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

[Razercake]

2 hours ago, Neroon said:

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?

People are going to be unhappy no matter what, is that a reason not to tell people you did something good? it was literally a few seconds to say "5k was donated", which is what she wanted to do with the money. also, my point was pretty much that, just ignore the haters and do what feels right to you because.... someone will always have an issue with it in this case you. 

 

2 hours ago, Neroon said:

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" 

Linus wasn't the one who made the donation, could've just made it a house video if they aren't taking the AMD money. 5k was donated to a good cause, even if it was done for purely 100% selfish reasons. I really couldn't care less, cause 5k was still given.

[mdk777]

3 hours ago, Razercake said:

5k was donated to a good cause

You know how?

Perhaps they support the killing of baby fur whales.

How do you know it was a "good" cause.

The Clinton foundation took in 2 Billion dollars of donations(Bribes for political access and favors). Do I for a second think it is being spent "well" ?

 

See, this is the tricky thing...Feel good phrases often are substituted for direct results.

 

Do I support my local Police Force? You bet.  However, I never gave anything to those calls asking for donations.

Guess what? Recent report indicated that 90% of the revenue from those calls when to pay the "overhead" of those making the calls.

 

So yeah, the simple answer remains the same. Fiduciary duty requires you to spend funds as allocated, not to siphon them off to you favorite charity....No matter how deserving you think that charity to be. 

 

 

 

 

[IkeaGnome]

Holy crap. People really do try too hard to find any possible negative in anything and spin that out of control.

Just because you have a shit view on the world doesn't mean everyone does.

 

I'd love to see you all get sponsored by Asus and film a $5000 upgrade while fulfilling all these imaginary rules placed on you by random ass people. Not by you. Not by your sponsor, and not by your business team. 

[mdk777]

6 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

I'd love to see you all get sponsored by Asus and film a $5000 upgrade while fulfilling all these imaginary rules placed on you by random ass people. Not by you. Not by your sponsor, and not by your business team. 

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails?ItemList=Combo.4543384

 

Ah, you could spend $5000 on a MB and CPU.

You could spend 2k on a ASUS graphics card.

https://www.newegg.com/asus-geforce-rtx-4090-rog-strix-rtx4090-o24g-gaming/p/N82E16814126593?quicklink=true

 Heck you could spend $5000 on a ASUS LAPTOP without even trying.

https://www.newegg.com/p/2WC-000N-0C182?Item=9SIA7ABJP97996&Description=asus&cm_re=asus-_-2WC-000N-0C182-_-Product

 

 

How exactly do you think it would be difficult to upgrade technology using ASUS PRODUCTS alone?

 

The only problem would be staying in the budget. There would be no problem finding technology that was 100% ASUS that would be a technology upgrade to someone.

 

It would be insanely simple. As were the ethics involved here. 

 

Let me know what I am missing. 

[IkeaGnome]

8 hours ago, mdk777 said:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails?ItemList=Combo.4543384

Link doesn’t work. 
 

 

8 hours ago, mdk777 said:

You could spend 2k on a ASUS graphics card.

https://www.newegg.com/asus-geforce-rtx-4090-rog-strix-rtx4090-o24g-gaming/p/N82E16814126593?quicklink=true

You committed to personally switching to AMD graphics cards. I can’t believe you’re shilling for Nvidia again. 

 

8 hours ago, mdk777 said:

Heck you could spend $5000 on a ASUS LAPTOP without even trying.

https://www.newegg.com/p/2WC-000N-0C182?Item=9SIA7ABJP97996&Description=asus&cm_re=asus-_-2WC-000N-0C182-_-Product

Conflict of interest!!!!!!!!!! You’re a shareholder in another laptop company. I can’t trust anything you say about any laptop. 
That laptop is also double the budget. It’s not fair for you to spend twice the budget on something for yourself when your workers don’t get that luxury. 

