SoldiersFortune

hey maybe dont do this 

This was so close to being a good response, and then Linus showed up and STILL acted defensive and tried to put positive spin on it.
 
They should NOT have had him in this video if he wasn't going to be truly contrite. He took less than 30 seconds to go back to defensive mode, talking about how hard it is to be him and trying to point out all of the good things he thought he did.
 
No. NO!
 
Just fucking NO.
 
When you apologize, you talk about what you did wrong and how it'll be fixed going forward. You don't try to minimize it, you don't point out how much it sucks for you, you just DON'T.
 
This is not what humility looks like. This is what trying and failing to suppress your pride and hurt feelings looks like.

There are a lot of people in here saying things like, "if she was treated this badly why didn't she go to the authorities?" or "if these allegations are true, she should sue!" or "the timing of her coming out with this information is very suspicious." While I don't know that much about Canadian law, there are very good reasons why someone in this sort of situation wouldn't be able to take these accusations to court.
 
When it comes to workplace abuse here in the United States, it is critical for employees to create a paper trail that they can access if they are ever fired. This means, if an abuse happens, the employee has to notify HR via email from a non-work related email account in order to show proof that HR was notified about these violations. Madison mentions that she went to talk to HR and that a lot of there interactions were strictly verbal in nature. This was a huge but understandable mistake as a lot of employees make the assumption that HR is there to protect them, when in reality, HR departments exist to protect the company.
 
Additionally, the idea that an employee can "just leave" an abusive company whenever they want is not accurate. Lots of young professionals who are just starting out don't have the extra money in savings to leave without another job already looking to hire them. Additionally, if you are just starting out in your preferred career field, it can be devastating if your previous employer is contacted for a reference and ends up portraying you as a problem employee for speaking up.
 
Large companies have a massive advantage in court when it comes to finances and documentation. And the stress of the legal process is absolutely terrible on someone who is already suffering with poor mental health. Often, it just doesn't seem worthwhile to sue a large company as an individual.
 
Just as an example, there are several companies that I worked for in the past that I could have sued for wage theft as they were clearly violating federal labor laws. However, even with documented proof of these abuses, I realized I would ultimately still lose in the long run. And the fear that my former employers could retaliate by sabotaging my future work opportunities was also a huge factor. Even if they did retaliate and I could prove it, all that would mean was more legal action that could get drawn out and ultimately make my life a living hell.
 
I'm not saying that Madison's allegations are 100% true. I am only saying that her actions make sense in the context of an ex-employee who was scared to speak out against a very public and popular employer. It also makes sense that she would vent all of this on Twitter as this might be the only way to hold LTT accountable at this point if she doesn't have a paper trail she can take to court. Even if she doesn't have documented proof of these abuses, there is the possibility that other employees who do have documented proof of their own mistreatment may come forward and rally together.
 
I sincerely hope that what Madison is alleging is not true, but none of us can afford to completely dismiss it out of hand. People don't come forward with these kinds of abuses because they are afraid of being victim-blamed. Don't perpetuate the cycle.

There are a lot of people in here saying things like, "if she was treated this badly why didn't she go to the authorities?" or "if these allegations are true, she should sue!" or "the timing of her coming out with this information is very suspicious." While I don't know that much about Canadian law, there are very good reasons why someone in this sort of situation wouldn't be able to take these accusations to court.
 
When it comes to workplace abuse here in the United States, it is critical for employees to create a paper trail that they can access if they are ever fired. This means, if an abuse happens, the employee has to notify HR via email from a non-work related email account in order to show proof that HR was notified about these violations. Madison mentions that she went to talk to HR and that a lot of there interactions were strictly verbal in nature. This was a huge but understandable mistake as a lot of employees make the assumption that HR is there to protect them, when in reality, HR departments exist to protect the company.
 
Additionally, the idea that an employee can "just leave" an abusive company whenever they want is not accurate. Lots of young professionals who are just starting out don't have the extra money in savings to leave without another job already looking to hire them. Additionally, if you are just starting out in your preferred career field, it can be devastating if your previous employer is contacted for a reference and ends up portraying you as a problem employee for speaking up.
 
Large companies have a massive advantage in court when it comes to finances and documentation. And the stress of the legal process is absolutely terrible on someone who is already suffering with poor mental health. Often, it just doesn't seem worthwhile to sue a large company as an individual.
 
