While rapper Curtis Jackson III ("50 Cent") would like the world to believe he's really not that rich, he can't hide the fact that it's expensive to be him.

50 Cent claims his monthly expenses total $108,000 or about $1.3 million a year. That includes both personal and household expenses, child support and car payments, according to documents filed in Connecticut bankruptcy court which Business Insider has acquired. Those fees also include thousands of dollars in monthly "personal grooming," "wardrobe" and "gardening" expenses. 

A total of $72,000 a month goes to payments and upkeep for 50 Cent's three homes in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Georgia.

Jackson says the majority of that goes to the Connecticut home — the one with 21 bedrooms, 24 bathrooms, and a nightclub. Jackson pays $17,400 for his mortgage every month. A utility bill totaling $14,200 a month powers all those rooms, plus a movie theater and a basketball court. He keeps the landscaping lush with $5,000 a month in gardening fees. And the swimming pool is probably ready to use 24 hours a day at just the perfect temperature for a $1,500 monthly maintenance fee.

See his household expenses breakdown here:

The 40-year-old's other monthly expenses include child support for two children totaling $12,100 and $2,500 in support for the rapper's grandparents.

His cars — which are worth about $500,000 — cost the rapper $9,200 a month, which includes leases ($5,800), insurance ($1,400), and other expenses. That covers seven cars: a 1966 Chevrolet Coupe, 2015 Chevrolet Suburban, 2010 Rolls Royce Phantom Drophead, 2005 Chevrolet Suburban, 2008 Dodge Sprinter, 2003 Chevrolet Suburban, and a 2012 Suzuki Kizashi Sport.

As far as the rapper's own personal upkeep, he says he spends $1,000 a month on personal grooming and $3,ooo on wardrobe.

On top of that, he spends $3,000 a month on meals and entertainment, as well as $2,000 a month on travel.

See the breakdown of his personal expenses here:

SEE ALSO: Here's how 50 Cent says his entire ~$25 million fortune vanished

MORE: 6 ways 50 Cent says he tricked the world into believing he was rich

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 50 Cent testifies his lifestyle is an illusion

On August 6, Jon Stewart is stepping down from "The Daily Show" after hosting the Emmy-winning program for 16 years. Here are a few things most people don't know about the late night juggernaut. 

Produced by Lamar Salter. Special thanks to Arielle Berger. 

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

One of the most significant US intelligence operations in modern history took place in the heart of Soviet Moscow, during one of the most dangerous stretches of the Cold War.

From 1979 to 1985, a span that includes President Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" speech, the 1983 US-Soviet war scare, the deaths of three Soviet General Secretaries, the shooting-down of KAL 007, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA was receiving high-value intelligence from a source deeply embedded in an important Soviet military laboratory.

Over a period of several years and 21 meetings with CIA case officers in Moscow, Adolf Tolkachev, an engineer overseeing a radar development lab at a Soviet state-run defense institute, passed the US information and schematics the revealed the next generation of Soviet radar systems.

Tolkachev struggled to convince the CIA he was trustwory: He spent two years attempting to contact US intelligence officers and diplomats, semi-randomly approaching cars with diplomatic license plates with a US embassy prefix.

When the CIA finally decided to trust him, Tolkachev transformed the US's understanding of Soviet radar capabilities, something that informed the next decade of US military and strategic development.

Prior to his cooperation with the CIA, US intelligence didn't know that Soviet fighters had "look-down, shoot-down" radars that could detect targets flying beneath the aircraft. Thanks to Tolkachev, the US could engineer its fighter aircraft — and its nuclear-capable cruise missiles — to take advantage of the latest improvements in Soviet detection and to exploit gaps in the enemy's radar systems.

The Soviets had no idea that the US was so aware of the state of their technology. Tolkachev helped tip the US-Soviet military balance in Washington's favor. He's also part of the reason why, since the end of the Cold War, a Soviet-built plane has never shot down a US fighter aircraft in combat.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author David E. Hoffman's newly published book "The Billion Dollar Spy" is the definitive account of the Tolkachev operation. It's an extraordinary glimpse into how espionage works in reality, evoking the complex relationship between case officers and their sources, as well as the extraordinary methods that CIA agents use to exchange information right under the enemy's nose.

It's also about how espionage can go wrong: In 1985, a disgruntled ex-CIA trainee named Edward Lee Howard defected to the Soviet Union after the agency fired him over a series of failed polygraph tests. Howard was supposed to serve as Tolkachev's case officer. Instead, he handed him to the KGB.

Business Insider recently spoke with Hoffman, who won the 2010 Pulitzer Prize in general nonfiction for The Dead Hand, an acclaimed history of the final decade of the Cold War arms race.

Hoffman talked about some of the lessons of the Tolkachev case. Successful espionage, he said, is like a "moonshot," an enormous effort that only works when cascades of unpredictable variables are meticulously kept in check.

And as Hoffman notes, his book is a unique glimpse into how such an incredibly complex undertaking unfolds on a day to day basis.

"You can read a lot of literature about espionage but rarely do you get to coast along on the granular details of a real operation," Hoffman says, in reference to the over 900 CIA cables relating to the Tolkachev case that he was able to access. "That’s what I had."

The archive, along with the scores of interviews Hoffman conducted in researching the book, yielded unexpected insights into the realities of spycraft: "I was really surprised by both the sort of quest for perfectionism" among the agents who handled the Tolkachev case, says Hoffman, "but also by the enormous number of things that can and did go wrong."

The interview has been edited for clarity and length.

BI: Your book the story of a CIA triumph: They run this source in the heart of Moscow for 5 or 6 years and get this bonanza of intelligence. But it’s also a story of organizational failure — about how this asset was eventually betrayed from within the CIA’s own ranks.