[Needfuldoer]

21 hours ago, Razercake said:

5k was donated to a good cause

 

17 hours ago, mdk777 said:

You know how?

Perhaps they support the killing of baby fur whales.

How do you know it was a "good" cause.

Did you watch the first 30 seconds of the video?

 

 

https://www.bcchf.ca/where-your-money-goes/

 

https://www.bcchf.ca/financial-statements/

[mdk777]

1 hour ago, Needfuldoer said:

Did you watch the first 30 seconds of the video?

Well final post 

Yes, as I mentioned:

 

1. no matter if you were giving water to people dying of dehydration....there would still be an ethics issue.

Sell your business and take the millions to donate to any charity you want. THAT is your choice. GREAT. 

Point of fact, the reason you have that money is because someone in tech somewhere, sometime actually made the investment in producing a product...Not taking their money and passing it on to charity.

2. You have more faith in self reporting than I do.

Every day there is another Hospital in the news highlighting unethical use of funds.

https://www.kvue.com/article/money/economy/ctahi-false-records-aph/269-836a8e8d-b44d-4ea8-bc06-3dc016ea7e6c

 

Because it is a Children's hospital you think it is immune from corruption?

Charity in the name of "saving children" has been one of the most prolific and consistent multi-billion dollar scams over the last 50 years. 

 

That it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling is great. However, I have a real problem with the level of due diligence that is exhibited by 99.99% of people.

 

One final example.

A recent audit of the largest Carbon Credit firm in the WORLD !!!!!!  found that 90% of the offsets were highly questionable if not completely fraudulent.

Wait, you mean all those adds by Google and Apple saying they were carbon neutral for all these years were based on nothing more than wishful thinking and creative accounting?

How this has not shaken the entire carbon credit sham to its very core is beyond me.

 

The entire environmental movement should be rising up. EVERYONE who ever bought a product claiming that it was carbon neutral should be suing. Every country that based their tax credits on this scam should be clawing back their revenue.

 

Yet, it is not happening. Why? People would rather continue taking the easy way of "wishing" they were doing good rather than do the actual hard work of doing it.

 

Well, I gave the money to charity so I don't need to be concerned with actually performing on ethical obligations.

Yeah, it doesn't work like that.

You can't be Robin Hood no matter how attractive it appears.

 

 

[Neroon]

On 6/2/2023 at 6:11 PM, Razercake said:

People are going to be unhappy no matter what, is that a reason not to tell people you did something good? it was literally a few seconds to say "5k was donated", which is what she wanted to do with the money. also, my point was pretty much that, just ignore the haters and do what feels right to you because.... someone will always have an issue with it in this case you. 

 

Linus wasn't the one who made the donation, could've just made it a house video if they aren't taking the AMD money. 5k was donated to a good cause, even if it was done for purely 100% selfish reasons. I really couldn't care less, cause 5k was still given.

I very much dislike the culture where people brag about doing something good, whether it be a few seconds, or a few minutes. If you need to talk about the good things you do in life, you probably need to do more good things. To be clear, I'm not saying don't talk about your life, but there is a difference between talking about your life, and telling people you made a donation. 

 

A lot of horrible and selfish people brag about stuff like this, because they are not a good person, but they want to be perceived as such.

The fact is, they didn't need to mention any of it, so why bring it up? Was it relevant content for the channel? No.

 

Just an FYI, Linus and Yvonne are married, they co-own the company, and made the video together. So saying it wasn't Linus making the donation, is pretty much nonsense. Not to mention that he could've just not put it in the video. I very much doubt that this was all Yvonne, and 0% Linus. And even if that was true, he's CEO, so all of it goes out the window.

 

They would be taking AMD's money, just not the 5k. You understand that AMD pays way more than 5k for those videos.

21 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

I'd love to see you all get sponsored by Asus and film a $5000 upgrade while fulfilling all these imaginary rules placed on you by random ass people. Not by you. Not by your sponsor, and not by your business team. 

