No one can say that 19-year-old Max Wade lacked determination. In order to steal a Lamborghini that belonged to celebrity chef and human cheese fry Guy Fieri back in 2011, Wade rappelled into a San Francisco car dealership, cut the locks, and drove away. Now we have video.

But Wade eventually paid for his crime — and a bunch of other ones. In January he was sentenced to life in prison for stealing the Lamborghini Gallardo and shooting a fellow teen and his girlfriend over a romantic rivalry.

Now, TV station KGO has video of Wade rappelling into British Motor Cars to steal the Lambo. And he came prepared, too:

Among the hundreds of pieces of evidence I inspected, Max Wade's computer history showed his preparation for grand theft auto. Just 16-years-old at the time, he Googled Lamborghinis, how to jam the auto-theft prevention system "Lojack", and lock picking.

Wade even posted a video on his YouTube channel of him practicing, less than two weeks before the car heist.

Between that and the shooting, it's probably better that this dude is in prison.

Russia may be run by an iron-fisted dictatorial tyrant who's using the Olympic games as his own personal tool to legitimize his corrupt and unjust reign. Sure. But that doesn't mean he needs to make things worse by allowing shitty yogurt to cross his borders.

The most important story to come out of these Olympic games so far: Russia is blocking a shipment of low-quality Chobani brand Greek yogurt that was sent to the U.S. Winter Olympic team. Instead of thanking Mr. Putin for his gesture of concern towards our athletes' palates, American politicians in the pocket of Big Yogurt are mewling threats loaded with classic imperialist propaganda. From the New York Times:

"There is simply no time to waste in getting our Olympic athletes a nutritious and delicious food," [Imperialist Dairy apologist Sen. Charles] Schumer said in a statement.

I couldn't agree more, Comrade Schumer. Our athletes need a nutritious and delicious food. Like Fage.

Imperialist garbage yogurt OUT of the U.S.S.R.!

[Photo: AP]

Eric Schmidt used to be the CEO of Google, and now he's not. But the company just decided to reward him with $106 million—100 in stock, six in cash—as an annual bonus. That's about $80 million more than the CEO of Goldman Sachs. It's also fucked up and insane.

Schmidt served as CEO of Google for a tremendously important decade at the company, and became a billionaire in the process, one of the richest people in the world. He's got about $800 million bucks or so to show for each year he was at the helm of Google, which I think is a pretty good haul for ten years of hard work. There's no doubt that running the most important company on the internet is a big job, and he made the big money accordingly.

But he's not the head of the company anymore. Just the head of its board. He doesn't run Google. Still, as CNN Money reported, he's getting a slice of the company's strong earnings:

Google reported last week that its sales hit $16.9 billion in the fourth quarter of 2013 alone, up 17% versus a year prior. Schmidt served as Google's CEO from 2001 to 2011, and is now executive chairman. Schmidt is set to receive $100 million in restricted stock that will vest over four years beginning in 2015, and as well as a $6 million cash bonus. It's safe to say he doesn't really need the money.

When CNN Money is telling you that you don't need the money, you really don't need the money. And of course, he doesn't. No one needs or deserves $106 million on top of $8 billion. No one needs or deserves the $8 billion to begin with. And when your bonus is dwarfing what's seen on Wall Street—historically the nesting ground of grotesque compensation packages—you should stop and reevaluate.

But even if he doesn't need it—does he deserve it? It's true, on paper, Google had a good 2013. It was a good year to be a Google stockholder. But what does this have to do with Schmidt, who took a cushy chairmanship two years ago? (His ostensible role: "building partnerships and broader business relationships, government outreach and technology thought leadership, as well as advising the CEO and senior leadership on business and policy issues.") What tracks did his thought leadership leave on Google's year? Well, we could look at the the acquisition and subsequent embarrassing sale of Motorola's phone division.

Watch Schmidt in happier times, talking up the $12.5 billion deal from his house on Nantucket, and emphasizing the value of Motorola's smartphone hardware, beyond its swanky patent portfolio. (Note: cross "house on Nantucket" off "list of things you might need $106 million for.)