Is there a message in these two interrelated stories about the nature of intelligence collection and the challenges that US intelligence agencies face?

David E. Hoffman: On the first point, I think the big message, which is still very valid today, is the absolutely irreplaceable value of human source intelligence.

We live in an era when people are romanced by technology, the CIA included. Between what you scoop up from people’s emails and what satellites can see and signals intelligence, there always seems to be a new technological way to get various kinds of intelligence.

But this book reminded me that there is one category of espionage that is irreplaceable, and that is looking a guy in the eye and finding out what the hell is going on that isn’t in the technology — that can't be captured by satellites. Satellites cannot see into the minds of people. They can’t even see into a file cabinet.

Even in the cyber age, it seems to me that you still have to get that particular human source, that spy that will do what nobody else will do: to let you sort of bridge the air gap, plug in the USB thumb drive if that’s necessary, to tell you something that nobody has written down ...

Tolkachev was that kind of human source, an absolutely sterling example of someone who could bring stuff that you couldn’t get any other way.

The second point is, you called it institutional dysfunction but I think there’s a larger factor here which is counterintelligence ...

[Intelligence] cannot simply be a matter of collection. You also have to have defenses against being penetrated by the other guys.

We live in a world where the forces of offense and defense are in perpetual motion. Counterintelligence is part of that. And counterintelligence is what really failed here.

I think it was also institutional dysfunction in the way they treated Howard. That wasn’t a counterintelligence problem so much it was a sort of incompetence: They fired a guy, they said get lost, and he was vengeful.

But I also think that — maybe not particularly in this case but just generally — the CIA did not value counterintelligence highly enough for a long time. Really the events that followed Tolkachev — [Aldrich] Ames [see here], [Robert] Hanssen [see here], that whole period of the 1985-86 losses [see here] — were a failure of counterintelligence ...

There were really some big vulnerabilities there. In the end Tolkachev was exposed and betrayed by a disgruntled, vengeful fired trainee. But there were other losses soon to follow that were caused by essentially not having strong enough counterintelligence in place.

BI: It's interesting how much the success of the operation had to do with these agents understanding Tolkachev's state of mind based on these very short meetings that would be spaced months and months apart.

And from that they would have to build out some kind of sense of who this guy was. From the looks of it they did so fairly successfully for awhile.

DEH: That’s my toughest question. Espionage at its real core is psychology. You're a case officer, you’re running an agent — what is in the soul of that man? What’s in his heart, what motivates him?

These are all questions that you have to try to answer for headquarters but also for yourself, in trying to play on his desires and understand them. Sometimes it can be a real test of will as you saw in this particular narrative. This psychological business can be very difficult ...

A couple of times early in the operation Tolkachev revealed his deep antipathy towards the Soviet system. He said I’m a dissident at heart, he describes how fed up he is with the way things were in the Soviet Union.

He gives only a very very skimpy factual account of his wife’s parents travails, but I was able to research them in Moscow and discovered that his wife grew up without her parents. Her mother was executed and her father was imprisoned for many years during Stalin’s purges. And Tolkachev was bitter about that.

He also came of age in the time when [Nobel-prize winning author Alexander Solzhenitsyn] and [Nobel Peace Prize-winning physicist and activist Andrei Sakharov] were also sort of coming of age as dissidents.

All of that rumbled around behind these impassive eyes. It's not as if he handed over a book saying, I’m a dissident and here’s my complaint. Instead he handed over secret plans and said, I’m a dissident and I want to destroy the Soviet Union.

This psychological war and test of nerves of constantly trying to read a guy is really the most unpredictable and most difficult part of espionage. In this case, I’m not sure it was always successful.

The case officers did grasp that Tolkachev was determined. He expressed this sort of incredible determination, banging on the car doors and windows for 2 years to get noticed.

And when he’s working for the CIA he gives them his own espionage plan that takes years and multiple stages that he had mapped out. He’s a very, very determined guy. But what’s driving that isn’t always clear to the case officers.

BI: How does Tolkachev’s story fit in to the larger story of the end of the Cold War arms race?

I don’t think you could make the extravagant claim that he ended the Cold War or that he ended the arms race. But that's not to minimize what Tolkachev did do. One of the things I discovered was how uncertain we were about Soviet air defenses in that period at the end of the Cold War ...

There was always a funny thing going on with the Soviet Union. They had a lot of resources and were a very large country and the state and the military industrial complex was a big part of it. They always built a lot of hardware.

In fact they had a huge number of air-defense fighters and bases positioned all around their borders. [Air defense] wasn’t such a big deal for us but for them, the enemy was at their doorstop, right in Europe. They also had the world's longest land borders. They had a lot to defend.

The US saw all the deployments but there was also evidence that Soviet training was poor, that the personnel who manned all these things were not up to it, [and] that there was a goofy system where pilots were told exactly what to do by ground controllers and had very little autonomy.

The intelligence about whether the Soviets had look-down shoot-down radar was very uncertain. Some people said no, they don’t have it, some said yeah. And here’s were Tolkachev stepped into the breach.

Within a few years of his work, we knew exactly what they had and what they were working on. Tolkachev was also bringing us not only what ws happening now but what would be happening 10 years from now. A

nd if you think about it in real time, if you were in the Air Force and thinking about how you were going to deal with Soviet air defenses, getting a glimpse of their research and development 10 years ahead was invaluable ...

There was also a fine line between [air defenses] and the nuclear issue. There were two aspects to strategic nuclear weapons that depended on air defenses and the kind of stuff Tolkachev brought us.

One was obviously bombers. In the early days of the Cold War [the US had] a high altitude strategy. B-52s would fly at a very high altitude and bomb from 50,000 or so feet.

