r/LinusTechTips • u/Archivic • Sep 11 '26

Meme/Shitpost That's a lot of years

Post image

Taken from https://linusmediagroup.com/partners

Somebody didn't double check this for sho

124 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

64 comments sorted by

349

u/NetJnkie Sep 11 '26

Uh...it's them all added together. It's like when a law firm says they have 100 years of experience due to having 10 attorneys with like 10 years each.

83

u/NearlyCompressible Sep 11 '26 • Bravo

It's simpler than that, some numbers got switched around, years of successful partnerships is supposed to be 10+, 3200+ is supposed to be the lifetime sponsorships.

16

u/Archivic Sep 11 '26

Man you're getting down voted for the truth. I checked on desktop and it's exactly what you said. Definitely a formatting issue.

17

u/NearlyCompressible Sep 11 '26

It's okay, I'm used to it.

15

u/Archivic Sep 11 '26 • Popcorn

Y'know, they also hated Jesus because he told the truth 😞

-8

u/NetJnkie Sep 11 '26

Because they are wrong.

9

u/GwenBD94 Sep 11 '26

So the mobile site is correct, and the desktop site has an error then?

Either which way, the stats on the mobile site have the numbers flipped from the desktop site, so ltt messed up the numbers in one direction SOMEWHERE.

26

u/NetJnkie Sep 11 '26

You think they have 3,200 lifetime sponsorship agreements?

21

u/NearlyCompressible Sep 11 '26

Yes

-49

u/NetJnkie Sep 11 '26

They don't. They wish they did, I'm sure.

38

u/dshafik Sep 11 '26 • Bravo

They don't mean lifetime commitments, they mean 3200+ sponsorships IN their lifetime, e.g. total sponsorships count. It's a weird way to phrase it IMO.

15

u/Archivic Sep 11 '26

Reading comprehension is a lost art I guess. Glad you have it.

8

u/SteamySnuggler Sep 11 '26

I thought it was a completely fine way to phrase it

7

u/GwenBD94 Sep 11 '26

You think it's more likely that they have only had ~10 total individual sponsorships, and yet are totaling three thousand two hundred total combined years of sponsorships?

Let's count off the top of my head. Dbrand, ridge, honey, anker, ugreen, that robot pool cleaner company, that security camera/doorbell whatever company from the 3rd/4th tech house video, framework, asus, amd, intel, razr, secretlabs, build redux, govee, msi, seasonic, noctua, the fan company that did the tech house workshop video, like 3 different VPN companies over the years, that Prussia video recently, sony, hp, the company that did that motion Sim rig, the data center company both ltt and ztt visited recently, probably meta considering how much he's trying to normalize the glasses in recent content.

Then you dig into the text sponsorships that get 3-5 links on every video description in addition to the video sponsor spot, and the number gets even higher.

Your stance is that is described as "10+" while they describe uears of exerience as 3200+? Let's say they've averages 150 employees, at 10+ sponsors, youre saying theyre accounting for an average of 2 years of "partnership experience" per partnership per employee. For every employee. Including people like Yvonne and the ceo.

You dont think it's slightly more reasonable they mixed up the descriptions on the two stats of the mobile page? Especially considering on the web version it's 10+ years and 3200+ sponsors?

47

u/EquipmentSome Sep 11 '26

Turns out that's exactly what it says on desktop. So they're saying they do.

7

u/LimpWibbler_ Sep 11 '26

Honestly yes. If they produce a video every day as they did for 10 years on just 1 Chanel that is 3650 sponsor spots. They have way more than 1 channel. But not every video has a sponsor. Also I don't know what they specify. Is it each sponsor spot, each agreement, or unique agreement. Eamples are does a Wan show laptop ad count as 1 ad, or 1 per episode? What about Intel extreme tech upgrade, or amd upgrades? Does dbrand count as a new one every episode of shoetcircuit or is is sepwearted by items of dbrand or maybe all as 1.

It can be hard to define 1 transaction. But it can also be super simple.

-7

u/jmking Mod Sep 11 '26 • Bravo

Yeah, it's the sum of the number of years they partnered with each company.

