For me it’s Skallagrim. This is a channel of a guy who specializes in ancient armory and weaponry, he also reviews swords and stuff that’s sold online and tests them. Pretty cool.
But then I started to not like him for some reason and it took me a while to put my finger on it. Until I saw the video where he tried criticizing weapons in video games. Then that was where I found problems with him as a channel.
His personality comes off very pretentious and one of those pseudointellectuals you know, who try sounding smarter than they really are. He even has the voice tone to back that with.
So yeah I really once loved his channel. Though whenever he goes on tirades about things that are meant for fantasy purposes which aren’t supposed to make sense when translated to reality, as well as try to poke at fictitious things that borrow from ancient history, I feel he misses the plot of his entire channel and why people like me once subscribed to it.
We didn’t subscribe to your channel for your stupid takes on - anything. We subscribed because you seem to know your melee weapons and historical backgrounds of said weaponry. Stick to those.
Also the anti-union bullshit Linus tend to puke out sometimes.
This is not true. What he said is that he would consider it a personal failure if his employees felt the need to unionise, but he would support them in doing so. There is nothing “anti-union” about that sentiment.
Unless of course he also said something else that I don’t know about, but then I would love a source.
The problem is the first half. Where he spewa the capatistic view of unions with no question.
It could be a great statement of employee values and empowerment, but instead he takes it as a personal Digg, which has to influence employee views on some level.
The issue is that “finding it a personal failure” is missing the point of a Union and the conversation entirely. The entire point is that there is an inherent power imbalance and with everyone’s livelihoods relying on each other having a concrete set of mechanisms in place beyond “trust me brow” is very important.
For the sake of argument let’s say that every employee feels 100% comfortable discussing issues with Linus and that he is 100% reasonable in his response such that his statement about feeling like a failure is valid. What if he were to suffer some kind of brain injury where cognitively he seemed to make a full recovery but over the course of a couple of years he seemed to be more selfish, less willing to take feedback, and more willing to order people to do things or they are fired?
It wouldn’t be severe enough for family or anyone to legally take control, but it could harm workers, and that is exactly what how a Union could help balance and smooth things out in that scenario.
This is a discussion you can absolutely have. But “missing the point of a union” and being “anti-union” are very different things.
“Anti-union” is Rockstar for firing 31 employees in a union bust, or Amazon for having employees watch mandatory propaganda videos about how unions are evil. Lumping them together with a business owner who basically said “I hope the good relationship I have my employees lasts and nobody starts feeling like they need additional support when talking with me” is at best misleading.
I think your for the sake of the argument example is exactly what Linus had in mind, where he would consider it his failure if it happened and hopes it won’t. But if it does and employees unionise, so be it.
Don’t forget “ad blockers are piracy” and the one of a kind water cooler he sold.
This is such a silly discussion.
There is one group of people who define the word “piracy” to include “ad blocking”, and another group that define “piracy” so that it doesn’t. Nobody disagrees about the state of reality, both groups just think the other group has an incorrect definition. Which is a pointless discussion.
Both groups can say “Ad blockers are piracy” and “Ad blockers are not piracy”, and they are both correct, for what they mean the word “piracy” to mean. The disagreement is about semantics, not about anything useful.
The “ad block is piracy” crowd can instead say “ad block is a way to access content circumventing parts of the intended business model of the platform, since the platform intended you to view ads”. The “ad block is not piracy” crowd can instead say “ad block is not a way to access content without payment, because the platform didn’t require payment”.
And they are both correct, just misunderstand each other, because they both mean something different when they say “piracy”, which results in one group saying one thing, and the other group understanding it in an unintended way. It’s silly because no one is actually disagreeing with each other about anything, it’s a miscommunication issue.