Just as an example, there are several companies that I worked for in the past that I could have sued for wage theft as they were clearly violating federal labor laws. However, even with documented proof of these abuses, I realized I would ultimately still lose in the long run. And the fear that my former employers could retaliate by sabotaging my future work opportunities was also a huge factor. Even if they did retaliate and I could prove it, all that would mean was more legal action that could get drawn out and ultimately make my life a living hell.
 
I'm not saying that Madison's allegations are 100% true. I am only saying that her actions make sense in the context of an ex-employee who was scared to speak out against a very public and popular employer. It also makes sense that she would vent all of this on Twitter as this might be the only way to hold LTT accountable at this point if she doesn't have a paper trail she can take to court. Even if she doesn't have documented proof of these abuses, there is the possibility that other employees who do have documented proof of their own mistreatment may come forward and rally together.
 
I sincerely hope that what Madison is alleging is not true, but none of us can afford to completely dismiss it out of hand. People don't come forward with these kinds of abuses because they are afraid of being victim-blamed. Don't perpetuate the cycle.

A lot of the comments on this thread go a long way to highlight why it's so difficult for so many women to come forward with allegations of sexual harrassment or abuse. 
 
This girl has now exposed herself massive amount of gross BS from various detractors and trolls. That's not something you choose to do lightly.
 
Calling into question her accusations and/or making light of this fact or calling it into question takes us back to my first point here. 

Obviously there's unsubstantiated claims and hearsay but the amount of and the detail of the claims laid out shouldn't be initially met with  being written off as attention seeking (see my points above). 

Understand how hard it is to come forward with these sorts of allegations.
 
Understand the part you play in that. 

There are a lot of people in here saying things like, "if she was treated this badly why didn't she go to the authorities?" or "if these allegations are true, she should sue!" or "the timing of her coming out with this information is very suspicious." While I don't know that much about Canadian law, there are very good reasons why someone in this sort of situation wouldn't be able to take these accusations to court.
 
When it comes to workplace abuse here in the United States, it is critical for employees to create a paper trail that they can access if they are ever fired. This means, if an abuse happens, the employee has to notify HR via email from a non-work related email account in order to show proof that HR was notified about these violations. Madison mentions that she went to talk to HR and that a lot of there interactions were strictly verbal in nature. This was a huge but understandable mistake as a lot of employees make the assumption that HR is there to protect them, when in reality, HR departments exist to protect the company.
 
Additionally, the idea that an employee can "just leave" an abusive company whenever they want is not accurate. Lots of young professionals who are just starting out don't have the extra money in savings to leave without another job already looking to hire them. Additionally, if you are just starting out in your preferred career field, it can be devastating if your previous employer is contacted for a reference and ends up portraying you as a problem employee for speaking up.
 
Large companies have a massive advantage in court when it comes to finances and documentation. And the stress of the legal process is absolutely terrible on someone who is already suffering with poor mental health. Often, it just doesn't seem worthwhile to sue a large company as an individual.
 
Just as an example, there are several companies that I worked for in the past that I could have sued for wage theft as they were clearly violating federal labor laws. However, even with documented proof of these abuses, I realized I would ultimately still lose in the long run. And the fear that my former employers could retaliate by sabotaging my future work opportunities was also a huge factor. Even if they did retaliate and I could prove it, all that would mean was more legal action that could get drawn out and ultimately make my life a living hell.
 
I'm not saying that Madison's allegations are 100% true. I am only saying that her actions make sense in the context of an ex-employee who was scared to speak out against a very public and popular employer. It also makes sense that she would vent all of this on Twitter as this might be the only way to hold LTT accountable at this point if she doesn't have a paper trail she can take to court. Even if she doesn't have documented proof of these abuses, there is the possibility that other employees who do have documented proof of their own mistreatment may come forward and rally together.
 
I sincerely hope that what Madison is alleging is not true, but none of us can afford to completely dismiss it out of hand. People don't come forward with these kinds of abuses because they are afraid of being victim-blamed. Don't perpetuate the cycle.

There are a lot of people in here saying things like, "if she was treated this badly why didn't she go to the authorities?" or "if these allegations are true, she should sue!" or "the timing of her coming out with this information is very suspicious." While I don't know that much about Canadian law, there are very good reasons why someone in this sort of situation wouldn't be able to take these accusations to court.
 