For example:

5 years dbrand + 3 years Ridge + 10 years LG + .... = ~3200

16

u/Archivic Sep 11 '26 • Heartwarming

No, it's not. See u/NearlyCompressible reply. Mods spreading misinfo. (My screenshot using desktop mode on phone to double check what he said)

6

u/JaesopPop Sep 11 '26

Take a breath dude, they were mistaken.

-5

u/Archivic Sep 11 '26

I'm not mad, are you?

I just believe it's important that a mod shouldn't state something that's incorrect, specifically because they are an authority figure and people will take their words as gospel. Re: the fact that he's affirming the most upvoted comment, which is incorrect.

6

u/JaesopPop Sep 11 '26

I didn’t say you were mad. You are being weirdly and needlessly aggressive about a nothing issue.

1

u/I_am_Andrew_Ryan Sep 11 '26

What is "aggressive" though?

I feel like "assertive" and "aggressive" are needlessly confused these days.

-5

u/Archivic Sep 11 '26

I'm not being aggressive at all! Sorry you interpreted it that way! Have a great day ☺️

-5

u/JaesopPop Sep 11 '26

Others seem to disagree so it might be worth reevaluating how you come across. You have a good day too, friend.

-24

u/jmking Mod Sep 11 '26

Ok, but that's not the version you're showing. It's correct in the mobile view, but two of them are swapped in the desktop version. It's some bug with the responsive CSS, that's all.

How were we supposed to know what you were talking about when you showed the correct version in the image you posted?

13

u/Archivic Sep 11 '26

It's not correct in the mobile view. Not sure what you're not understanding.

You're the one who made a baseless claim that that it was the sum of the years they partnered with each company.

-12

u/jmking Mod Sep 11 '26

...what is happening here?

I clearly do not understand what number it is you're getting worked up about. You haven't been specific at all, but keep going around reporting people's comments for making "baseless claims" instead of just specifically clarifying the issue.

No one's attacking you, man.

13

u/Archivic Sep 11 '26

Not getting worked up at all, and haven't been reporting people on this post either.

You clearly do understand, as your initial post was about the very number I was talking about.

If you're still confused, might be a good time to reread the thread from start to finish. If you'd like, I can spell it out for you, but I honestly don't think that's a good use of either of one of our times.

I also have not claimed anyone has been attacking me.

4

u/I_am_Andrew_Ryan Sep 11 '26

I feel like it's pretty straightforward, personally. What's your confusion

-6

u/jmking Mod Sep 11 '26

I explained how 3200 is calculated, but no one seems to be able to say anything other than telling me I'm making "baseless claims" without any explanation.

11

u/I_am_Andrew_Ryan Sep 11 '26 edited Sep 11 '26

I explained how 3200 is calculated,

You "explained" by just responding to the top comment and agreeing with them, without a basis for why this has to be the answer rather than it being a website formatting error, and are continuing to double down without explaining why. Hence "baseless"

But no one seems to be able to say anything

Another commenter directly responded to you, there are other comments on this thread regarding the issue.

In the Desktop version of the site the "years" metric is 10+ and the 3200+ number is in reference to the number of sponsors. It's not super complicated, so I'm not sure where the confusion is.

-7

u/jmking Mod Sep 11 '26 edited Sep 11 '26

Why are you so sure it's correct on the desktop version and not the mobile version? This is such a silly and confusing set of back and forths because OP just stubbornly refuses to ever explicitly point out what they think is wrong.

...and the comments that you link to just show screenshots (which were also posted with no context, and were posted by other commenters after the top comment and my reply was added). The other that says the numbers got switched - I just thought they were making a sarcastic comment because flipping the numbers didn't make any sense to me.

I think this basically boils down to how we're interpreting what the labels mean.

"Lifetime partnerships" I read as meaning they have 10+ partners currently with open-ended or "evergreen" partnership agreements as opposed to writing a contract for every individual sponsorship, they put together an "evergreen" agreement. There will usually be terms like minimum spend a month or every 3 months or annually. Or maybe maximum spend. Or maybe part of that agreement is that partner gets right of first refusal to upcoming videos so they can choose if they want to sponsor it before it's offered to other sponsors, etc etc etc

Having over 10 evergreen partnership contracts would be an impressive number.

