Life is full of surprises - AMD $5,000 Ultimate Tech Upgrade

[DeerDK]

On 5/27/2023 at 7:28 PM, filpo said:

You know what's a surprise? The CEO Chief Visionary Officer giving his wife a 5,000 dollar upgrade. I couldn't give that to my wife and kids combined if I tried!

not a good take.

AMD gives the money, and LMG has a lottery going amongst the employees.

Exclude the owners or include them? Both options has issues. Yvonne works in the company, and they even decided to give the same amount to charity, so to me it's hard to see a better solution.

[mdk777]

3 hours ago, DeerDK said:

not a good take.

AMD gives the money, and LMG has a lottery going amongst the employees.

Exclude the owners or include them? Both options has issues. Yvonne works in the company, and they even decided to give the same amount to charity, so to me it's hard to see a better solution.

Yeah, it was really simple.

Don't take the AMD Sponsorship money in the first place.

Say there is an obvious appearance of impropriety. To avoid the appearance, you will honor the random pick(Do your wife's upgrades) but use your own money and save the AMD Sponsorship money for another employee.

 

This kills many birds with one stone.

1. Extends the series  

2. adds a bonus plug for free for your sponsor 

3. shows corporate ethics

4. avoids the cringe of using AMD money to support a charity that either AMD, or the customers of AMD may or may not support.

 

See, not complex at all. Allow individuals to determine what charity that want supported....NOT a third party that does not have any idea of what their opinions or desires. 

 

This is what most people hate.

 

"The world needs to be saved; let's use your money, not mine to do it."

 

PS, if I were a corporate sponsor, AMD, INTEL ....you name it, and I watched this segment????

 

Well, you know I would conclude that my advertising/influencing dollars could be much better spent.

Donate those dollars to build a HPC for a graduate student doing a doctorate in whatever fields you think is most likely to see immediate results (global warming simulation, drug resistant antibiotics...You name it)

 

I would build 10, and in a year do a wall to wall ad campaign on  the 9 that failed to achieve results (how science actually works) and the one that advanced society!!!!! 

 

MUCH better than paying some influencer to put up wall stickers and call it a tech upgrade. 

 

 

[DeerDK]

1 hour ago, mdk777 said:

Yeah, it was really simple.

Don't take the AMD Sponsorship money in the first place.

Say there is an obvious appearance of impropriety. To avoid the appearance, you will honor the random pick(Do your wife's upgrades) but use your own money and save the AMD Sponsorship money for another employee.

 

This kills many birds with one stone.

1. Extends the series  

2. adds a bonus plug for free for your sponsor 

3. shows corporate ethics

4. avoids the cringe of using AMD money to support a charity that either AMD, or the customers of AMD may or may not support.

 

See, not complex at all. Allow individuals to determine what charity that want supported....NOT a third party that does not have any idea of what their opinions or desires. 

 

This is what most people hate.

 

"The world needs to be saved; let's use your money, not mine to do it."

 

PS, if I were a corporate sponsor, AMD, INTEL ....you name it, and I watched this segment????

 

Well, you know I would conclude that my advertising/influencing dollars could be much better spent.

Donate those dollars to build a HPC for a graduate student doing a doctorate in whatever fields you think is most likely to see immediate results (global warming simulation, drug resistant antibiotics...You name it)

 

I would build 10, and in a year do a wall to wall ad campaign on  the 9 that failed to achieve results (how science actually works) and the one that advanced society!!!!! 

 

MUCH better than paying some influencer to put up wall stickers and call it a tech upgrade. 

 

 

Sorry, but no. In that case they could just exclude Linus and Yvonne. And maybe the other directors. Then at least own it instead that whole manouver you suggest. 

 

If you have a general issue with the concept, fair enough, I don't, though. It's very intertaining to me. 

 

Or are you generally opposed to sponsored content? 

 

Edit: Also, the suggestion of paying 5k for Yvonne from the company could be interpreted even more as playing favorites. As I said, both doing it and not doing it has it's pitfalls. 

[mdk777]

1 hour ago, DeerDK said:

Edit: Also, the suggestion of paying 5k for Yvonne from the company could be interpreted even more as playing favorites. As I said, both doing it and not doing it has it's pitfalls. 