When it comes to workplace abuse here in the United States, it is critical for employees to create a paper trail that they can access if they are ever fired. This means, if an abuse happens, the employee has to notify HR via email from a non-work related email account in order to show proof that HR was notified about these violations. Madison mentions that she went to talk to HR and that a lot of there interactions were strictly verbal in nature. This was a huge but understandable mistake as a lot of employees make the assumption that HR is there to protect them, when in reality, HR departments exist to protect the company.
 
Additionally, the idea that an employee can "just leave" an abusive company whenever they want is not accurate. Lots of young professionals who are just starting out don't have the extra money in savings to leave without another job already looking to hire them. Additionally, if you are just starting out in your preferred career field, it can be devastating if your previous employer is contacted for a reference and ends up portraying you as a problem employee for speaking up.
 
Large companies have a massive advantage in court when it comes to finances and documentation. And the stress of the legal process is absolutely terrible on someone who is already suffering with poor mental health. Often, it just doesn't seem worthwhile to sue a large company as an individual.
 
Just as an example, there are several companies that I worked for in the past that I could have sued for wage theft as they were clearly violating federal labor laws. However, even with documented proof of these abuses, I realized I would ultimately still lose in the long run. And the fear that my former employers could retaliate by sabotaging my future work opportunities was also a huge factor. Even if they did retaliate and I could prove it, all that would mean was more legal action that could get drawn out and ultimately make my life a living hell.
 
I'm not saying that Madison's allegations are 100% true. I am only saying that her actions make sense in the context of an ex-employee who was scared to speak out against a very public and popular employer. It also makes sense that she would vent all of this on Twitter as this might be the only way to hold LTT accountable at this point if she doesn't have a paper trail she can take to court. Even if she doesn't have documented proof of these abuses, there is the possibility that other employees who do have documented proof of their own mistreatment may come forward and rally together.
 
I sincerely hope that what Madison is alleging is not true, but none of us can afford to completely dismiss it out of hand. People don't come forward with these kinds of abuses because they are afraid of being victim-blamed. Don't perpetuate the cycle.

There are a lot of people in here saying things like, "if she was treated this badly why didn't she go to the authorities?" or "if these allegations are true, she should sue!" or "the timing of her coming out with this information is very suspicious." While I don't know that much about Canadian law, there are very good reasons why someone in this sort of situation wouldn't be able to take these accusations to court.
 
When it comes to workplace abuse here in the United States, it is critical for employees to create a paper trail that they can access if they are ever fired. This means, if an abuse happens, the employee has to notify HR via email from a non-work related email account in order to show proof that HR was notified about these violations. Madison mentions that she went to talk to HR and that a lot of there interactions were strictly verbal in nature. This was a huge but understandable mistake as a lot of employees make the assumption that HR is there to protect them, when in reality, HR departments exist to protect the company.
 
Additionally, the idea that an employee can "just leave" an abusive company whenever they want is not accurate. Lots of young professionals who are just starting out don't have the extra money in savings to leave without another job already looking to hire them. Additionally, if you are just starting out in your preferred career field, it can be devastating if your previous employer is contacted for a reference and ends up portraying you as a problem employee for speaking up.
 
Large companies have a massive advantage in court when it comes to finances and documentation. And the stress of the legal process is absolutely terrible on someone who is already suffering with poor mental health. Often, it just doesn't seem worthwhile to sue a large company as an individual.
 
Just as an example, there are several companies that I worked for in the past that I could have sued for wage theft as they were clearly violating federal labor laws. However, even with documented proof of these abuses, I realized I would ultimately still lose in the long run. And the fear that my former employers could retaliate by sabotaging my future work opportunities was also a huge factor. Even if they did retaliate and I could prove it, all that would mean was more legal action that could get drawn out and ultimately make my life a living hell.
 
I'm not saying that Madison's allegations are 100% true. I am only saying that her actions make sense in the context of an ex-employee who was scared to speak out against a very public and popular employer. It also makes sense that she would vent all of this on Twitter as this might be the only way to hold LTT accountable at this point if she doesn't have a paper trail she can take to court. Even if she doesn't have documented proof of these abuses, there is the possibility that other employees who do have documented proof of their own mistreatment may come forward and rally together.
 