This turned out to be a big shit sandwich, a debacle that ended with Google reversing itself early this year, after multiple years of Eric Schmidt championing the deal in glowing, giddy terms. As the top Google exec who isn't paralyzed by social foibles, Schmidt gets leaned on as the company's biggest public-facing character. So it's his big goon face that's in those old interviews, when buying Motorola could've been smart. It's also his lech's grin in stories about his open-marriage fuck mansion, using taxpayer jet fuel to fly to Fiji, or pervy Instagram account. It's his life (and marriage, and money), but for a public face, he's as much a liability as a boon for Google.

Is any of this worth a $106 million thank you? No. (Apple chairman Arthur Levinson's 2013 compensation, by comparison, was $508,000.) Does high finance's old punchline about needing exorbitant payouts to retain talent apply here? I doubt it—Schmidt is a billionaire eight times over, a hundred mil here or there isn't going to be what keeps him from jumping ship for a life of Android-augmented polyamory. So, what then? Why give him all this money on top of all this money? There's no good answer, because there's no good reason, but maybe the animal instinct, the bloodlust of out-bonusing Wall Street is too good to pass up on. If part of Schmidt's job is living on Earth as a mortal personification of Googleness, he's doing a poor job—if anything he deserves a small bonus, or no bonus. But, you know, the money is just sitting around, otherwise—you can only build so many private jet terminals and floating secret barges.

Image by Jim Cooke, source photos via Getty and Shutterstock

[Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, right, listens to Committee Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday during the committee's hearing on data breaches and combating cybercrime. Image via Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP.]

When Arthur Chu got the call saying he'd been selected to go on Jeopardy, his first move was thorough and decisive: He went to Google and typed in "jeopardy strategy."

"I knew that just like in terms of my natural knowledge base, I wasn't ready to go on Jeopardy," Chu told me on the phone this morning. "I wasn't like Ken Jennings—automatically knowing everything from the top of my head. So I had to train."

By training—that is, going through Internet message boards and reading up on past Jeopardy winners—Chu developed an unorthodox strategy that has made headlines over the last week. It's rare, controversial, and effective—and it's turned him into something of a grand villain for some fans of the long-running quiz show. Just one glance at his Twitter feed will show you some of the ridiculous vitriolic messages he's gotten over the past few days, as his story—and winning streak—started picking up steam. (He's won four games so far, and needs one more to get into the Tournament of Champions. His next appearance will be televised on February 24.)

So what makes Chu so unusual? While most players will start from the top of each column on the Jeopardy board and progress sequentially as question difficulty increases, Chu picks questions at random, using what's called the Forrest Bounce to hunt for the three Daily Doubles, which are often scattered among the harder questions in every game. Instead of moving from the $200 question to the $400 question and so forth, Chu might bounce between all of the $1,600 or $2,000 questions—not the kind of strategy you often see on Jeopardy.

Chu does this for two reasons. For one, it throws everyone off balance. "It's a lot more mentally tiring to have to jump around the board like that," Chu told me.

More importantly, snagging those Daily Doubles offers him a massive statistical advantage. Since Daily Doubles allow players to bet up to their entire bankrolls, just one can swing an entire Jeopardy match—and Chu's strategy is to control them all, even just to prevent other players from using them.

"The only chance you have to give yourself an edge—the only moment of power, or choice you have in Jeopardy is choosing the next clue if you got the last one right," Chu said. "So if you're unpredictable when you do that, and keep opponents on their toes, it's a lot more mentally tiring and might tick off people in the audience, but it lets you gain and keep an edge that's very important to winning the game."

Chu's Daily Double hunting can be disorienting and unpleasant for an audience accustomed to watching one category at a time. Check it out:

It's clear why this style of play—combined with Chu's slightly arrogant smirk—might upset some Jeopardy fans. But Chu points out that it isn't his job to entertain people. "For us, we're out there playing for real money, and quite a bit of money," he said. "I think it's obvious for me why that'd be more important than making the game fun for the viewers at home. I don't get paid for that—I get paid for winning the game."

Chu, who is 30, works in the legal department of an insurance company, where he reads contracts and does other technical work. He's into gaming, citing BioShock, Portal, and the Arkham games among his favorites. And his dream job, he says, is to work alongside the likes of Troy Baker and Jennifer Hale.

