infinitytec

It's still disingenuous, no matter what the end results were. The video should not have been published with how poorly the tests were done.

And on top of that, to give the product a fair chance.

Tech Quickie, LMG Clips, and GameLinked have all uploaded today. No main channel video though.

In a video Linus mentioned being offered this for the company. IIRC it was the CEO announcement video.

Yes, but unfortunately it looks like Linus took this as an attack rather than a learning experience. There is still time for him to make things right though.

Linus's reply was disappointing. All that's needed is to apologize, make things right, and move forwards. I worry that this time LTT may have lost too much credibility. Especially with that response. They did a massive disservice to Billet with their shoddy video on it. Then doubled down on it. And the way they have treated Billet since... that's a pretty big mistake. If nothing else, LTT should take their video on Billet down. LTT can do better than this.

It's coming back!

And think of the content! If they talk about the forum and show this post I will buy a water bottle /s

Worse things could happen. I'd rather they improve their security and bring stuff up when ready than face a possible takeover again. Also, I can guarantee they are going to make a video on this. The cameras will be rolling constantly.

I'm pretty much agreeing with you. The phrasing isn't so important when the outcome is the same. One distinction I would note though is that phishing would mean an LTT system/user/property was compromised. Hacking could mean that there was malicious action taken against either LTT or YouTube. YouTube getting compromised would be pretty much a worst-case scenario.

Yeah, that's more or less what I meant. Saying "hacking" is generally accurate and a reasonable term to describe unauthorized access. Explaining the security was compromised due to a social engineering attack (or whatever) is more precise (in that it is more accurate to what happened) but the user doesn't necessarily understand the concept. The long story doesn't really help some users. The key is to know when to do so. (Probably not the best analogy though as users should, at least in a professional setting, be trained and familiar with social engineering.)

Aaaahhhhh

As an IT professional, I agree. Giving users the precise information often causes confusion. Then the discussion is about definitions where a user may want more explanation than is necessary rather than actually relevant discussion.

(Citation needed)

It could also be transactions between scammer wallets to make fake traffic. It's also possible they use the same wallets for several scams.