reviews on how they handle employees but it's unlikely they'd talk publically.
 
A situation like this belongs behind closed doors and follow appropriate processes.
I can't speak for Canada but I do know the UK has employement tribunials allowing ex-exmployees to dispute being fired or unfair treatment though I'm honestly not familiar with them with my limited experience as a line manager.

Missing the against your will/ without your consent. If she's participating in these conversations as part of the work jokes/banter it makes it a very blurry line. 

There isn’t enough evidence or documentation to sway my opinion one way or another (GN, for his part, presented emails, and video clips to use). And given the potential for legal action the allegations can give rise to (Madison could probably sue if she can prove her case, but given the severity of the allegations, LMG has a strong Defamation case if they can prove Madison’s statements wrong), I don’t think we’ll see any such documentation or further statements (at least from LMG) on the matter until after said potential legal proceedings conclude. 
 
Definitely a “wait for things to unfold” before I can render an opinion. 

Regardless of what people think about the situation, it must absolutely be investigated through the proper legal channels. Being subjective and taking one side or the other is not doing any help. In such cases, the first step is to immediately act and investigate the victims complaints, given the implications and the gravity of the situation. If need arises, then whoever is behind the investigation can proceed to establish the victims credibility. Even the slightest hint of disbelief in the victim's claims could have severe psychological and emotional impact on the victim, not to mention it could further hinder the investigation and the outcome. 

We KNOW all of this for a fact?  Serious question. I hadn’t heard of any of this until now. 

So far all I'm seeing is a whole lot of accusing and not a lot of proof.
 
Could just as wel be a disgruntled ex employee that's making stuff up to hurt the company.
 
One sided stories will always sound awful for the other party involved. 

This is still one side of the story, her boyfriend wasn't there to witness it.

I think she should not have posted on social media, but to the police.
Only they will make the effort to truly investigate, and only they have the position and proper tools at hand to do so.
 
To me, posting in public with no proof or history of the law ignoring the attempt, make a very mixed impression.
Maybe this accusation is legit, maybe not. Only a court will decide this, not the social medias.
Therefore I tend to see this as a dangerous game with public outcry mechanics. but this is a current personal tendency I learned from the effective outcome of other public made cases, that brought no actual legitimacy, but even proof of misleading accusations to daylight. I/We for sure cannot judge anything from the outside, I/We can only encourage all parties to solve this in front of the law.

For the "they don't like your work" part, I would tell her to find a jobs that she likes more.
 
For the "inappropriate grabbing" and "told to twerk for a coworker" part, I would ask her what does she mean, who asked her and she has proof and eventually consider seeing a lawyer.

I can tell what my answer WON'T be. I won't tell her to just leave her job and wait for a big controversy to tell her story on twitter.

So let's recap.
 
- people in the management criticize the quality of her work, as they should be since it's their job
- she doesn't like it and starts complaining about her superiors
- they point out that their management is made up of accomplished professionals and she's a newbie that could be fired anytime
- she gets offended at the fact that they didn't fire all the senior management because she was complaining
- she alleges that she was "inappropriately grabbed" whatever it means
- she's perplexed by the fact that LTT cares about what public faces put in the video and weather they will stick with the brand

This is my take on the conclusion too. And it's backed up by the numbers that Billet Labs themselves have on the product page. You're paying 2x the price for a marginal performance gain in a space where you're already paying 3x the price of something with no performance benefit. Not to mention that you're actually going to need 2 of the blocks plus be sure that every other metal in the loop is copper.

I understand why some people feel strongly but the volume seems odd.
I am probably old and out of touch.
Another reasonable option is that GN has a very passionate fan base who also feel personally attached to Ltt as well (they are far more motivated to speak out, then if they didn't care about GNs target).
 
That seems more likely than bots.
 

That’s not the issue.

The issue is its an $800 water block in a space where $400 water blocks are considered vanity purchases and extremely overpriced and excellent top of the line versions are sold for about $200, and you’ll need a new one each time you upgrade.  

It’s like a Rolex watch, they are very pretty and there is a market for them among people who are looking for a way to try to impress other people with lots of money, but no one in their right mind would look at a Rolex and say “This is worth considering for anyone purchasing a watch”.  

It’s a very pretty cooler, but it’s never going to be worth someone spending $800 on it for performance, you should spend $80 on a solid air cooler and put the other $720 into a better graphics card, processor, higher end memory, literally anything else that could be a bottleneck.  

That was the point, you don’t need to review the performance of something like this because there isn’t any result that would make spending 10 times a good air cooler on literally just the block for the GPU a good use of money. 

I have nothing to add except this is a pitchfork post and pitchfork thread and could've just been a reply to the megathread. Needless reaction and post altogether.