"My first love has always been acting and performing," Chu said, pointing me to his website, which has a voice acting demo roll. "I've always wanted to voice a video game some day... I would be happy to just be the voice of the grunt who gets killed in 20 different ways."

Chu does narration for a webcomic called Erfworld, and he even auditioned for the reality show King of the Nerds:

Chu's unusual Jeopardy strategy has netted him $108,000 so far. Given all this attention—and his success—it's likely we'll see future contestants start adopting it, but it's not a new invention: Chu cites older Jeopardy champions like Chuck Forrest and Roger Craig as inspiration for his techniques. In fact, Chu says, Jeopardy's "contestant coordinators" make it clear to everyone on the show that bouncing around the board is totally allowed.

"They tell you when you come onto Jeopardy, this is how most people play because it's easier to play the game this way—and it is," Chu said. "But the important thing for me was, I wanna maximize my chances of winning."

In theory, the producers of Jeopardy could nullify the bulk of Chu's strategy by shifting up board placement —if every question had an equal chance of being a Daily Double, board bouncing would be pointless. But there's one other wrinkle to Chu's technique: during the Final Jeopardy round, instead of playing for a win, he plays to tie.

Here's where we get into hardcore game theory: to sum it up, Chu bets for the possibilities that 1) both the first- and second-place players will get the final question right, and 2) they'll both get it wrong. (If one player is right and the other is wrong, it's safe to assume the correct player will win.)

So let's say Chu is in first place with $20,000, while, say, Julie is in second place with $18,600. Common sense might dictate that Chu should bet $17,201, so that if Julie bets her whole bankroll, and they both win, Chu beats her by a dollar. (Julie would have $37,200, while Chu would take home $37,201.)

But what if Julie considers that possibility, and then wants to bet so that she'd win if they both get the question wrong? In that case, playing on the assumption that Chu is betting $17,201, Julie would bet $15,800—that way, she'd make the most money if she was right and he was wrong, but she'd still win if they were both wrong, because Chu would have $2,799 and she'd have $2,800.

If there's a tie, of course, both players move on—so Chu bets $17,200, knowing that in both scenarios he'd make it to the next game. (Granted, Julie would still win if they both got the question wrong and she bet less than $15,800, but that's one of the risks to this approach.)

Here's one example of his plan in action:

Of course, the strategy was irrelevant in this case, because Chu was the only person to get the right answer, but you can see why he bet what he did—if they had both been wrong, a tie would be the worst-case scenario, and if they had both been right, he'd win.

It will be fascinating to see whether future Jeopardy contestants emulate Chu's strategy, and how the game changes accordingly. Internet reactions have been mixed; some fans and pundits think he's ruining the integrity of the quiz show, while others think he's improving it. No matter your position, it's hard to deny that now that "optimal Jeopardy strategy" has gone viral, Alex Trebek could have a whole new type of show to host.

"When I first started, I thought maybe I should just hide in a hole and wait for this to die down, because it's gonna be so unrelentingly negative," Chu said. "But I discovered it's not really so bad. Most people get what I'm trying to do, and don't judge me for it. And the people who don't like me? Well, you can never please everyone."

For the first time ever, Google has given into regulatory pressure to change its search results. Today, the company reached a settlement with antitrust regulators in the European Union, thereby "wriggling out of billions of dollars in potential fines," reports the Wall Street Journal.

The EU's antitrust chief was concerned that Google was "using its dominance in search to exclude rivals and squeeze its customers." Federal regulators in the U.S. spent 20 months on a very similar probe, before deciding Google did no evil. The lead critic in that case was a coalition called FairSearch.org made up of Yelp, Expedia, and Microsoft.

The E.U. deal is still subject to final approval, but it allows Google to avoid: (1) any admission of wrongdoing and (2) a fine of up to 10% of its global annual revenue. According to the Journal:

Big money is at stake. Google posted a 17% increase in fourth-quarter revenue, driven by a 31% gain in online-ad clicks. But Google's revenue per click is falling, raising pressure to sell high-price ads such as those on the top of the page.

The Financial Times outlines what the Google will do in return. First, it will display search results differently, so that its own sponsored results will be marked as sponsored and not given as much prominence. Other changes include:

2) How Google uses other search sites' materials.

