Blademaster91

There are well designed and built phones with replaceable batteries, most people aren't going to bother with repair guides which require special tools, and you're ignoring the fact that people don't want to go through the inconvenience of taking their phone to a repair store and not have a phone for a whole day or weeks if the phone has to be shipped back the manufacturer repair center.
The alternative with a phone with a replaceable battery is buy a battery for like $30, spend less than a minute replacing it, then you have a phone with a new battery, no need to take it to a repair shop.
Wanting to have things like a 3.5mm jack and a replaceable battery isn't "outdated" its having useful features without having to compromise with worse things because phone companies want to sell you cloud storage because you can't add a microSD card, or wireless earbuds which also have glued in batteries so you'll have to replace them with your phone in 2 or 3 years.
Removing features for the sake of profit is called enshittification.

LOL @ 1 petty mistake!  So petty that it's taken them "off the air" essentially.

Your argument was someone falling off a building, except there is data of people falling off of buildings, there isn't any data of the Billet labs block compared to an EK water block.
Again you keep repeating what Linus said because you're biased towards Linus, the point is to give it a real test on a 3090, not a 4090, the fact is the review is completely wrong and LTT should either take down the video and apologize to Billet labs or retest it.
As for the car analogy it would be like comparing a Lamborghini Huracan to a hand built supercar, and what LTT did would be like fully testing the Huracan then only testing the hand built car by driving around a parking lot in first gear, then saying the Lamborghini is faster because it's a Lamborghini there isn't any point in testing any thing else. And I think a part of the reason Linus refuses to test it correctly is because Billet labs isn't a corporation giving LMG piles of money and a sponsorship deal, he is just fine reviewing a product when there is lots of money involved.
The only people spinning things here are the ones continuing saying the block is crap with no proof on how the Billet labs block performs. Linus said he would rather give an inaccurate review than spend another $400-500 to review it again. But he has no problem reviewing other expensive things most people wouldn't buy. I have no trust in Linus reviewing things with a comment like that.
Also why does it have to be a favorable review? All they would have to do is test it on the right GPU.

Your argument was someone falling off a building, except there is data of people falling off of buildings, there isn't any data of the Billet labs block compared to an EK water block.
Again you keep repeating what Linus said because you're biased towards Linus, the point is to give it a real test on a 3090, not a 4090, the fact is the review is completely wrong and LTT should either take down the video and apologize to Billet labs or retest it.
As for the car analogy it would be like comparing a Lamborghini Huracan to a hand built supercar, and what LTT did would be like fully testing the Huracan then only testing the hand built car by driving around a parking lot in first gear, then saying the Lamborghini is faster because it's a Lamborghini there isn't any point in testing any thing else. And I think a part of the reason Linus refuses to test it correctly is because Billet labs isn't a corporation giving LMG piles of money and a sponsorship deal, he is just fine reviewing a product when there is lots of money involved.
The only people spinning things here are the ones continuing saying the block is crap with no proof on how the Billet labs block performs. Linus said he would rather give an inaccurate review than spend another $400-500 to review it again. But he has no problem reviewing other expensive things most people wouldn't buy. I have no trust in Linus reviewing things with a comment like that.
Also why does it have to be a favorable review? All they would have to do is test it on the right GPU.

And by all means, how do you know that? Did you test it? Are you an expert in thermodynamics? Do you know anything else that was not presented in the "review" ? Which was nothing but wrong testing methodology and the take of 2 dilettantes. They did not even do any sort of analysis in their highly acclaimed Lab. Yet they hurried to bury the monoblock and Billet along with it.  You are writing about a product you never put your hands on. And yet you dwell on speculation and false rumors.

Actual fact is he's on video saying he'd rather give an improper review than spend a few hundred dollars more and give a proper review. He said that in English and yes I was born and raised in the US where English is our first language.

