Don’t forget French.

We’re negotiating with Israel?

And I’ve vowed to never contribute to any project that uses Discord as the doc portal or issue tracker.

Fedora KDE. Rock solid stable and my daily driver.

We can get an idea by looking at stats of number of children and civilians killed.

One country should be definitely worse than the other. Those stats are not the same number between Israel and Russia.

So one is worse than the other.

Nah, Putin is bad but this is worse than Putin.

There won’t be a conflict of interest because everyone is paying. So it’s not in the best interest of the other member countries if a corrupt country is getting a favourable report. Because their member fees are being wasted. So there’s checks and balances inherently built into the system.

So in a hypothetical similar scenario this report requested by LMG is funded by GN, Hardware Unboxed, The Verge and all the other YouTubers including the LMG. So there’s incentive to find faults in LMG within the group funding the report.

Nobody wants to watch a video to participate in a text-based debate

Why not? What’s wrong with using the most presentable, easy to digest content? If I needed to present a graph to support my claim would you rather have me describe that information in text rather than link to a picture or a video that shows that graph?

Also, there’s no need to watch the videos in length either to get what I’m presenting either. They describe and support proof to my 2 claims,

1. Investigator should be independent
2. There should be no conflict of interest in where money is coming from to pay the investigator

I presented 3 videos in a few comments but didn’t want to spam it to every reply. But here they are for your convenience.

1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qwbq9OsHvp4
2. https://youtu.be/CTxt96DwaFk?si=0KHoVdFElOoH0-Za
3. https://youtu.be/C_0XEIFGK5o?si=Yc_hONVBDGcEV_t6

If you were thinking that we were having a debate, why don’t you stick to debate rules and present a rebuttal to my claims?

Yeah, nor does the country crowd source the money for the investigation,

But they do. IMF pools its money from its member countries, hence crowd sourcing. The country being investigated doesn’t pay them.

so I’m starting to see a pattern in your answers.

What pattern is that?

A good weekend for you too.

I’d like to receive criticism to what I presented instead of you resorting to ad-hominem, please.

inviting a third party to do an independent investigation of a company’s alleged wrongdoings. I never heard of such a thing occurring.

Look into how IMF (International Monetary Fund) does audits and reviews. They don’t do reports proactively. They do it only when invited by a country.

Yes I know you asked for a company but I gave you country. I’ll update if a company name comes to my mind that did exactly what I suggested.

Obviously not. That’s what I’ve been trying to say. There should be no conflict of interest. It would be exactly the same as what LMG did.

Always follow the money.

Why do you say I tried to change the conversation topic? All my replies are sticking to

1. Independent investigation
2. Crowd-sourced funds (or in its essence, no conflict of interest)

Admittedly my wording could be improved in my original comment in hindsight. What I meant was that there should be no conflict of interest in where the money was coming from. So Linus paying for it is a major conflict of interest. I have provided several links that look into this subject in this post. I recommend that you read them.

Subscribers donating to Gamer Nexus so that they can do investigative journalism without licking manifacturer boots? That’s crowd-sourcing. Didn’t you watch their recent couple of videos?

Don’t forget that that’s how this whole fiasco started. Do you think Linus would have done this without GN doing that video? And the viewers giving Linus hell because of it?

Firms don’t hire auditors/investigators to give them a rosy report.

That’s exactly why firms do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwbq9OsHvp4

But a third party audit lying to a firm to make them look good does not provide value.

Why not? Making them look good IS providing value according to the client that pays tha audit firm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTxt96DwaFk

If the absolute auditing giant EY doesn’t say anything bad on behalf of their clients, this firm doing it is certainly within realms of possibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_0XEIFGK5o

They hired an outside firm to audit them. That’s industry best practice

That practice has lost its credibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwbq9OsHvp4

It’s how all the serious stuff in the world are handled.

1. Courts of law
2. Open source code
3. Scientific peer review

Although there’s a fair bit of corruption in all if the above platforms, they are consistently better than “I investigated myself and didn’t find any evidence” solutions. Mind you, even EY the financial audit giant was caught red handed presenting what their client wanted to say, instead of trying to find the truth. I recommend that you look into this scandal.

Invite a third party to do it. The funds could have come from crowd-sourcing.

And while the lack of an app is a problem,

You can watch PeerTube videos on NewPipe.

Fennec, a flavour of Firefox that strangely consumes much less battery than the official Firefox app.

You didn’t answer their question though. You gave an example of how power companies are doing, not how texans are doing.

Also, if Texas is having record solar installations, why is power so expensive?