Yeah, you missed the point.

LINUS should have used his own money....not the companies money.

 

But yeah, simply excluding people that actually own the company from the selection process initially would have made sense also.

1 hour ago, DeerDK said:

Or are you generally opposed to sponsored content? 

Yeah, no.

 

I just want tech content to have tech content. Putting up shelves and Vinyl wall decorations does not equate with anything to do with technology.

 

Invite  Joanna Gaines over if you want to do a crossover segment.

Show how technology can actually be incorporated into architecture and good interior design.

 

Yeah, I would watch that.

 

This was just a fail.

 

 

[DeerDK]

6 minutes ago, mdk777 said:

Yeah, you missed the point.

LINUS should have used his own money....not the companies money.

 

But yeah, simply excluding people that actually own the company from the selection process initially would have made sense also.

Yeah, no.

 

I just want tech content to have tech content. Putting up shelves and Vinyl wall decorations does not equate with anything to do with technology.

 

Invite  Joanna Gaines over if you want to do a crossover segment.

Show how technology can actually be incorporated into architecture and good interior design.

 

Yeah, I would watch that.

 

This was just a fail.

 

 

Hmm, I don't really think we are going to see eye to eye on this... 

[AlphaQ214]

I thought it was a great video and very entertaining as a whole. 

 

Why does it matter with what Yvonne did after being selected. It was obvious that she never actually needed AMD to really pay for her upgrade. AMD apparently doesn't have an issue either with funding this series, so why is it an issue for so many? Look at how many others have already received upgrades before Yvonne was selected. At the end of the day LMG make content for their followers and the world too consume. If the advertisers have a problem with it, then the series would end. 

 

I love seeing what each member of LMG would do when given a shopping spree for updates to their lives. Keep up the great work LMG.

[mdk777]

46 minutes ago, DeerDK said:

Hmm, I don't really think we are going to see eye to eye on this... 

Yeah, because you have concluded that entertainment has equal value with content. 

 

As Russel Crowe said "Are you not entertained?"

 

You say yes. Not a problem.

 

However, the segment is basically a TED TALK on how as a society we start to substitute entertainment, fame, and diversion for actually accomplishing something, actually producing something, actually providing a good or service that advances peoples standard of living.

 

 

It is called TECH TIPS. 

Did you learn anything that you can apply to your life? Did you realize anyway you could integrate or understand the available technology to improve how you live? I didn't.

 

The segment is  called TECH UPGRADE. Did you see any technology that was upgraded? Did you see how a small, or even a large investment in TECH UPGRADE significantly improved someone's life? I didn't.

 

Rather, I saw the exact opposite. I saw someone who had no need of upgrading their technology spend money on a shopping spree on everything BUT a technology Upgrade. Money was wasted, materials were landfilled (everyone knows that returns are seldom resold and the packaging and transportation are sunk  cost 100% of the time.)

The entertainment was from personality and situational discussion. Sure, they are entertaining people. 

 

But substituting entertainment with NO actual content just crosses the line over to "Bread and Circus" for me.  

 

YES Car talk spent a great deal of time on CHIT CHAT, and the dynamic of the Brothers and the caller.

 

But you know what? At the end of the conversation, they made the right call on getting the car repaired...like 80% of the time. They even did segments where they circled back and discussed when they got it wrong.

It was BOTH entertaining and informative. 

 

I learned ZERO from this segment other than how to waste money buying stuff that needs to be returned.

 

 

[DeerDK]

2 minutes ago, mdk777 said:

Yeah, because you have concluded that entertainment has equal value with content. 

 

As Russel Crowe said "Are you not entertained?"

 

You say yes. Not a problem.

 

However, the segment is basically a TED TALK on how as a society we start to substitute entertainment, fame, and diversion for actually accomplishing something, actually producing something, actually providing a good or service that advances peoples standard of living.

 

 

It is called TECH TIPS. 

Did you learn anything that you can apply to your life? Did you realize anyway you could integrate or understand the available technology to improve how you live? I didn't.

 

The segment is  called TECH UPGRADE. Did you see any technology that was upgraded? Did you see how a small, or even a large investment in TECH UPGRADE significantly improved someone's life? I didn't.