Your argument was someone falling off a building, except there is data of people falling off of buildings, there isn't any data of the Billet labs block compared to an EK water block.
Again you keep repeating what Linus said because you're biased towards Linus, the point is to give it a real test on a 3090, not a 4090, the fact is the review is completely wrong and LTT should either take down the video and apologize to Billet labs or retest it.
As for the car analogy it would be like comparing a Lamborghini Huracan to a hand built supercar, and what LTT did would be like fully testing the Huracan then only testing the hand built car by driving around a parking lot in first gear, then saying the Lamborghini is faster because it's a Lamborghini there isn't any point in testing any thing else. And I think a part of the reason Linus refuses to test it correctly is because Billet labs isn't a corporation giving LMG piles of money and a sponsorship deal, he is just fine reviewing a product when there is lots of money involved.
The only people spinning things here are the ones continuing saying the block is crap with no proof on how the Billet labs block performs. Linus said he would rather give an inaccurate review than spend another $400-500 to review it again. But he has no problem reviewing other expensive things most people wouldn't buy. I have no trust in Linus reviewing things with a comment like that.
Also why does it have to be a favorable review? All they would have to do is test it on the right GPU.

Your argument was someone falling off a building, except there is data of people falling off of buildings, there isn't any data of the Billet labs block compared to an EK water block.
Again you keep repeating what Linus said because you're biased towards Linus, the point is to give it a real test on a 3090, not a 4090, the fact is the review is completely wrong and LTT should either take down the video and apologize to Billet labs or retest it.
As for the car analogy it would be like comparing a Lamborghini Huracan to a hand built supercar, and what LTT did would be like fully testing the Huracan then only testing the hand built car by driving around a parking lot in first gear, then saying the Lamborghini is faster because it's a Lamborghini there isn't any point in testing any thing else. And I think a part of the reason Linus refuses to test it correctly is because Billet labs isn't a corporation giving LMG piles of money and a sponsorship deal, he is just fine reviewing a product when there is lots of money involved.
The only people spinning things here are the ones continuing saying the block is crap with no proof on how the Billet labs block performs. Linus said he would rather give an inaccurate review than spend another $400-500 to review it again. But he has no problem reviewing other expensive things most people wouldn't buy. I have no trust in Linus reviewing things with a comment like that.
Also why does it have to be a favorable review? All they would have to do is test it on the right GPU.

I predict they will either ignore it and claim GN/Steve doesn't have any ethics or go with the "Linus (and everyone else) can tell it's junk by just looking at it so it doesn't matter"
 
Let's make some popcorn and wait...

The point of retesting the block is to correctly test it, Billet labs sent in the block with the agreement that LTT would give it a fair test,anyone making assumptions on the block saying it is bad is just repeating Linus' opinion on the block. Making a guess isn't enough to say the block is crap.
Someone else already proved you wrong on that analogy, I'm not going to repeat it.
The Billet labs block was some one off prototype, it might not perform as well as a block costing a fraction of the price, but assuming its crap without any test data is an unfair assumption. A company like LMG making assumptions without any testing throwing a startup under the bus is unprofessional, and IMO shows Linus doesn't care about the ethics or integrity of providing an accurate review.
The facts are the block wasn't correctly tested, and wasn't used on the GPU it was made for.

The point of retesting the block is to correctly test it, Billet labs sent in the block with the agreement that LTT would give it a fair test,anyone making assumptions on the block saying it is bad is just repeating Linus' opinion on the block. Making a guess isn't enough to say the block is crap.
Someone else already proved you wrong on that analogy, I'm not going to repeat it.
The Billet labs block was some one off prototype, it might not perform as well as a block costing a fraction of the price, but assuming its crap without any test data is an unfair assumption. A company like LMG making assumptions without any testing throwing a startup under the bus is unprofessional, and IMO shows Linus doesn't care about the ethics or integrity of providing an accurate review.
The facts are the block wasn't correctly tested, and wasn't used on the GPU it was made for.

The purpose of deep dives is to call out companies for scamming the consumer or doing anti-consumer things, ie Gigabyte power supplies exploding, or Asus with their refusal to uphold a warranty because their BIOS was ruining CPU's. There isn't any standard to be held for tech journalism on youtube, so I feel like GN has a much higher standard compared to most people that will either be apologist for companies or accept sponsorships from companies doing anti-consumer things.
No one knows how the Billet labs block performs until it is accurately tested, LTT's review was pointless as they tested it on the wrong GPU.
And why waste money to test something at all? If Linus didn't want to even test a product in a fair manner then there isn't any point in testing it all, not testing a water block correctly or not taking the plastic off a mouse are mistakes a multi-million dollar tech media company shouldn't be making.
Keep on spinning this, people keep going in circles over these things.

Trying to throw shade at GN with a video over 10 year old CPU's is disingenuous and petty IMO.
The fact the guy attacked GN and HW Unboxed over testing of FX cpu's seems they are biased towards AMD, also the fact they compared dual core cpu's to an 8 core one shows that the FX cpu's were crap.