Then we made a switch and we decided that the Soviets' real vulnerability was at low altitudes. And it’s true. They did not have good radars at low altitude ...

The strategic cruise missile scared the living daylights out of the Kremlin, because they knew they could fly right under their radars.

BI: Much of this book consists of reconstructions of scenes that were top-secret for many years but that you put together through researching the cable traffic and conducting interviews.

What do you see as the biggest challenge of writing about these dark spaces in American national security?

There are all kinds of missing jigsaw pieces in these narratives that we think we know, say, about terrorism, or about WMD. One of the things you find out if you're one of those people who go with a pick and shovel at history and try to unearth rocks and tell stories is that pieces are missing — tiny little pieces, and also important things.

In this story there were a bunch of gaps that I had to report. I had enough to tell the story, but you never feel at the end that you know the whole story …

I still think there are big parts of what Tolkachev meant that are still in use and that are legitimately still classified. Even though this case is three decades old, it’s quite likely that some of that stuff is still considered pretty valuable intelligence.

Check out the book >

SEE ALSO: The CIA built a secret and groundbreaking mobile text-messaging system in the late 1970s

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 11 facts that show how different Russia is from the rest of the world

Has the final school bell tolled for "Community"? If you were to ask its star, Joel McHale, then yes.

The actor said that the show, which is produced by Sony Pictures Television, won't be returning to Yahoo for a seventh season.

"No. They wanted to," McHale told MetroWeekly when asked if the show would get another season. "But all of our contracts were up after six years. All the actors on the show, almost without exception — their stock has risen significantly and it’s out of the pay rate that is affordable to make the show. So, you’re not going to be able to get Alison Brie or Gillian Jacobs at a normal television salary anymore. There is just not enough money to be able to pay for the show."

That's McHale's take, though Yahoo isn't ready to officially throw in the towel yet.

"We've seen tremendous value in our partnership with Sony and are continuing to discuss future opportunities for 'Community,'" a Yahoo representative told Business Insider.

"Community," which follows the off-the-wall travails of the members of a community college study group, aired for five low-rated seasons on NBC. When the network decided to finally call it quits, Yahoo picked up the comedy for a fifth season amid a fan campaign to keep the show going.

"Yahoo paid tons of money for it, because they knew that people were watching it," McHale, who also hosts E!'s pop culture show, "The Soup," told the magazine.

He also said, "Our budget was decreased every year we were at NBC and Yahoo significantly increased it and gave us basically no notes, according to [show creator Dan Harmon]."

SEE ALSO: Ryan Seacrest's new show 'Knock Knock Live' canceled after just 2 episodes

MORE: Here's what Chelsea Handler is up to over at Netflix

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's the new 'Batman v Superman' trailer that just got a standing ovation at Comic-Con

The hype around Caitlyn Jenner may be calming down — at least when it comes to her TV show.

The audience for Jenner's new E! reality series, "I am Cait," dropped immensely in its second week. According to Nielsen's live plus same day numbers, only 1.29 million viewers tuned into the second episode on Sunday.

That represents a whopping 52% drop in viewership compared to the premiere episode's audience of 2.7 million on July 26.

It's expected that new shows will lose a certain amount of audience after the premiere week, but falls in the double digit percentages can be worrisome. With all the hype surrounding Caitlyn Jenner's transition into a woman, it was also to be expected that the premiere ratings would be high. It will be interesting to see where "I Am Cait's" ratings will settle.

E! knew that the show would open big and charged between $90,000 and $200,000 for 30 seconds of commercial air time during the premiere, Business Insider learned.

Previously, 4.2 million people tuned into a "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" Bruce Jenner special in May.

SEE ALSO: 'I am Cait' premieres to big ratings for E!

MORE: These are the sneakers Kanye West plugged during his cameo on Caitlyn Jenner's reality show

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This is how rapper 50 Cent made millions and then lost it

Popcorn Time, the Netflix-like website for pirated movie content, may be vulnerable to a hack attack, TorrentFreak reports. This is according to a Greek security researcher named Antonios Chariton who published a blog post this past weekend.

Using a series of techniques, Chariton wrote that he demonstrated how "someone can get complete control of a computer assuming they have a Man In The Middle position in the network."

A 'man-in-the-middle' attack is when a hacker intercepts a data request between two machines. It is then able to swap the intended data for something malicious. So, if an attacker is able to execute one of these intercepting attacks, he or she can wreak havoc on the computer running Popcorn Time.

The attack is based on the clever way Popcorn Time avoids being banned by internet service providers (ISPs). The application is able to connect directly to the CloudFlare network. This, put in the simplest of terms, means that if an ISP wants to block the Popcorn Time program it would have to ban the entire CloudFlare website and not just the pirated content program. This is a smart way to avoid widespread ISP blocks.

The problem, however, is that the connection to CloudFlare is made over the HTTP protocol, and it's been shown that HTTP is just not secure.

Chariton didn't mince his words: "HTTP is insecure. There's nothing you can do to change this. Please, use HTTPS everywhere, especially in applications that don't run inside a web browser."

Because of HTTP's vulnerability, Chariton wrote that he was able to inject malicious code into a victim computer using Popcorn Time.

Popcorn Time penned a blog post responding to these claims. It assured users that they “don’t need to worry.” For one, man-in-the-middle attacks are “very unlikely,” and require a hacker gaining access into a victim’s personal network.

The site does admit that there are some security issues to be dealt with. It says it will release a fix to these shortly, but adds that what Chariton brought to light isn't as dire as it may seem.

