• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 day ago

    Hah, yeah I guess he does own goal to protect others often.

    That’s an egregious mistake of a logistics employee wrongly asset tagging a prototype, ending up creating a huge controversy. Linus never named the employee and took all the heat on himself even though the situation had nothing to do with him.

    Making a big deal out of Honey taking creator’s money would again move all the heat on him while warning other creator’s. But I think it would go just as bad.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 day ago

      Selling the prototype was only a small part of the issue. They also tried to ruin the brand by testing it on hardware it was explicitly said not to be compatible with, later stating that it was not worth $500 to redo those tests. And then went on to state they had come to an agreement with said company to reimburse them, which turned out to be false. They had just sent their first email in ages to them minutes before posting that statement.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 day ago

        Yes, it was really bad.

        I question your assertion that it was purposefully done as a secret conspiracy to ruin a random brand. Don’t attribute to malice what can adequately explained by stupidity.

        No, they weren’t trying to ruin the brand, they were trying to make a YouTube video, made a bad job with multiple compounding mistakes, and ended up hurting the brand without that being their intention.