A Google search now will automatically turn up user reviews from, say, TripAdvisor or Yelp. The EU wants Google to let those rival sites opt out of having their material displayed. Google has agreed.

3) Publishers

The commission feels that websites that show (and earn money from) Google search ads are locked in to using Google search ads exclusively. Mr Almunia wants Google to let website publishers source their search ads elsewhere. Google has agreed.

4) Advertisers

The commission is concerned that advertisers who designed campaigns on Google's AdWords platform (the one used for search ads) find it too difficult to transfer those campaigns to a rival service. Google has agreed to no longer impose obligations that prevent that from happening.

Hardly a radical rehaul, notes the Journal, which is why rivals like Microsoft and Nokia "immediately slammed the deal."

But it's more than the U.S. Federal Trade Commission got out of the search giant. At the end of that investigation, Google made a couple "voluntary" changes like allowing Yelp and other publishers to opt-out of Google scraping their content, as well as simplifying their advertising process to give poor Bing a chance.

To contact the author of this post, please email nitasha@gawker.com.

Just how hung up is Woody Allen on sex with very young women? It's a conversation that arises every time he comes out with yet another new movie that pairs an aging hero with a young woman a third his age–or, as now, when child-molestation accusations against him resurface.

In 1992, after the release of Allen's May-December Husbands and Wives, Spy magazine's Larry Doyle compiled a very useful list of quotations from Allen's published writings—books, essays, etc.—that seem to reflect his sexual, ahem, motifs. We think it's worth revisiting.

To be a really good lover, then, one must be strong and yet tender. How strong? I suppose being able to lift fifty pounds should do it. –From "On Love" in "The Early Essays" (1973)

I am in love with two women, a not terribly uncommon problem. That they happen to be mother and child? All the more challenging! –"Retribution" (1980)

My own theory is that for creatures from another solar system "hovering" may be a socially acceptable mode of relating. It may, indeed, be pleasurable. I myself once hovered over an eighteen-year-old actress for six months and had the best time of my life. –"The UFO Menace" (1977)

"Well, I heard of this young girl. Eighteen years old. A Vassar student. For a price, she'll come over and discuss any subject–Proust, Yeats, anthropology. Exchange of ideas. Get what I'm driving at?" –"The Whore of Mensa" (1974)

The dilemma that precipitated this catastrophic fall from grace was simply this. I was living with a woman whom I cared for very deeply and who had a winning and delightful personality and mind; rich in culture and humor and a joy to spend time with. But (and I curse Fate for this) she did not turn me on sexually. –"The Lunatic's Tale" (1977)

I identified immediately with Peter Lorre. The impulse to be a sniveling, effeminate, greasy little weasel appealed to me enormously and, setting my sights on a life of mealymouthed degradation and crime, I rapidly achieved a reputation that caused neighboring parents to appear at my doorstep carrying torches, a large rope and bags of quicklime. –"How Bogart Made Me the Super Lover I Am Today" (1969)

She saw me as a symbol of all men–the understanding father, the amusing little boy, the poet driven mad by a relentless passion. –"The Girls of 'Casino Royale'" (1967)

Let me make it perfectly clear that I abhor sodomy as much as the next man; however, I would enjoy being beaten with live eels if the girl doing it were Presbyterian. –"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex...You'll Find in My New Movie–Plus a Couple of Things You Never Bargained For" (1972)

That's why, when the door to my office swung open and a long-haired blonde named Heather Butkiss came striding in and told me she was a nudie model and needed my help, my salivary glands shifted into third. –"Mr. Big" (1971)

I was sneaking crosstown nightly to rendezvous with a photographer's model called Tiffany Schmeederer, whose blood-curdling mentality was in direct inverse proportion to the erotic radiation that oozed from her every pore. –"The Lunatic's Tale" (1977)

It it moves, fondle it! –"What's Nude, Pussycat?" (1965)

"So who do you want to meet? Sister Carrie? Hester Prynne? Ophelia? Maybe someone by Saul Bellow? Hey, what about Temple Drake? Although for a man your age she'd be a workout." –"The Kugelmass Episode" (1977)