SEE ALSO: The malware that's been holding gamers' files hostage for $500 is now even more destructive

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: All the incredibly useful things you didn't know your iPhone headphones could do

It seemed like a happy marriage in January this year when rapper Jay Z bought Aspiro, the parent company of the streaming platforms WiMP and Tidal. All the products were rolled into one premium music-streaming service, called Tidal.

The new company, which relaunched on March 30, said it would offer customers higher-quality listening than the other streaming services on the market while helping subscribers discover music through curated playlists.

The goal for Jay Z: challenge far more established streaming giants such as Spotify and, hopefully, win.

A billion-dollar roster of artists joined the endeavor, including Coldplay, Deadmau5, Daft Punk, Alicia Keys, Calvin Harris, Jack White, Madonna, Usher, Arcade Fire, and Rihanna. Also on board was Jay Z's wife, Beyoncé, among many other artists who assumed co-ownerships of Tidal.

Jay Z touted Tidal as the artists' platform, reportedly offering millions of dollars and equity stakes in the company to some choice talent.

Artists initially praised Tidal for presenting their music in such a high-quality format. And musicians would be paid "double the royalties of other streaming services," according to former Tidal CEO Andy Chen.

Chen told the International Business Times in November, "It's a win-win for everyone."

Maybe not. Tidal had a rough launch less than six months ago, and things have been turbulent ever since.

Now the company looks like a time bomb.

What went wrong

For starters, Tidal's biggest selling point — high-fidelity audio — requires a $20-per-month subscription.

Tidal's cheaper $10-per-month service doesn't offer much incentive to switch from a different option, because it is nearly identical to its similarly priced competitors.

"They probably could've did something more exciting," rapper 50 Cent said in a radio interview in May. "Why would you actually buy Tidal to get something that would be everywhere else?"

Interest in the app has been crashing, too. According to App Annie, it was not among the 500 most downloaded apps in the US earlier this year and as of Tuesday was the 107th most downloaded app in the music category.

Another problem, often overlooked, is that Tidal's high-fidelity service streams songs at 1,411 kilobits per second. That is roughly 40 megabytes of data for one 3-1/2-minute song. Some subscribers could end up maxing out their data plans if they're not careful.

The revolving door

Tidal's executive suite has been unstable. Chen exited as CEO in April amid reports of further shake-ups within the ranks.

Peter Tonstad stepped in as interim CEO but left less than three months later.

"It was a wasted opportunity," streaming expert Russ Crupnick told The Wrap, referring to Tidal's rough start. "I think they had a window in which people were listening, but unfortunately that opportunity was squandered."

Last month Tidal lost yet another key executive in US sales and marketing manager David Solomon, who was hired to pump up Tidal's US presence.

Most recently, the company's senior vice president of label and artist relations, Zena Burns, quit two months into her tenure. Jeff Geisler, the chief marketing officer for Roc Nation — another of Jay Z's companies — left last month, though it's not clear whether he worked directly with Tidal.

What could happen if Jay Z leaves

For what it's worth, Jay Z and his associates have offered no indication that they plan to give up. Last Friday, Tidal neither confirmed nor denied reports Jay Z was thinking of jumping ship, responding on Twitter with only a loosely quoted Mark Twain reference:

"Lies can spread around the world while the truth is putting on its slippers."

Madonna, a co-owner of Tidal, told the Associated Press last week, "It's just the beginning, so we're working out a lot of kinks."

Jay Z may not leave right now, but mounting legal troubles are adding to the pressure. Tidal is entangled in a $50 million lawsuit filed by Cash Money Records over a Lil Wayne mixtape that was streamed exclusively in July. Cash Money says Tidal's use of Lil Wayne's music was "a desperate and illegal attempt to save their struggling streaming service."

With Apple Music's relative success and Spotify still enjoying a huge following, the streaming space could prove to be a tough code for Tidal to crack. And Jay Z's rumored departure could strip away some huge name recognition from the app and possibly cast its future to the wind.

Business Insider has reached out to Tidal for comment.

SEE ALSO: Jay Z's sports management company is being sued for $20 million

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: People doing backflips on a two-inch wide strap is a real sport called slacklining

Forbes' World's Highest-Paid Actors list is out and Robert Downey Jr. is once again at the top of the heap.

Downey Jr.'s $80 million 2015 earning comes from being the leader of the Marvel Studios universe as superhero Iron Man. This year he returned as part of The Avengers in "Avengers: Age of Ultron," which has grossed $1.4 billion worldwide since its release in May. The third-highest grossing movie of 2015.

This is the third consecutive year Downey Jr. has topped the Forbes list.

Coming in second on the list is Jackie Chan at $50 million. The international star is beloved in his homeland of China, and this year he starred in the country's biggest movie of the year, "Dragon Blade," opposite John Cusack and Adrien Brody (the film comes to the US in September). 

Rounding out the top five are Vin Diesel ($47 million), Bradley Cooper ($41.5 million), and Adam Sandler ($41 million), though the latter is coming off another box office disappointment with "Pixels."

Other notables on the list include Tom Cruise ($40 million), Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson ($31.5 million), Johnny Depp ($30 million), Leonardo DiCaprio ($29 million), Will Smith ($26 million), and newcomers Seth Rogen ($17 million) and Jonah Hill ($16 million).

Forbes determines their list between June 1, 2014 and June 1, 2015 through earnings before subtracting management fees and taxes. Figures are based on data from Nielsen, Box Office Mojo, and IMDb as well a interviews with agents, managers, lawyers, and the actors.

A separate list of highest-paid actresses will be released by Forbes later this year.

SEE ALSO: How Robert Downey Jr. got a shirt of Bruce Lee DJing into "Avengers: Age of Ultron"

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Have you heard of 'the Tinder for elites'?

