"They" didn't agree to return it. Someone responding to an email did. Linus himself and the other 100+ employees probably had no idea the thing even existed. It is really on the person who responded to the email and the planners of the auction which is probably 2-3 people at most.

Got mad when they were kindly asked to return it.

Where? That did not happen until after the video was published.

Put it on auction, sold it to someone for charity.

Which was an accident, which is being paid for.

This is not the first time even. They have lost, misplaced or destroyed other's properties before.

Do you have any examples? And if that is the case maybe Billet Labs should have done more due-diligence before giving them a supposedly very important prototype. Linus is literally known as the guy who drops things.

And now they want to project LMG and their new concept, Lab, as a beacon of consumer protection journalism. They have to make a choice. Either they are an entertainment company, or a serious tech review magazine that tests technology to provide consumers with accurate info to make purchase decisions. They can't be both, the jank and fooling around of one doesn't work nicely with the journalistic ethics demanded of the other.

Fair enough but I disagree. I think you can have for-fun videos and serious videos mixed together. However they should definitely be more clearly labeled as such, or maybe even keep them on different channels completely.