I sincerely hope that what Madison is alleging is not true, but none of us can afford to completely dismiss it out of hand. People don't come forward with these kinds of abuses because they are afraid of being victim-blamed. Don't perpetuate the cycle.

There are a lot of people in here saying things like, "if she was treated this badly why didn't she go to the authorities?" or "if these allegations are true, she should sue!" or "the timing of her coming out with this information is very suspicious." While I don't know that much about Canadian law, there are very good reasons why someone in this sort of situation wouldn't be able to take these accusations to court.
 
When it comes to workplace abuse here in the United States, it is critical for employees to create a paper trail that they can access if they are ever fired. This means, if an abuse happens, the employee has to notify HR via email from a non-work related email account in order to show proof that HR was notified about these violations. Madison mentions that she went to talk to HR and that a lot of there interactions were strictly verbal in nature. This was a huge but understandable mistake as a lot of employees make the assumption that HR is there to protect them, when in reality, HR departments exist to protect the company.
 
Additionally, the idea that an employee can "just leave" an abusive company whenever they want is not accurate. Lots of young professionals who are just starting out don't have the extra money in savings to leave without another job already looking to hire them. Additionally, if you are just starting out in your preferred career field, it can be devastating if your previous employer is contacted for a reference and ends up portraying you as a problem employee for speaking up.
 
Large companies have a massive advantage in court when it comes to finances and documentation. And the stress of the legal process is absolutely terrible on someone who is already suffering with poor mental health. Often, it just doesn't seem worthwhile to sue a large company as an individual.
 
Just as an example, there are several companies that I worked for in the past that I could have sued for wage theft as they were clearly violating federal labor laws. However, even with documented proof of these abuses, I realized I would ultimately still lose in the long run. And the fear that my former employers could retaliate by sabotaging my future work opportunities was also a huge factor. Even if they did retaliate and I could prove it, all that would mean was more legal action that could get drawn out and ultimately make my life a living hell.
 
I'm not saying that Madison's allegations are 100% true. I am only saying that her actions make sense in the context of an ex-employee who was scared to speak out against a very public and popular employer. It also makes sense that she would vent all of this on Twitter as this might be the only way to hold LTT accountable at this point if she doesn't have a paper trail she can take to court. Even if she doesn't have documented proof of these abuses, there is the possibility that other employees who do have documented proof of their own mistreatment may come forward and rally together.
 
I sincerely hope that what Madison is alleging is not true, but none of us can afford to completely dismiss it out of hand. People don't come forward with these kinds of abuses because they are afraid of being victim-blamed. Don't perpetuate the cycle.

No, Linus, this is not a case of you "reading the room wrong". This is about how you treated a small company's product with blatant disrespect because you couldn't be bothered to test it properly to achieve a fair review. And the reasoning for this decision appeared to be entirely monetary from your comment on the WAN show. It just wasn't worth your team's time and money to go back and run the tests correctly, regardless of the damage your video could have done to Billet Labs reputation. They trusted you with their product and you broke that trust by refusing to give it a proper trial.
 
Your company is making a huge deal about the launch of the Lab, yet you don't seem to be connecting the dots. How are your viewers supposed to trust your testing/review methodology coming out of the Lab if you are going to be flippant with going back and redoing flawed tests on products that have been entrusted to you simply because you decide they aren't worth your time or you believe they are a bad value?
 
Furthermore, the block that Billet Labs provided to you was a Prototype; a proof of concept. Of course it wasn't going to be a good value to the average consumer! It was literally 1 of 1. Products become cheaper when they are mass produced and this was nowhere near the finished product. If the intent in providing LTT with their only working prototype was to build interest in their design so that they could launch a cheaper, more refined version later on with broad name recognition, your video effectively killed that goal by never showing what their design's full potential was. Small companies live and die by this sort of publicity.
 
Your message to Billet Labs was you aren't worth my time. And that attitude isn't going to make other vendors want to send you their products. And it certainly isn't going to instill trust in LTT's review/testing methodology.

No, Linus, this is not a case of you "reading the room wrong". This is about how you treated a small company's product with blatant disrespect because you couldn't be bothered to test it properly to achieve a fair review. And the reasoning for this decision appeared to be entirely monetary from your comment on the WAN show. It just wasn't worth your team's time and money to go back and run the tests correctly, regardless of the damage your video could have done to Billet Labs reputation. They trusted you with their product and you broke that trust by refusing to give it a proper trial.
 