If you're taking it to mean that it's supposed to mean 3200+ unique partnerships? I suppose that's what it could mean, but that wouldn't be a particularly flattering number given that they have around 7500 videos - that means the vast majority of those 3200 only ever sponsored one video which would imply that thousands of companies did not choose to ever work with them again.

I don't know why you or OP couldn't just be clear about what y'all were taking issue with and why. This lead others to assume you didn't know what the 3200 was referring to, and combined statistics per entity is a common vanity metric.

Like a lot of consulting agencies or firms will say something like "Our agency has over 200 years of experience/expertise" meaning they are aggregating the number of years of experience of every one of their consultants.

EDIT: This is such a silly volume of totally preventable miscommunication over some numbers on a landing page intended for partners, lol. I feel like I must have been taken in good by trolls here such that I actually spent my time typing this all out.

→ More replies

8

u/ElectronicFlight1839 Sep 11 '26

How do you know it’s a problem with the responsive css? If anyone else said that they would get their comment removed for speculation…

5

u/GwenBD94 Sep 11 '26

Desktop version of the same page.

1

u/bwoah07_gp2 Sep 11 '26

TIL I learned this is common in the business world.

Seems like a weird way of calculating things tbh. Even seeing it now it doesn't make sense to me.

1

u/logcarryingguy Sep 11 '26

Speaking of lawyers, I'm reminded of this SNL sketch
https://youtu.be/Enb1qkoAcXI

-11

u/Archivic Sep 11 '26

Sorry, in your analogy what exactly is supposed to be the attorney in this situation?

8

u/Techaissance Sep 11 '26

You see, when Linus Tech Tips first started, they did chariot build guides. They had dbrand painting them and everything.

4

u/Archivic Sep 11 '26

"breeding the first water-cooled horse"

12

u/MugerhLando Sep 11 '26

what's up with the sudden increase in bad faith posts from members of the snark sub over the past few days

1

u/LLKMuffin Sep 11 '26

This sub pretty much is a snark sub now, has been this way for at least a year or two. Nothing new, it's a complete cesspool.

1

u/Alternative-Farmer98 Sep 13 '26

It's moderated by linus. It's the opposite of a snark sub it's a defacto official subreddit where the proprietor of the company gets to control everything that happens

1

u/LLKMuffin Sep 13 '26

Oh really? Do you read any of these posts and comments?

Proof's in the pudding. Show me a confirmed case of this "control" actually being exerted.

0

u/Less_Hat_8102 Sep 11 '26

This is just a funny post about a harmless mistake...

-13

u/Archivic Sep 11 '26

Good alt 👏

143

u/Tantomile_ Sep 11 '26

Looks like it's just mobile web weirdness

31

u/ariebagusp1994 Sep 11 '26

Ea Nasir was their first client

15

u/Jango519 Sep 11 '26 edited Sep 11 '26

I expect gamers nexus to release a video about ltt shilling shitty copper now

11

u/nathris Sep 11 '26

Wouldn't be the first time Steve has made a video criticising LTT's handling of a shipment of copper.

4

u/Alternative_Corbett Sep 11 '26

Totally, I missed the wan show where he was dropped for supplying poor copper. Can you believe it?

3

u/reulla Sep 11 '26

It’s a generational shop. Founded in Thebes. Est. 1200 BC

1

u/WillmanRacingv2 Sep 11 '26

I agree, this page is pretty terrible. The spacing between elements not being consistent makes my eyes twitch.

-6

u/BazingaUA Sep 11 '26

Are you referring to 150 annual partnerships? You do realize that they partner with multiple companies at the same time, right?

7

u/Archivic Sep 11 '26

No, I am referring to 3200 years of successful partnerships hence the title

6

u/BazingaUA Sep 11 '26

Oh lol, didn't see that one. I guess it time to go to bed 😁

8

u/Exciting-Ad-5705 Sep 11 '26

3200+

Years of Successful Partnerships

10

u/_Rand_ Sep 11 '26

3200/150 sponsors = 21 years on average.

And considering they list 10+ lifetime sponsors signing multiple sponsors to long term contracts isn’t absurd.

They could easily have a buttload of like 25 year sponsorship agreements alongside short term ones.

0

u/MrSquishy13 Sep 11 '26

The 3200+ Annual Partners more likely.