For lovemaking, Weinstein needed someone quite opposite. Like Lu-Anne, who made sex an art. The only trouble was she couldn't count to twenty without taking her shoes off. –"No Kaddish for Weinstein" (1975)

True, I had experienced normal daydreams over random females–this actress, that stewardess, some wide-eyed college girl... –"Retribution" (1980)

[Gene] Wilder and the sheep became a torrid item during the filming and had a highly publicized affair, which culminated in his being caught in a Butte hotel room with the sheep, her mother and a teenager who told the judge she was Little Bopeep. –"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex...You'll Find in My New Movie–Plus a Couple of Things You Never Bargained For" (1972)

His libertine attitudes involved him in several notorious scandals, and he eventually sued the government over the to wear earmuffs while fondling a dwarf. –"Slang Origins" (1975)

I married [Connie's mother] Emily and there were no suicides. Emily's three children attended and a dozen or so friends. It was held in Connie's apartment and champagne flowed. At one point I found myself in the bedroom with Connie alone. We kidded and reminisced about our relationship, its ups and downs, and how sexually attracted I had been to her.

"It was flattering." she said warmly.

"Well, I couldn't swing it with the daughter, so I carried off the mother." The next thing I knew, Connie's tongue was in my mouth....

"You turn me on like I can't believe," she said, dragging me down on the bed.

"What's gotten into you? Are you a nymphomaniac?" I said, rising, yet undeniably excited by her sudden aggressiveness.

"I have to sleep with you. If not now, then soon." she said.

"Me, Harold Cohen? The guy who lived with you? And loved you? Who couldn't get near you with a ten-foot pole because I became a version of [Connie's brother] Danny? Me you're hot for? Your brother symbol?"

"It's a whole new ball game." she said, pressing close to me. "Marrying Mom has made you my father." She kissed me again and past before returning to the festivities said, "Don't worry, Dad, there'll be plenty of opportunities." –"Retribution" (1980)

[Photo via Playboy, inset photo via Getty.]

Mohamed El-Erian recently announced he's leaving as CEO of the bond firm PIMCO. Not to worry, investors: the company says "we are a better team at this moment than we were before." Soooo... why was El-Erian getting paid $100 million a year, then?

Authorities in Portland, Oregon, now have a sketch of the man they say has exposed himself to women and children on the streets for the past month. And something is wrong, terribly wrong, with his face.

The John Doe—who is white and medium height "with dirty running shoes," according to witnesses—last "dropped his pants in front of" a nine-year-old boy on the street on Tuesday.

That's in addition to at least five more incidents in which he either ran around with his pants down or "would expose his penis through the opening in his boxers or completely pull down his boxers then run away."

But there's something else about John Doe, according to the Portland Oregonian:

A North Precinct sergeant worked with some witnesses to develop the suspect sketch.

The sketch includes something around the man's neck. Police spokesman Sgt. Pete Simpson said in an e-mail that it "could be a bandana or his boxer shorts. Descriptions vary.''

Interpretations of the sketch artist's execution vary, as well. Gawker staff reactions to the suspect's alleged fabric neck covering included the following:

• "It's like some Cronenberg shit"
• "that is terrifying"
• "grosssss"
• "i don't ever want to see a face like that outside of a dream"
• "It looks like he's eating a brain."
• "definitely intestines on his face"
• "ed norton's disguise sucks"

Also gross: the fact that this man is apparently sexually victimizing women and children on the street. Go get 'im, Portland. And rip that Etsy Bane mask off for me.

[Photo credit: Portland Police Bureau via Oregon Live]

Bad move: Republicans giving their new high-tech big data lab a warlike name that conjures images of a pistol once used by the Nazis. Worse move: Not registering all the domains that are logical iterations of that lab's name. The liberal operatives behind parabellumlabs.org thank you, Reince!

Today RadarOnline published an audio recording in which (someone who sounds like) 52-year-old actor Tom Sizemore can be heard boasting about how, in 1998, former President Bill Clinton arranged for the English model Elizabeth Hurley to fly to Washington, D.C. and have sex (with President Bill Clinton):

Clinton said, “Listen Elizabeth, this is the President!” Sizemore recalls. “‘I don’t have any time for this ****. I’m keeping the world from nuclear war all the time. I’m sending a plane to pick you up.” […] “While we’re at the reception, I see her,” Sizemore reveals, but then she disappeared through a door, trailed by a Secret Service agent.