The main thing here though, is that they are not employees, but instead multi-millionaires and owners of the company. It just hits different. I'm not saying they can't have these videos, but it feels odd, when you are already making a boatload on these videos.

 

By all means, them donating is nothing wrong with, and I do get that if they didn't show it, that people would assume they were just greedy. But that's why I said they simply should've stated that they didn't take the 5k, and just the sponsorship.

[Razercake]

1 hour ago, Neroon said:

They would be taking AMD's money, just not the 5k. You understand that AMD pays way more than 5k for those videos.

Sure, but the 5k is for the individual so if they aren't taking it & using it for anything might as well have another employee win the raffle at that point.

 

1 hour ago, Neroon said:

ust an FYI, Linus and Yvonne are married, they co-own the company, and made the video together. So saying it wasn't Linus making the donation, is pretty much nonsense.

I know, but she won the raffle so all credit goes to her for the donation. her choice of what to spend the money on, so no I'm not considering him part of that donation.

 

1 hour ago, Neroon said:

I very much dislike the culture where people brag about doing something good

1 hour ago, Neroon said:

Was it relevant content for the channel? No

I really don't think this was bragging in any form or way, she accepted the 5k from AMD, and she told us what she did with that 5k. (Which is why it would be brought up) oh well, this discussion is literally Don't tell us you did a good thing(you) & I don't care if you tell us or not(me) so let's just agree to disagree. don't think either of us is going to budge on this, which is completely fine it was an interesting talk at least. I'm just not interested in discussing this further.

 

On 6/2/2023 at 10:05 PM, mdk777 said:

You know how?

Perhaps they support the killing of baby fur whales.

How do you know it was a "good" cause.

I really don't have the time or interest to take a deep dive into every single foundation or cause that exists, I don't care that much. She said she donated 5k I say "ok cool" but by all means go off on the "HOW DO YOU KNOW, BUT WHAT IF" rant. I'll just kindly tell you, I won't reply to you again cause I'm not even touching that subject with a 10-foot pole.

[Neroon]

1 hour ago, Razercake said:

Sure, but the 5k is for the individual so if they aren't taking it & using it for anything might as well have another employee win the raffle at that point.

 

I know, but she won the raffle so all credit goes to her for the donation. her choice of what to spend the money on, so no I'm not considering him part of that donation.

 

I really don't think this was bragging in any form or way, she accepted the 5k from AMD, and she told us what she did with that 5k. (Which is why it would be brought up) oh well, this discussion is literally Don't tell us you did a good thing(you) & I don't care if you tell us or not(me) so let's just agree to disagree. don't think either of us is going to budge on this, which is completely fine it was an interesting talk at least. I'm just not interested in discussing this further.

 

I really don't have the time or interest to take a deep dive into every single foundation or cause that exists, I don't care that much. She said she donated 5k I say "ok cool" but by all means go off on the "HOW DO YOU KNOW, BUT WHAT IF" rant. I'll just kindly tell you, I won't reply to you again cause I'm not even touching that subject with a 10-foot pole.

Yes another employee... if only Yvonne was an employee. Do you get it now?

 

She won the raffle? I don't think they were part of the raffle, again, they are not employees.

[IkeaGnome]

2 minutes ago, Neroon said:

Yes another employee... if only Yvonne was an employee. Do you get it now?

 

She won the raffle? I don't think they were part of the raffle, again, they are not employees.

Mind defining "employee"?

[Neroon]

2 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

Mind defining "employee"?

employee

someone who is paid to work for someone else:

 

employee

a person employed for wages or salary, especially at non-executive level.

 

It's really not hard to figure this out.

 

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, Neroon said:

employee

someone who is paid to work for someone else:

 

employee

a person employed for wages or salary, especially at non-executive level.

 

It's really not hard to figure this out.

 

Ah yes, the American definition.