Warning: spoilers ahead if you aren’t caught up on the season

The thing about the police procedural is you have to have a grasp on a lot of names and events to really follow the plot. Season 2 of “True Detective” has both in mass quantities.

So leading up to the season finale on Sunday, here are some major points from the show you should be familiar with.

1. Here’s the deal about those blue diamonds.

Blue diamonds were found in murdered city manager Ben Caspere's safe deposit box in episode 3. In episode 6, Woodrugh looks into the diamonds and learns they were robbed from a jewelry store during the 1992 LA riots, with the mom and pop owners murdered. As the store was looted soon after the robbery, the diamonds are untraceable.

Woodrugh has also found that Lt. Kevin Burris...

and Detective Teague Dixon...

were working under Vinci Police Chief Holloway...

at the time of the riots and the jewelry store was in their district. Caspere also worked in the same department. That leads Woodrugh (Taylor Kitsch), Velcoro (Colin Farrell), and Bezzeridies (Rachel McAdams) to conclude that the officers were all working together. They stole the diamonds and Caspere helped move them.

The money they got for them went to Vinci mayor Austin Chessani...

which then led to them being the movers and shakers of one of the most corrupt cities in LA county.

2. Why this picture is so important.

These are the kids that were orphaned due to their parents being killed in the diamond heist by the rogue cops during the ’92 riots. Velcoro and Bezzeridies believe they met one of them. They think Erica, who worked in Caspere's office, may in fact really be Laura, one of the orphaned kids. They are currently trying to track her down.

3. Why Ben Caspere really died.

Caspere holding onto those diamonds turned out to likely be what got him killed. Dixon was checking up on where they could be long before Woodrugh started. Caspere's house was probably tossed by Burris or Dixon looking for them. Then there’s the Hungarian prostitute, Tasha, who was taking photos of Caspere at the high class sex parties, like the one Bezzeridies infiltrated in episode 6, in the hopes to blackmail him. She was tortured and killed in a cabin in the woods upstate.

The same was likely done to Caspere by the hands of Burris or Dixon when he didn’t give up the diamonds. The final piece of evidence for a 23-year-old double murder. Though Bezzeridies is curious why they would kill Caspere when that’s what launched the investigation in the first place. Hopefully that will be answered in the finale.

4. What we now know about that insane shootout.

We were led to believe that the shootout that occurred at the end of episode 4, in which a pimp named Ledo Amarilla...

was suspected of being Caspere’s murderer and was killed in the shootout, was the end to the Caspere case. Though months later Woodrugh, Bezzeridies, and Velcoro were pretty certain they didn’t really close the case, it was confirmed in episode 7. Woodrugh learned that the shootout was a set up, as Burris had arrested Amarilla in 2006 and released him soon after interrogation with no notes kept about any of it. Amarilla and Dixon, who was also killed in the firefight, cuts down the number of people who really know the motive of the Caspere murder.

5. State Attorney Katherine Davis is dead.

One of the only people who actually was doing something to clean up the city was State Attorney Katherine Davis. But as it often goes with these shows, the ones out for justice get killed at some point, and that’s what happened in episode 7.

Davis was the one who made a special task force of Woodrugh, Bezzeridies, and Velcoro to investigate the Caspere murder again following the shootout in the hopes of uncovering collusion between Mayor Chessani and California Attorney General Richard Geldof...

who is now running for governor. Now with Davis out of the picture — killed, Velcoro believes, with one of his guns — he and Bezzeridies (due to stabbing of the security guard at the sex party at the end of episode 6) are now considered fugitives. Leaving Woodrugh the only one able to roam free to investigate things.

6. Woodrugh is dead.

But that stopped at the end of episode 7 by the gun of Burris. At first Holloway tried to blackmail Woodrugh with pictures of him with another man. But after Woodrugh was able to shoot his way out of that situation, the backup plan seemed to be Burris killing Woodrugh. (Guess we’ll never get the story behind those scars on his body.) With Woodrugh now dead, Bezzeridies and Velcoro have to work in the shadows as the law is after them.

7. Velcoro and Bezzeridies are finally a thing.

While in a cabin upstate waiting for Woodrugh, Bezzeridies and Velcoro finally give into what we had assumed all season was going to happen and have sex. We’ll see in the finale if that plays into how the season concludes.

8. The person behind the crow mask.

In episode 2, Velcoro investigates Caspere’s secret house that he brought prostitutes to. While checking it out a person wearing all black and a crow mask shoots him with what we find out in the next episode were rubber buckshots. The same person with the mask was driving around Caspere in the first episode. Seeing it’s likely Burris or Dixon who killed Caspere, it’s also likely one of them is the man behind the mask. Looking at the size of the person that shot Velcoro, it looks more like Burris’ build. Through the season we got more hints, like that the cop that gave Irina the prostitute Caspere’s belongings was described as “thin, white” and “a cop.” Sounds like Burris more than Dixon. Also, it was Burris who had a lot of questions for Velcoro when he left Vinci PD following the shootout. And with Dixon now dead all fingers point to Burris.

9. Frank Semyon is preparing to hijack a big money drop.

The whole season Frank Semyon (Vince Vaughn) has been trying to figure out who killed Caspere, his partner in the creation of a high-speed rail line through California. With Caspere dead, so was Semyon’s dream to go legit. So he had to turn back to his casino in Vinci and running clubs where he takes a percentage of drugs being sold and prostitution.

But in episode 7, while interrogating his underling Blake, who has turned on him...

Semyon finds out that he was always the patsy.

Osip Agranov, a Russian gangster who was supposed to go in with Semyon on the rail line...

double crossed him and has teamed with Chessani’s son, Tony, to take over the rail line...

