Gizmodo’s Brian Lam to Steve Jobs, April 19 2010:
I get that it would hurt sales to say this is the next iphone. I have no interest in hurting sales. That does nothing to help Gizmodo or me.
I know you like walt and pogue, and like working with them, but I think Gizmodo has more in common with old Apple than those guys do. So I hope you understand where I’m coming from.
And I want to work closer with Apple, too. I’m not asking for more access — we can do our jobs with or without it — but again, this is the only way we can survive while being cut out of things.
Gizmodo’s Jason Chen to Josh Gamble, April 20 2010:
We’re only concerned with the story, not with how it will hurt or help our relationship with Apple. We don’t play the suck-up game.
A lot of you have been raising concerns about the so-called “dangers” of what we’re all doing here. The beancounters told me to tell you that as of today, testing will no longer be as mandatory or as dangerous. That’s not gonna happen, and here’s the reason:
Science isn’t about why, it’s about why not. You ask: Why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: Why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won’t hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired.
Plus, in the event of your death, I personally guarantee that, thanks to the form you were required to sign this morning, your family will not suffer the indignities of a prolonged and costly legal battle against Aperture Science. Trust me, I am rich, and it is a burden I would not wish on anyone.

I love the idea that we’re going to collect and leverage massive amounts of intelligence to find awesome pictures of happy ducks.
(The original post, if you’re interested.)
Gauntlet (via jeremytinder)
Another watercolor for Game Over at Giant Robot.
I would love to buy a print of this.

The episode is here, if you really want to get the reference.