As she disappeared into a room with the President, Sizemore charges, “Bill turns to me and he goes, ‘I owe you one.’” As to what happened after that, Sizemore declares on the tape: “What do you think? She was there for four days. He f***ed her that night.”

Understandably, Hurley denied the entire story on Twitter:

Ludicrously silly stories about me & Bill Clinton. Totally untrue. In the hands of my lawyers. Yawn.

— Elizabeth Hurley (@ElizabethHurley) February 5, 2014

Indeed, Elizabeth Hurley appears nowhere in the New York Times’ exhaustive planetary chart of Clinton associates.

[Photo credit: Original Tours]

Last night, trans woman and author Janet Mock appeared on "Piers Morgan Live" to discuss her new book, Redefining Realness. But maybe it was Morgan who needed some definitions to work with.

During the apparently friendly interview, Morgan repeatedly turned the subject back to Mock's physical transformation and her relationships with boyfriends past and present. The interview also repeatedly featured an on-screen crawl reading, "Janet Mock: Was a boy until age 18," despite the fact that Mock identified as female long before that.

But it didn't end there. After the interview aired, Mock sent a series of tweets to Morgan, blasting the host for his apparent lack of awareness of trans issues.

.@PiersMorganLive I was not "formerly a man." Pls stop sensationalizing my life and misgendering trans women. #redefiningrealness

— Janet Mock (@janetmock) February 5, 2014

"Was a boy until 18." @PiersMorganLive get it the f*k together. #redefiningrealness

— Janet Mock (@janetmock) February 5, 2014

Me + @Lavernecox's reaction after @piersmorganlive tried it with the "man" and "boy" tag lines. #redefiningrealness pic.twitter.com/38xq64Xjzq

— Janet Mock (@janetmock) February 5, 2014

"He's trying to do info-tainment," Mock told BuzzFeed after the interview. "He doesn't really want to talk about trans issues, he wants to sensationalize my life."

Morgan responded with thoughts of his own.

A lot of very irate people accusing me of 'transphobia' because I devoted a third of my show to @JanetMock 's inspiring story. Weird.

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) February 5, 2014

I've never been subjected to the kind of nonsense that @janetmock and her supporters are accusing me of now...wish I'd never booked her.

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) February 5, 2014

For the record, @janetmock had no problem at the time with our interview - but now seems keen to score cheap points. Very disappointing.

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) February 5, 2014

The issue got Morgan into such a huff that he eventually vowed on-air revenge. Look out for round two on his show tonight.

I'll deal with you tomorrow night on air @janetmock - never been treated in such a disgraceful manner. Be proud.

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) February 5, 2014

Looking fwd to a fruitful discussion. MT @piersmorgan: So @janetmock has agreed to come back on my show LIVE tonight. CNN 9pmET.

— Janet Mock (@janetmock) February 5, 2014

The Wall Street Journal reports that Russia is aggressively defending itself against complaints that the much-maligned bathrooms in its Olympic accommodations are in any way substandard. The Russians are, in fact, keeping a very, very close eye on the bathroom situation:

Dmitry Kozak, the deputy prime minister responsible for the Olympic preparations, reflected the view held among many Russian officials that some Western visitors are deliberately trying to sabotage Sochi's big debut out of bias against Russia. "We have surveillance video from the hotels that shows people turn on the shower, direct the nozzle at the wall and then leave the room for the whole day," he said. An aide then pulled a reporter away before Mr. Kozak could be questioned further on surveillance in hotel rooms.

[Image via AP]

[Pope Francis stands in front of a life-sized chocolate statue of himself. The statue, made with 1.5 tons of cocoa, was presented to the Pope during Wednesday's general audience. Image via L'Osservatore Romano/AP.]

Aaron Sorkin, the creator and writer behind Sports Night, The West Wing, and The Newsroom, says he bonded with Philip Seymour Hoffman over their shared addiction struggles. According to a Time obituary penned by Sorkin, Hoffman always knew death was a possibility.