Tony will also take over his father’s position as mayor, giving Agranov power of Vinci. Agranov has also taken ownership of the casino and clubs, pushing Semyon out of everything. Blake also revealed to Semyon that there is to be a drop of $12 million from Agranov to Tony. Semyon kills Blake, cleans out the money in the safes at his properties and lights the buildings on fire. You better believe Semyon plans to be at that money drop.

SEE ALSO: Bill Simmons is going to HBO

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Gaming's 'True Detective' is here, and you can play it on your phone right now

Princeton University is one of the smartest and most historic colleges in the country. 

Princeton has produced numerous politicians — many of whom graduated from Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. The school has also produced its fair share of highly successful entrepreneurs, journalists, actors, and CEOs. 

From First Lady Michelle Obama to Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman, here are the most successful Princeton alumni of all time.

SEE ALSO: The 31 most successful Harvard Business School graduates of all time

FOLLOW US: Business Insider is on Facebook!

Michelle Obama, First Lady of the US, was the first in her family to attend college. She struggled to adjust to college life as a freshman, but quickly caught on and graduated in 1985 after writing her senior thesis on "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community."

Source: NJ.com

Malcolm Forbes, chairman and editor in chief of Forbes magazine, inherited control of the publication in 1957 after his father, its founder, passed away. While at Princeton, Forbes, class of 1941, majored in political science and was awarded the Class of 1901 Medal "as the member of the class who contributed the most to Princeton as an undergraduate."

Sources: The New York Times, Motorcycle Museum

Author F. Scott Fitzgerald has sent many protagonists to Princeton, which he called the "pleasantest country club in America." Fitzgerald himself dropped out of Princeton in 1917 to join the Army, but while in school he dedicated himself to various creative writing and journalistic pursuits rather than his coursework.

Sources: Slate, Biography.com

"The Gift" is the director's debut feature, but it's so assuredly handled and well put-together that you'd never know it. 

Actor Joel Edgerton ("Warrior," "Exodus," "The Great Gatsby") wrote, directed and stars in the film, which is clearly reminiscent of similar thrillers like "Fear," "Fatal Attraction" and even Michael Haneke's fantastic "Caché," but gleefully twisted enough to distance itself from the pack. 

"The Gift" opens with Robyn (Rebecca Hall) & Simon (Jason Bateman) moving into their new California home, having left Chicago and some bad memories behind. They run into Gordo (Edgerton), an ex-classmate from Simon's childhood, and politely make small talk and feign interest in catching up with no intention of actually doing so. 

Gordo, however, has every intention of making it happen and continually shows up at their home unannounced, always when Robyn is home alone. As Simon grows more and more irritated, Robyn does some digging and begins to suspect that Simon is hiding something sinister from he and Gordo's past. 

The real horror of "The Gift" has nothing to do with the jump scares, although they are incredibly efficient and well-paced for a debut feature. The real terror runs deeper than the surface level 'imposing stalker' angle — what's more unsettling than discovering deep, dark secrets buried in your spouse's past? The quiet, human moments in which the characters grapple with their realities are far more disturbing than any of the loud crashes and bangs. 

The drama here plays out like a great stage play, where the internal conflict and tension between the characters is the real driving force. Careful attention is paid to backstory and detail, and Edgerton's script does a masterful job of revealing character intricacies at the opportune time for maximum dramatic effect. The film's third act is particularly memorable and a satisfying conclusion to all the build-up. 

Nothing is spoon-fed here, and Edgerton is great at "showing" the audience what's happening visually rather than "telling" with clunky exposition. The film aggressively tries to keep the audience guessing — Edgerton often presents something that changes the stakes in one sequence only to expand upon and turn it on its head in the next. None of this misdirection feels manipulative or cheap and only further serves the constantly bubbling sense of tension and unease. 

"The Gift" is a tight, neatly wrapped throwback that is familiar enough to inspire comparison yet brazen enough to merit its own conversation. 

Watch the trailer below.

"The Gift" opens in theaters nationwide this Friday.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The awesome new trailer for 'Spectre' finally gives us our first good look at the next Bond villain

The cancellation of "19 Kids and Counting" amid molestation charges against Josh Duggar cost TLC's parent company, Discovery Communications, $19 million.

The huge figure was confirmed by the cable networks company's chief financial officer Andy Warren during an earnings conference call on Wednesday, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Warren said the company experienced "higher restructuring and other charges this year of $19 million primarily due to content impairment charges from cancelling TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting."

Last year, Discovery suffered $20 million in losses surrounding the cancellations of TLC's "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" and Discovery Channel's "Sons of Guns."

TLC officially canceled "19 Kids and Counting" in mid-July. The decision has been pending since May, when the cable network pulled the series from airing.

That's when reports began to surface that oldest brother Josh Duggar, now 27, had molested five children, including four of his sisters, about 12 years ago. The parents decided to keep the incidents private instead of alerting authorities when they first learned of the abuse.

SEE ALSO: '19 Kids and Counting' canceled by TLC amid child-molestation controversy

MORE: Another Mike Huckabee associate was just hit with a molestation scandal

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I've never watched anime before — but this new 'Dragonball Z' movie looks like a blast

Many highly successful people started their ascent to fame and fortune early.

Bill Gates, for example, spent his teenage years learning to code. Meanwhile, a young Warren Buffett worked several jobs and had accumulated today's equivalent of $53,000 by age 16.

Find out what they and others at the top were doing as teenagers.

Bill Gates was falling in love with computers.

The Microsoft founder spent his early teens attending the prestigious Lakeside prep school in Seattle. While there, Gates discovered his love of computers by writing a computer code for a version of tic-tac-toe.