 

Rather, I saw the exact opposite. I saw someone who had no need of upgrading their technology spend money on a shopping spree on everything BUT a technology Upgrade. Money was wasted, materials were landfilled (everyone knows that returns are seldom resold and the packaging and transportation are sunk  cost 100% of the time.)

The entertainment was from personality and situational discussion. Sure, they are entertaining people. 

 

But substituting entertainment with NO actual content just crosses the line over to "Bread and Circus" for me.  

I thought we were discussing whether or not an owner was allowed to participate? 

[mdk777]

17 minutes ago, DeerDK said:

I thought we were discussing whether or not an owner was allowed to participate? 

ethics of the means of participation...what works, what makes sense, what is ethical.

 

If your wife has no need of a tech upgrade, don't waste you time going through the motions.

 

 

 

[DeerDK]

8 minutes ago, mdk777 said:

ethics of the means of participation...what works, what makes sense, what is ethical.

 

 

Hmm, I see your point. We have still moved way away from my initial statement about whether Yvonne could participate in the Lottery or not. Imho

[XNOR]

2 hours ago, DeerDK said:

Sorry, but no. In that case they could just exclude Linus and Yvonne. And maybe the other directors. Then at least own it instead that whole manouver you suggest. 

 

If you have a general issue with the concept, fair enough, I don't, though. It's very intertaining to me. 

 

Or are you generally opposed to sponsored content? 

 

Edit: Also, the suggestion of paying 5k for Yvonne from the company could be interpreted even more as playing favorites. As I said, both doing it and not doing it has it's pitfalls. 

Didn't Linus say in a WAN show that they 'stacked the deck' for the first new AMD Upgrade episodes so they'd have more views? You can't have episodes that fall flat when you're dealing with a new sponsor paying major money. Picking well known, well liked people from the company is a sensible thing to do.

 

It was a while back and I'm not feeling like skipping through many weeks of WAN show. What's that site that lets you search through Youtube transcripts again?

[DeerDK]

Just now, XNOR said:

Didn't Linus say in a WAN show that they 'stacked the deck' for the first new AMD Upgrade episodes so they'd have more views? You can't have episodes that fall flat when you're dealing with a new sponsor paying major money. Picking well known, well liked people from the company is a sensible thing to do.

 

It was a while back and I'm not feeling like skipping through many weeks of WAN show. What's that site that lets you search through Youtube transcripts again?

Hmm, that may actually be true. In that case the whole thing is a bit more iffy. 

[AlphaQ214]

5 minutes ago, DeerDK said:

Hmm, that may actually be true. In that case the whole thing is a bit more iffy. 

But what about it is so wrong? It's clear that they take care of their employees. Getting selected for the upgrade would be a bonus and then require that employee to have their personal space and their life made into a video. That's probably also why not every employee wants to submit for this upgrade.

[XNOR]

 I found the segment:

 

 

  

1 minute ago, DeerDK said:

Hmm, that may actually be true. In that case the whole thing is a bit more iffy. 

What's iffy about it? They're a media company. They made an executive decision to start a new sponsor off with an episode they thought would do well. They're transparent about it it, gave the sponsor money to charity to avoid mixed feelings as Yvonne clearly doesn't need the money, and try to lock in the sponsor for more episodes.

 

What complaint can employees really make? That they deserved the money more than charity? That they would rather risk losing the sponsor, so there are no further upgrades go raffle off? That their employer paying their wages tried to make a sensible business decision?

[DeerDK]

13 minutes ago, AlphaQ214 said:

But what about it is so wrong? It's clear that they take care of their employees. Getting selected for the upgrade would be a bonus and then require that employee to have their personal space and their life made into a video. That's probably also why not every employee wants to submit for this upgrade.

My initial take was that a "blind" lottery was a fair system, even if the owners participate. 

Fixing the outcome is a bit more problematic, in relation to my initial take. 

Not saying that it's a big problem, but it undermined my standpoint a bit and Ive gotta acknowledge that, even if I'm still okay with it in the big scale of things. 

[DeerDK]

1 minute ago, XNOR said:

 I found the segment:

 

 

  

What's iffy about it? They're a media company. They made an executive decision to start a new sponsor off with an episode they thought would do well. They're transparent about it it, gave the sponsor money to charity to avoid mixed feelings as Yvonne clearly doesn't need the money, and try to lock in the sponsor for more episodes.