You realize they aren't American, right?

https://www.ontario.ca/document/changing-workplaces-review-final-report/chapter-8-who-employer-and-who-employee-under-employment-standards-act-2000

Quote

The ESA currently defines employee as including:

• a person, including an officer of a corporation, who performs work for an employer for wages;
• a person who supplies services to an employer for wages;
• a person who receives training from a person who is an employer, as set out in subsection (2); or
• a person who is a homeworker; and
• includes a person who was an employee.

 

[Neroon]

4 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

Ah yes, the American definition.

You realize they aren't American, right?

https://www.ontario.ca/document/changing-workplaces-review-final-report/chapter-8-who-employer-and-who-employee-under-employment-standards-act-2000

 

Ah yes, you keep failing to hit your target. Both sources are from the UK. But nice try.

 

1. She doesn't work for an employer, she is an employer, both she and Linus are, as they own and run the company at the highest levels of the company. I extremely doubt they work for wages.

2. If she is not an employer, who would this be? Yvonne doesn't work for Linus. They work side by side.

3. She doesn't get training from an employer, if anything they would hire people to train them.

4. Has nothing to do with this.

5. She was never an employee, if anything, she worked as an employee elsewhere, to pay the employees of their company.

 

If you really think someone who owns half the company, and is married to the guy owns the other half, is an employee, while together holding the 2 highest positions in the company, you have absolutely no idea.

[ToboRobot]

17 minutes ago, Neroon said:

employee

someone who is paid to work for someone else:

 

employee

a person employed for wages or salary, especially at non-executive level.

 

It's really not hard to figure this out.

 

executives are employees.  Even if they own the company they are still employees and typically draw a salary for their work as an employee. 

They just also are shareholders and may be compensated for their ownership stake through dividends or disbursements or selling shares.

Just because you are an employee doesn't mean you can't be an executive or owner.

[Razercake]

34 minutes ago, Neroon said:

Yes another employee... if only Yvonne was an employee. Do you get it now?

... 

 

34 minutes ago, Neroon said:

another employee

another meaning, not her. if we really have to get pedantic, let me correct myself... another person who works at LMG. there the word employee isn't used anymore. my point was the exact same as before 

[ToboRobot]

2 minutes ago, Neroon said:

 

 

1. She doesn't work for an employer,

 

Yes, she works as an employee and gets a salary.  Also is an executive and shareholder.

facepalm

[Neroon]

11 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

executives are employees.  Even if they own the company they are still employees and typically draw a salary for their work as an employee. 

They just also are shareholders and may be compensated for their ownership stake through dividends or disbursements or selling shares.

Just because you are an employee doesn't mean you can't be an executive or owner.

 

10 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

Yes, she works as an employee and gets a salary.  Also is an executive and shareholder.

facepalm

So if the owners who are also the executives, aren't the employers, who would be the employer? Who employes Yvonne and Linus? The definition says: "who performs work for an employer for wages;" Having a wage, does not make her an employee.

So again, who is the employer? It's a simple question.

[IkeaGnome]

18 minutes ago, Neroon said:

Ah yes, you keep failing to hit your target. Both sources are from the UK. But nice try.

 

1. She doesn't work for an employer, she is an employer, both she and Linus are, as they own and run the company at the highest levels of the company. I extremely doubt they work for wages.

2. If she is not an employer, who would this be? Yvonne doesn't work for Linus. They work side by side.

3. She doesn't get training from an employer, if anything they would hire people to train them.

4. Has nothing to do with this.

5. She was never an employee, if anything, she worked as an employee elsewhere, to pay the employees of their company.

 

If you really think someone who owns half the company, and is married to the guy owns the other half, is an employee, while together holding the 2 highest positions in the company, you have absolutely no idea.

Her specific job title has no meaning here though.