The purpose of deep dives is to call out companies for scamming the consumer or doing anti-consumer things, ie Gigabyte power supplies exploding, or Asus with their refusal to uphold a warranty because their BIOS was ruining CPU's. There isn't any standard to be held for tech journalism on youtube, so I feel like GN has a much higher standard compared to most people that will either be apologist for companies or accept sponsorships from companies doing anti-consumer things.
No one knows how the Billet labs block performs until it is accurately tested, LTT's review was pointless as they tested it on the wrong GPU.
And why waste money to test something at all? If Linus didn't want to even test a product in a fair manner then there isn't any point in testing it all, not testing a water block correctly or not taking the plastic off a mouse are mistakes a multi-million dollar tech media company shouldn't be making.
Keep on spinning this, people keep going in circles over these things.

They (sadly) successfully demonized rooted devices, now its time they killed the alternative stores......

I would say this is why you find him smug. GN content is for education, not entertainment. I wouldn't describe Steve as smug at all. Just focused on information.

If you still think the video GN made is "rage bait" then there isn't anything that would convince you the video needed to be made. LTT has been screwing up for years now, people on the forum have been asking them to correct mistakes before uploading for a long time, GN called them out when the "trust me bro" LTT backpack warranty happened and Linus doubled down on it, so it is understandable why there wasn't any prior contact.
And accusing me of being a GN fanboy is hypocrisy when you're looking to deflect away from the topic trying to find things to throw shade on GN. This whole thing could've been over with until Ian decided to stir up drama, he isn't the only one though as a bunch of other youtubers have jumped on it for views, I guess people want to chase the algorithm for extra youtube revenue.

1) He can't know how much better it would have be without a proper testing.

2) in the absolute high-end environment, immense sums of money are spent on small profits. a car e.g. that goes 1 second faster on a test track can cost $30,000 more. whether a tester would buy it personally or prefer to drive a toyota doesn't matter. nobody needs a ferrari, and nobody needs an $800 block. but to say "you don't have to test it properly because you don't need it" is just nonsense and illogical.

After so many people spoke so highly of the TTP video I went and watched it and I know it's going to result in lots of pearl clutching but it was extremely amateurish analysis of the situation and compared to stuff like Dr. Cutress' RISC-V content was second rate. He regularly just attributes things to Steve that aren't backed up by facts just his read on what he thinks Steve had in his heart while oddly dressing down Steve for doing the same.
 
Particular things he posits that don't track:
Everyone involved must be held to the standard that they set and not a broad one Why? We don't do that anywhere else so why is it the case here? If one student smears dirt on their paper and hands it in and they don't care and another student hands in an excellent paper with a typo but they are a perfectionist who abhors mistakes do they get the same grade? I can't think of any situation where this sort of sliding scale of standards is appropriate.
Steve failed to take into account that LTT is an expanding business and such expansion can lead to mistakes Why should he? In a similar period of time Steve has also expanded GN but done so in a more cautious and methodical way. If there was anyone who could comment negatively on LMG's "Move Fast and Break Things" Tech Bro way of expanding it is someone doing it responsibly.
Steve failed to contact Linus for LMG's reply before going to press...by the way I have not contacted either side for comment and input on this piece. Excuse me...what? So Steve has to abide by a specific code of conduct upheld by some hard news outlets but you're exempt because...reasons? 
When Steve speaks to finding it hard and not pleasurable to do this piece he showed teeth and so he clearly is enjoying himself and is not being truthful I found this particularly bizarre as awkward smiling when discussing a difficult or confusing situation is extremely common among people in the technical field and someone with TTP's background should be able to tell the difference or know enough to abstain from judging if they cannot tell based on an edited video. You can go back through GN's video history and tell when Steve is having fun poking at a funnily bad presentation (ex. Intel's presentation that GN made fun of) versus when he is feeling awkward himself and smiles.
When Steve spoke of Conflict of Interest then biases he put the cart before the horse You can have a defined conflict of interest and a differing bias and I don't see how someone with TTP's knowledge could conflate the two on the level of a college freshman. LMG reviewing laptops while Linus holds an investment in a laptop maker is a conflict of interest, full stop. It is all in the way that such a conflict of interest is handled, as long as LMG makes it clear that is the situation to laptop makers and to the audience at every turn then it is relatively fine but LMG has been a bit fast and loose with keeping at least the audience informed of this conflict. This is different than Linus' biases and potential biases in the situation and Steve addressed them separately. For example (and strictly as a hypothetical): Linus can actually have a negative bias against Framework because as an investor he holds them to a higher standard than some random laptop maker. This is why the conflict and the bias needs to be addressed separately.
 