 

What complaint can employees really make? That they deserved the money more than charity? That they would rather risk losing the sponsor, so there are no further upgrades go raffle off? That their employer paying their wages tried to make a sensible business decision?

See my answer to Alphaq214

Not a big problem, but my initial argument was that it was a blind lottery 

[XNOR]

7 minutes ago, DeerDK said:

See my answer to Alphaq214

Not a big problem, but my initial argument was that it was a blind lottery 

 As far as we know, it always was a blind lottery, and as I understand it the top management was excluded or stepped aside voluntarily. They decided to include Yvonne in this episode for reasons given, and without pretending it was the result of a fair lottery.

 

There doesn't seem to be an issue there, unless someone goes looking for one. Though I do appreciate Linus' comments about internal drama about things like snacks and coffee machines and Channel Superfun participation a bit more. Doing something nice is hard without someone finding a reason to get upset about it.

[DeerDK]

1 minute ago, XNOR said:

 As far as we know, it always was a blind lottery, and as I understand it the top management was excluded or stepped aside voluntarily. They decided to include Yvonne in this episode for reasons given, and without pretending it was the result of a fair lottery.

 

There doesn't seem to be an issue there, unless someone goes looking for one. Though I do appreciate Linus' comments about internal drama about things like snacks and coffee machines and Channel Superfun participation a bit more. Doing something nice is hard without someone finding a reason to get upset about it.

Ahh, my bad. Well, back to my original standpoint then.

Its all good

[Quackers101]

maybe not the best when there hasn't been much of "AMD builds" yet. but if AMD agreed to this, then fine?

[mdk777]

13 hours ago, Quackers101 said:

maybe not the best when there hasn't been much of "AMD builds" yet. but if AMD agreed to this, then fine?

Yeah, they sponsor a F1 team also, which has no (direct)bearing on the consumer PC Market.

https://www.techradar.com/news/why-amd-epyc-could-be-mercedes-f1s-most-important-partner-this-season

 

But at least they build some HPC builds for modeling. 

THAT is an ultimate tech upgrade.

 

[Arika]

20 hours ago, mdk777 said:

It is called TECH TIPS. 

Did you learn anything that you can apply to your life? Did you realize anyway you could integrate or understand the available technology to improve how you live? I didn't.

i learn very little from their normal videos. what am i going to do with the information from a server room/lab upgrade? or running a 100m fiber line? or a headphone testing dummy head. I Certainly don't watch LTT videos to determine "how to improve my life".

 

 

20 hours ago, mdk777 said:

The segment is  called TECH UPGRADE. Did you see any technology that was upgraded? Did you see how a small, or even a large investment in TECH UPGRADE significantly improved someone's life? I didn't.

So would you have been ok with the exact same video but it not being part of the tech upgrade series?

 

what is the limit of "tech"? on short circuit they do reviews of furniture are these not ok?

looking at the main channel:

water cooling a bed is hardly tech, that's furniture

the interviews with LMG staff isn't tech

responding to mean comments is not tech.

linus buying a tv stand isn't tech

 

the response to this video seems to be very abrupt that i'm not actually sure which part people have an issue with.

 

Is it because it's on the main tech channel and didn't meet some apparently standard "bar" for how much tech should be in a video?

is it because it was Yvonne?

is it because it was Yvonne who got picked for the upgrade?

 

there is a disproportional amount of salt for what is ultimately a (supposedly single) video which breaks away from the mould.

 

[mdk777]

8 hours ago, Arika S said:

the response to this video seems to be very abrupt that i'm not actually sure which part people have an issue with.

 

Is it because it's on the main tech channel and didn't meet some apparently standard "bar" for how much tech should be in a video?

Yes

8 hours ago, Arika S said:

s it because it was Yvonne?

No

 

8 hours ago, Arika S said:

is it because it was Yvonne who got picked for the upgrade?

In that she did not require or use the opportunity to upgrade any technology, and that they made a point of saying they offset this with a charity donation: YES

 

8 hours ago, Arika S said:

there is a disproportional amount of salt for what is ultimately a (supposedly single) video which breaks away from the mould.