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96113_01#section1

Quote

"employee" includes

(a)a person, including a deceased person, receiving or entitled to wages for work performed for another,

(b)a person an employer allows, directly or indirectly, to perform work normally performed by an employee,

(c)a person being trained by an employer for the employer's business,

(d)a person on leave from an employer, and

(e)a person who has a right of recall;

Notice A and B.

Quote

wages" includes

(a)salaries, commissions or money, paid or payable by an employer to an employee for work,

(b)money that is paid or payable by an employer as an incentive and relates to hours of work, production or efficiency,

(c)money, including the amount of any liability under section 63, required to be paid by an employer to an employee under this Act,

(d)money required to be paid in accordance with

(i)a determination, other than costs required to be paid under section 79 (1) (f), or

(ii)a settlement agreement or an order of the tribunal, and

(e)in Parts 10 and 11, money required under a contract of employment to be paid, for an employee's benefit, to a fund, insurer or other person,

but does not include

(f)gratuities,

(g)money that is paid at the discretion of the employer and is not related to hours of work, production or efficiency,

(h)allowances or expenses,

(i)penalties, and

(j)an administrative fee imposed under section 30.1;

Notice B. Also remember Linus mentioning many many times that even he has to fill out a time card....to track hours....for wages....

[Neroon]

1 minute ago, IkeaGnome said:

Her specific job title has no meaning here though.

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96113_01#section1

Notice A and B.

Notice B. Also remember Linus mentioning many many times that even he has to fill out a time card....to track hours....for wages....

You know I see a lot of the word 'employer' in those texts. If Yvonne is an employee, and Linus is. Who would the employer be? It's not hard to figure out. I'm sure you can do it... actually that's not true, you are probably gonna make dumb arguments until the end of the time, claiming there is no employer, and everyone is an employee at LMG. Water is dry, fire is cold, the sun is dark, and plastic is just another name for diamonds. At least in your reality.

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, Neroon said:

Who would the employer be?

Linus is, until next month when the new CEO, his new boss, steps in and is "higher rank". 

[Neroon]

45 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

Linus is, until next month when the new CEO, his new boss, steps in and is "higher rank". 

You are a riot.

Quote

The CEO is the highest-ranking employee within any organization; they report to the Board of Directors. 

I like how in your world, that Yvonne is an employee of Linus, and they will both be employed soon by the person they are paying a salary, who is an employee by every definition you gave.

 

You really aren't very good at this.

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, Neroon said:

You are a riot.

I never once said Linus wasn't the employer if that's what you're hinting at.

2 minutes ago, Neroon said:

and they will both be employed soon by the person they are paying a salary, who is an employee by every definition you gave.

If it's based on who pays the salary, wouldn't payroll be the employer then? I don't see what's hard to see about Linus being self employed at his own company. He is his employer, and he is his employee. If you go off a traditional C suite hierarchy, Yvonne would then be his employee. If they were a public company, the board of directors would be his employer, not himself. 

 

If you start a company, with just yourself as the only person working there, are you the only employee, or are you the only employer?

[ToboRobot]

2 hours ago, Neroon said:

 

So if the owners who are also the executives, aren't the employers, who would be the employer? Who employes Yvonne and Linus? The definition says: "who performs work for an employer for wages;" Having a wage, does not make her an employee.

So again, who is the employer? It's a simple question.

LMG the company is the employer. 

The people are employees and shareholders.

The CEO is employed by the company LMG Incorporated owned by shareholders and managed by the board of directors (L & Y).  When the new CEO takes over, he doesn't become the employer, he is an employee to manage the company and Linus will be head visionary writer host employee and Yvonne will be the CFO employee.

PREFORMS WORK for WAGE

Both Y and L preform work (host/writer, accountant boss) and get a wage for their work.

 

THE COMPANY IS THE EMPLOYER. 
 

[mdk777]

5 hours ago, Razercake said:

I don't care that much.

aggressive underlined  bold faced strident apathy? 

 

One cannot make up irony like this.