Gates and fellow student Paul Allen, his Microsoft cofounder, went into business together for the first time in high school. When Gates was 15, the duo created Traf-O-Data, a tool for tracking traffic flow in the area.

After high school, Gates attended Harvard University but dropped out in 1975 to work full-time on Microsoft, which ultimately made him the world's richest self-made billionaire.

Warren Buffett had multiple revenue streams.

The billionaire CEO of Berkshire Hathaway started building his wealth early. By the time he was 16, he had earned today's equivalent of $53,000, according to the biography "The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life" by Alice Schroeder.

One of Buffett's first jobs was delivering The Washington Post. As a teen, he also had several personal business ventures, including selling golf balls, buffing cars, selling stamps, and setting up pinball machines in barbershops. 

Oprah Winfrey worked for a local radio station.

Winfrey bounced between family members before moving in with her dad in Nashville, Tennessee, at age 14. The move sparked a drastic change in her life.

Winfrey studied her way to honor-roll status at East Nashville High School and became the most popular girl in her class. More importantly, she established a love for media and joined the school's speech team.

She got her first job when she was 16 as a broadcaster for WVOL, a Nashville radio station. As a 19-year-old sophomore at Tennessee State University, Winfrey got a call from a local television station and left school to start her media career. The gamble paid off. 

Amazon disappointed fannibals around the world when it decided not to save NBC's "Hannibal."

Amazon Studios' executives explained why they decided not to take on the cancelled series during the Television Critics Association press tour in Beverly Hills, California.

Amazon decided not to pick up the drama despite a large fan campaign to save the show. It was also considered the front runner to save "Hannibal," since it already held exclusive streaming rights to the series.

Amazon Studios head, Roy Price, pointed out that pickups of existing shows is usually handled by the company's licensing department. But, clearly Price's department had some say.

"We occasionally look at shows that could be revived," he said, according to a transcript acquired by Business Insider. "Often it's complicated from a business point of view."

Price first explained that the company believes it's important that its original series "say Amazon Studios," which is hard when a show comes from another content provider.

"The first season of a new show could become the fantastic new signature show for the network, whereas a show that you could pick up ... it's kind of a marginally solid show," he said. "Almost never, truly is it a fantastic show that is going to be a signature show, and so it's often hard to decide, 'Yeah, let's not try a new show. Let’s bet on getting a solid outcome.' Like, we are not really in the solid outcome business."

Despite that, Amazon execs seemed to really consider taking on "Hannibal." They at least began speaking about production schedules, which is where the talks seemed to have reached an end. Apparently, "Hannibal" creator Bryan Fuller's schedule was a sticking point.

"[Fuller] had another Starz show that was going, and it was going to be a year until, hopefully, he was ready to even start production [on 'Hannibal'] again. And that was a factor," said Morgan Wandell, Amazon Studios' head of drama.

 "Hannibal," which is wrapping its run after the current third season, is currently airing on Saturdays on NBC.

During the most recent San Diego Comic-Con, Fuller teased that "Hannibal" could continue as a feature film.

SEE ALSO: NBC is moving low-rated shows 'Hannibal' and 'Aquarius' to Saturdays

MORE: Amazon and Netflix won't be saving 'Hannibal' from cancellation

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: WHERE ARE THEY NOW? The original 1993 'Jurassic Park' cast today

Paul Harborne, a superfan of the film "Ghostbusters," has made one of the film's famous props a reality. The West Midlands, England man purchased a used 1960 Cadillac Miller-Meteor five years ago and has repaired the vehicle himself. The refurbishing job cost around £100,000 GBP.

Produced by Emma Fierberg. Video courtesy of Associated Press. 

Join the conversation about this story »

Streaming companies like Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu have a programming advantage that TV networks don't have: user data.

The streaming video companies, especially Netflix, have traditionally been secretive about viewer data and how they make decisions regarding series orders.

Well, Amazon, is being much more transparent. For example, it has already said that its most-watched original series is detective drama, "Bosch."

Earlier this week, it went further. Amazon Studios says that it has a whole host of data that factors into their decision to move forward on shows. On one level, the company has a deep amount of reviews on its site that have "been a helpful part of the process," say execs, but there's a whole other unseen level of data that helps in the greenlighting process.

"It's not just the explicit feedback, you know, the critical ratings and reviews, but also the implicit feedback [that is important]," Joe Lewis, Amazon Studios' head of comedy, said, according to a transcript obtained by Business Insider.

He continued, "And what we are getting at is never what is the most amount of people we can get to watch a single episode of television, but, rather, how do you make someone's favorite show? I don't know that you measure that by measuring solely the amount of people that are there at the beginning."

What does Lewis mean by implicit feedback? He means that a viewer's consumption of a show can say a whole lot about whether the show is hitting a nerve with audiences or not.

"When I talk about implicit feedback, it's how many people rewatch the show? How many people complete the show that they are watching? How many people talk about it in social media?" said Lewis. "We are always trying to get at this question: How do you measure someone's favorite show? And, you know, that's the major factor when we are picking up these shows, but it's not all the explicit parts that people can see."

The method seems to be working for the streaming company. It picked up 12 Emmy nominations this year, mostly for "Transparent," the series about a transgender woman, played by Jeffrey Tambor, and her family.

SEE ALSO: Here's why Amazon didn't save NBC's 'Hannibal'

MORE: The presenters of 'Top Gear' are making a new TV show for Amazon

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The BBC just shocked everyone with a clip from the next 'Sherlock' episode

On Tuesday, Kelly Osbourne stuck her foot in her mouth while appearing as a guest cohost on "The View."

When discussing Donald Trump's recent controversial remarks about immigrants, Osbourne asked: "If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilet, Donald Trump?"

Osbourne tried to explain her comments by reasoning that Trump takes advantage of the same people he relies on in his daily life.