You are correct that my initial thoughts were focused on the misplaced allocation of resources, The ethical and fiduciary responsibility of using sponsorship money as intended. 

 

But you are also correct that the more I thought about the more it became a touchstone for the trends I see over time. There is this trend in society and business to constantly dilute, to constantly degrade to the lowest and cheapest and least durable. The trend to substitute fame and personality and entertainment for actual content, actual substance. 

 

Outdoor clothing is an obvious example. LL Bean used to make great stuff that lasted so long they had a lifetime warranty. People who worked, hunted, fished and spent a great deal of time actually outdoors bought their kit because it was durable and functional. We all know that the fast fashion, disposable culture ended that line(standard/quality)of clothing a long time ago. So, those who really needed outdoor gear that just worked, (not fashion or high priced status symbols) moved on to REI,  Patagonia, North Face, Duluth. Yeah and in turn all those brands trod the well worn path....becoming trendy, expensive and ultimately cheap disposable fast fashion versions of the originals. So, 100 years on and someone that actually needs utility clothing for outdoor use is still searching for authentic sources. 

 

Obviously I could extend the discussion to celebrity culture in general. Do people (who's only product is their own self absorption) really deserve the  affirmation and support of society? Hence my digression into the entertainment metaphor of Circus.

 

So, as I said. If you only come here for entertainment, I can see why you are not concerned. If you have a preference for information and content, perhaps presented in an entertaining format, I can support that also.

 

MY SALT, is that the dilution of content has gone to the ultimate extreme. There is no longer any tech content buried in the layers of entertainment. 

8 hours ago, Arika S said:

learn very little from their normal videos. what am i going to do with the information from a server room/lab upgrade? or running a 100m fiber line?

That is the advantage of age. Everything you use today was once server grade and lab developed.

Yes, I made the move to just about every technology before it made its way to the mass market. Mobile phones when you carried in a suitcase, smartphones before APPLE, SSD on server boards....etc. etc. etc.

 

Will I install 10GB switches and fiber before you? Sounds like it.  

 

8 hours ago, Arika S said:

So would you have been ok with the exact same video but it not being part of the tech upgrade series?

Sure. There is an infinite amount of entertainment content out there. Everyone has their kinks and I don't judge them for that. When I go to the Opera, I want to hear OPERA and not a Punk rock band. I'm sure head bangers would not be enthused with a Harpsicord recital being substituted for their set either. 

 

ULTIMATE TECH UPGRADE SPONSOSRED BY AMD

 

One might expect to see some AMD products integrated into a technology upgrade...an application of ULTIMATE (cutting edge, optimized, appropriately applied solutions)  Yeah those are the connotations I have with the phrase.

 

NONE=0= the exact opposite of those definitions, connotations, or expectations were realized in the segment.

 

So, yeah it felt like a cheat, a false advertisement, a substitution of fluff and entertainment, a phone in of personality and entertainment for substance.  

[YellowJersey]

I can understanding replacing the steak knives with the broken tips, but couldn't you just have had your other knives sharpened?

You know, I can't believe anyone would who knows Denis would take any of his advice.

 

[Neroon]

On 5/30/2023 at 10:53 AM, Razercake said:

Eh, I don't know, I used to agree with this sentiment but honestly, if you never tell people you donated, they assume you are greedy & never donate. if you tell them you do, people will say it's for clout or you should've given more(it really doesn't matter someone will always have an issue with it).

 

I think it was done pretty nicely, it's like 12 seconds of the video saying "I donated the 5k from the upgrade" wasn't dragged out, didn't feel like she was trying to gain brownie points. she just told us what she did with the money from AMD & went on with the video, solid 7/10 donation IMO (could've used some more crab rave so -3 points)

People are always gonna assume things, is that a reason to tell people every good deed you do? Or are you gonna ignore the haters and just do what feels right to you?

 

Instead of saying the 5k was donated, Linus could have said something like "This video is sponsored by AMD, but because we didn't feel right taking the money as the owners of LMG, we are using our own 5k, to get my wife the tech upgrades that she wants" 

 

 

[Mojo-Jojo]

Man, people sure get upset over things other random people on the internet do.