ETA:
Steve should have started an entirely new channel before he criticized LMG to isolate his criticism to it What an absurd position to take. Does Linus create a new channel every time he does secret shopper? Did Dr. Cutress start a new channel to critique Steve's video? Does a news organization start a new channel before they go after a major government or organization? No and saying so comes off as extremely divorced from any sort of actual grounding in how any of this works.
 
I give Dr. Cutress credit for addressing his biases upfront but all in all, if you had told me that the video was from one of Linus' buddies in the tech media space that went to LTX and not a respected figure doing a proper thorough analysis I wouldn't expect any difference from what we got.
 

So let me get this straight:
GN reporting on factual information about benchmark numbers, conflicts of interest and the mishandling of a prototype: Requires right to reply by LMG
Dr. Cutress reporting on Steve's state of mind while he was speaking in an edited video: Doesn't require right to reply by GN
Seems a lot like a made up cutout.
 

nah

this is what it needed and took for a revamp. sometimes you need an intervention , not an email

This RA tech guy attacked them over methods of testing, while GN's and HWUB's tests seem to be similar. I don't watch RA tech's videos so I don't know who they are, but calling out two reviewers over old cpu's brings up questionable bias when their testing is completely different.
If you read GN's comment in the video he brings up that RA tech turned off some cores and called it good, that isn't how you test core for core benchmarking. The AMD FX cores don't work like more conventional CPU cores do as the FX cores have shared FP units, so that dismisses the whole accuracy argument for me personally.

Linus, despite what he made want you to believe, is not the focus of his investigation. The company of LMG is. Would reaching out to LMG make the published content more accurate? Would it change the employee testimonies of having too intense of an upload schedule? Would it unauction the Billet labs prototype? No, it wouldn't. It would be an opportunity for Linus to respond personally, which is NOT THE POINT OF THE VIDEO. His response would not change the outcome of GNs video; how could it? The context of "we are people, we make mistakes, and we will do better" falls apart when you are spending millions of dollars a year to employ people SPECIFICALLY to produce accurate content and have made similar promises in the past. Omitting information about a company's attempt to right a wrong that SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED is totally fine ethically; especially when the video is about EXTERNAL perception of LTT content and how that misleads the consumer. No matter WHAT Linus said, it wouldnt change the inaccuracy in the videos, the disrespect shown to Billet Labs, or the god-awful things that happened to Madison.

I agree, clickbait to the degree LMG/LTT does it with the flashy thumbnails and misleading titles just causes me to not be interested, if I don't know what the heck the video is about in the title, I don't even bother clicking on it.
Also regarding the mic video, someone pointed out in the LTT forum topic thread LTT couldn't even spell frequency right, how am I supposed to trust them for a mic review if they couldn't get spelling right and their whole editing team didn't bother to check for errors.
I don't want LTT to fall, I want them to do better, and IMO they need to be held to a higher standard as they have massive influence over the tech community.
As for GN, I like their videos, appreciate them for their in depth testing and transparency in reviews, and I agree I like how GN treats their audience like mature adults that can think for themselves.
 
Also for  "but clickbait works" well that doesn't make it ok to make the thumbnails and titles exaggerated to the point where you don't know what the video is or if its just a sponsored ad.

I agree, clickbait to the degree LMG/LTT does it with the flashy thumbnails and misleading titles just causes me to not be interested, if I don't know what the heck the video is about in the title, I don't even bother clicking on it.
Also regarding the mic video, someone pointed out in the LTT forum topic thread LTT couldn't even spell frequency right, how am I supposed to trust them for a mic review if they couldn't get spelling right and their whole editing team didn't bother to check for errors.
I don't want LTT to fall, I want them to do better, and IMO they need to be held to a higher standard as they have massive influence over the tech community.
As for GN, I like their videos, appreciate them for their in depth testing and transparency in reviews, and I agree I like how GN treats their audience like mature adults that can think for themselves.
 
Also for  "but clickbait works" well that doesn't make it ok to make the thumbnails and titles exaggerated to the point where you don't know what the video is or if its just a sponsored ad.