Your company is making a huge deal about the launch of the Lab, yet you don't seem to be connecting the dots. How are your viewers supposed to trust your testing/review methodology coming out of the Lab if you are going to be flippant with going back and redoing flawed tests on products that have been entrusted to you simply because you decide they aren't worth your time or you believe they are a bad value?
 
Furthermore, the block that Billet Labs provided to you was a Prototype; a proof of concept. Of course it wasn't going to be a good value to the average consumer! It was literally 1 of 1. Products become cheaper when they are mass produced and this was nowhere near the finished product. If the intent in providing LTT with their only working prototype was to build interest in their design so that they could launch a cheaper, more refined version later on with broad name recognition, your video effectively killed that goal by never showing what their design's full potential was. Small companies live and die by this sort of publicity.
 
Your message to Billet Labs was you aren't worth my time. And that attitude isn't going to make other vendors want to send you their products. And it certainly isn't going to instill trust in LTT's review/testing methodology.

No, Linus, this is not a case of you "reading the room wrong". This is about how you treated a small company's product with blatant disrespect because you couldn't be bothered to test it properly to achieve a fair review. And the reasoning for this decision appeared to be entirely monetary from your comment on the WAN show. It just wasn't worth your team's time and money to go back and run the tests correctly, regardless of the damage your video could have done to Billet Labs reputation. They trusted you with their product and you broke that trust by refusing to give it a proper trial.
 
Your company is making a huge deal about the launch of the Lab, yet you don't seem to be connecting the dots. How are your viewers supposed to trust your testing/review methodology coming out of the Lab if you are going to be flippant with going back and redoing flawed tests on products that have been entrusted to you simply because you decide they aren't worth your time or you believe they are a bad value?
 
Furthermore, the block that Billet Labs provided to you was a Prototype; a proof of concept. Of course it wasn't going to be a good value to the average consumer! It was literally 1 of 1. Products become cheaper when they are mass produced and this was nowhere near the finished product. If the intent in providing LTT with their only working prototype was to build interest in their design so that they could launch a cheaper, more refined version later on with broad name recognition, your video effectively killed that goal by never showing what their design's full potential was. Small companies live and die by this sort of publicity.
 
Your message to Billet Labs was you aren't worth my time. And that attitude isn't going to make other vendors want to send you their products. And it certainly isn't going to instill trust in LTT's review/testing methodology.

No, Linus, this is not a case of you "reading the room wrong". This is about how you treated a small company's product with blatant disrespect because you couldn't be bothered to test it properly to achieve a fair review. And the reasoning for this decision appeared to be entirely monetary from your comment on the WAN show. It just wasn't worth your team's time and money to go back and run the tests correctly, regardless of the damage your video could have done to Billet Labs reputation. They trusted you with their product and you broke that trust by refusing to give it a proper trial.
 
Your company is making a huge deal about the launch of the Lab, yet you don't seem to be connecting the dots. How are your viewers supposed to trust your testing/review methodology coming out of the Lab if you are going to be flippant with going back and redoing flawed tests on products that have been entrusted to you simply because you decide they aren't worth your time or you believe they are a bad value?
 
Furthermore, the block that Billet Labs provided to you was a Prototype; a proof of concept. Of course it wasn't going to be a good value to the average consumer! It was literally 1 of 1. Products become cheaper when they are mass produced and this was nowhere near the finished product. If the intent in providing LTT with their only working prototype was to build interest in their design so that they could launch a cheaper, more refined version later on with broad name recognition, your video effectively killed that goal by never showing what their design's full potential was. Small companies live and die by this sort of publicity.
 
Your message to Billet Labs was you aren't worth my time. And that attitude isn't going to make other vendors want to send you their products. And it certainly isn't going to instill trust in LTT's review/testing methodology.

Fibonacci Sequence/Golden Ratio Build
 
Design, build, and tune a performance desktop PC based entirely around the Fibonacci sequence, numbers, and related mathematics. Then benchmark the result to see if the golden ratio has provided any surprise advantages compared to a more standard comparable build. Basically looking to see if there is a magical combination of frequencies within hardware that can be synchronized to achieve technological witchcraft.