But the other cohosts were not having it. Raven-Symone immediately objected to Osbourne's comments, and Rosie Perez snapped back: "Latinos are not the only people doing that."

Osbourne's remarks were quickly picked up and became a trending topic on Twitter in the US and worldwide. 

People were not happy:

But perhaps most upset by the remarks was former "View" cohost Sherri Sherphard:

Realizing her gaffe, Osbourne released an apology statement late Tuesday, saying, "I will take responsibility for my poor choice of words":

Shepherd then eased up on Osbourne:

"The View" cohost Whoopi Goldberg defended Osbourne during Wednesday's show, saying that on live TV "you sometimes step in dog doo."

"The point she was actually trying to make," explained Goldberg, "is that Donald Trump’s stance on immigration would only end up hurting the people that Donald Trump is counting on."

Cohost Rosie Perez also voiced her support for Osbourne, saying at the end of the show: "Kelly Osbourne is on our side and I was sensitive. My disdain should go to only Donald Trump, so I'm sorry, darling." She also tweeted:

Still, some people aren't buying it.

In February, Osbourne quit the "Fashion Police" on E! after accusing cohost Giuliana Rancic of making another misinterpreted racist remark.

SEE ALSO: Donald Trump doubled down on his immigration argument in an intense way

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Things you may not know about Jon Stewart and how he got to 'The Daily Show'

Next time you're scrolling through your Facebook News Feed, you might see a live video hosted by your favorite celebrity.

That's because the social network just launched a new streaming feature for the VIP users who have access to Mentions, the Facebook app that caters to public figures. 

The product, called "Live," makes it incredibly easy for celebrities to shoot interactive video that will appear on the News Feeds of anyone who follows their Page. People who recently interacted with a celebrity's Facebook Page will get a push notification alerting them when a new broadcast starts. 

Of course, Live sounds almost exactly like other streaming apps Meerkat and Periscope (which Twitter bought earlier this year). The biggest difference is that these videos stream only on Facebook and only celebrities can make them. 

At launch, Facebook recruited public figures like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Serena Williams, Luke Bryan, Ricardo Kakà, Ashley Tisdale, Lester Holt, Martha Stewart, and Michael Bublé. 

When asked about the clear competition with Meerkat and Perisope, a Facebook spokesperson said that it's something that public figures have asked for.

"Our goal with Live is to make it easy for them to share authentic moments and original, unique content with their fans on Facebook in real-time," Facebook says. "We also know that people like to watch videos from their favorite public figures, so we think this update benefits the Facebook ecosystem overall."

Ben Rubin, CEO of Meerkat, highlighted for Business Insider via email that his app still has unique features, like "Cameo," which lets viewers commandeer the video stream, and an open API that lets users embed the streaming experience anywhere. 

"After we validated the space earlier this year, new entrants further accelerate the live streaming medium through shared learnings," he says. "So we are excited about that." 

For Facebook, this move comes not long after it introduced remotely-accessible Place Tips, to let users check out live, curated content from events like Lollapalooza. With this additional live feature, Facebook is expanding the ways it makes its content time sensitive. Instead of just browsing Facebook when they're bored, users have more incentive to check their feeds at certain specific times. 

Also, Live aligns with Facebook's recent video push. With new ad formats and revenue sharing tests, Facebook is challenging YouTube to become the central hub for consumers to watch online video (and to reap the lucrative advertising dollars that come with it).

Facebook says users currently view more than 4 billion videos every day.

Business Insider also reached out to Periscope and will update if we hear back. 

SEE ALSO: Facebook just took the next step in its clever plan to make money from Messenger

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 2 texting tricks you didn't know you could do on your iPhone

Back in 2013, "True Detective" star Vince Vaughn purchased this home in LA's La Cañada Flintridge area for $3.9 million. Two years later, he's selling it for $5.3 million. 

The five-bedroom, colonial-style mansion isn't exactly what you'd picture the "Swingers" actor living in, but since his 2006 split with Jennifer Aniston, the 45-year-old has settled into family life with wife Kyla Weber, a realtor from Canada. The couple bought the home — with a spacious kitchen and huge backyard — just before welcoming baby number two.

Elsewhere in Vaughn's real estate portfolio is a family-friendly "McMansion" in Manhattan Beach (bought from fired USC coach Lane Kiffin last year) and his former Chicago bachelor pad (famous for being the headquarters of Playboy in the '60s and '80s), which he's been trying to sell for a while. 

Christine Navarro of Partners Trust holds the listing for the Southern California estate. Keep scrolling for an inside-out tour.  

SEE ALSO: Check out Mariah Carey's $10,000-a-night Airbnb rental on Malibu's exclusive 'Billionaires' Beach'

FOLLOW US: Business Insider is on Instagram

Welcome to the Vaughn family's 5,563-square-foot mansion.

With two young children, Vaughn and his wife still made the brave decision of choosing an all-white color palette.

The formal dining room is the perfect size for family dinners and intimate gatherings.

NOW WATCH: Here are some incredible toys hedge fund boss Steve Cohen has bought with his billions

Sony announced Wednesday that it plans to release more sequels of the Will Smith/Martin Lawrence action comedy, "Bad Boys."

"Bad Boys 3" will be released on February 17, 2017 and "Bad Boys 4" is slated for July 3, 2019, according to The Wrap. 

The previous two "Bad Boys" films have grossed over $400 million worldwide. 

Sony has also announced that the upcoming "Ghostbusters" movie, starring Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, will open July 15, 2016. And the Chris Pratt/Jennifer Lawrence comedy "Passengers" will hit screens December 21, 2016. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 50 Cent testifies his lifestyle is an illusion