When describing their friendship on the set of Charlie Wilson's War, Sorkin remembers a conversation with Hoffman about his fear of needles. "He told me to stay squeamish. And he said this: 'If one of us dies of an overdose, probably 10 people who were about to won't,'" Sorkin remembers. "He meant that our deaths would make news and maybe scare someone clean."

He continues, sharing his belief that heroin, not an "overdose" of heroin, killed his friend. From Time:

So it's in that spirit that I'd like to say this: Phil Hoffman, this kind, decent, magnificent, thunderous actor, who was never outwardly "right" for any role but who completely dominated the real estate upon which every one of his characters walked, did not die from an overdose of heroin — he died from heroin. We should stop implying that if he'd just taken the proper amount then everything would have been fine.

He didn't die because he was partying too hard or because he was depressed — he died because he was an addict on a day of the week with a y in it. He'll have his well-earned legacy — his Willy Loman that belongs on the same shelf with Lee J. Cobb's and Dustin Hoffman's, his Jamie Tyrone, his Truman Capote and his Academy Award. Let's add to that 10 people who were about to die who won't now.

Hoffman, who is survived by three young children, was found dead in New York Sunday.

[Image via AP]

Posting secrets anonymously is an old idea on the internet, but Secret is special for one reason: so far it's completely taken over by gossiping techies, early adopters with lots of bile to unload. It's part therapy, part confession, part defamation, and it's a lot of fun to eavesdrop.

The app itself is very basic: you share a text, and only people in your contact list—and their friends—can see it. It's like Whisper, but with a little more intimacy. It also lends itself well to all of the catty, gossipy, faceless maligning we love so much. It's amazing what startup folk will say when you give them a contrived way to speak their mind—the following is just a sample of what I've found so far:

This sounds very believable!

As does this. Dave Morin is a regular target on the app:

As is his silly startup:

Morale complaints are common.

Despair abounds:

And of course, there's good old fashioned rumormongering, too:

There's no way to verify any of it, and that's the point—but all the postings of the I hate it here variety seem too generic to be fabrications. And really, who can blame them? Silicon Valley demands uniform positivity, against all evidence for positivity, and punishes cynicism or mere criticism as witchcraft. Even the bad ideas and people deserve praise—and who wouldn't go nuts living like that? Maybe Secret will break into the mainstream, but for now, it might be one of the few things keeping these downtrodden techies from a nervous breakdown.

As part of its Where to Take Her in 2014 package, GQ suggested taking your girlfriend or wife to Big Sur, among other places. Accompanying the spread, with the caption "An uplifting morning in Big Sur," is a picture of a model, full boob hanging out, in her pajamas. Not exactly safe-for-work material, GQ.

The uncensored photo is below.

Then again, a without-warning topless model is not the most shocking part of the spread: One of the suggested destinations is Arkansas, which is terrible advice. Do not go to Arkansas.

UPDATE:

Yes. RT Does GQ Know It's Got a Boob Hanging Out on One of Its Articles? http://t.co/YMjoHtxpMI

— Devin Gordon (@Devingo913) February 6, 2014

[via GQ]

With a million people in the dark and hundreds of trees around Philadelphia blown down, the latest winter storm looked a lot like Superstorm Sandy. "This damage is very similar to what we see during hurricanes." Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission spokeswoman Jennifer Kocher told the AP.

After two brutal ice storms in a row, Pennsylvania and the East Coast could use a break. But another big storm is coming. How bad will it be?

A Philadelphia meteorologist says the "megastorm" predicted by computer models and shown on several recent maps by the WeatherBell company won't really be a "megastorm" after all.

"It seems highly unlikely now of happening," writes John Bolaris, the weatherman for Philly.com. "Computer models were having difficulties with the timing of phasing from the get-go, that's why the wild fluctuations in projected outcomes."

Power was out at 849,000 households in and around Philadelphia last night, and heaters that rely on electricity were also down as temperatures dropped to 20 degrees.

The winter storm named "Nika" did drop a foot of snow in at least three spots in Pennsylvania—Sayre, Troy, and Reynoldsville—joining Massachusetts, New Hampshire, western New York, Vermont, Kansas, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado and Wyoming in the "12 inches or more" snowfall totals from Nika.

[Photo via Associated Press.]

Hi, Howard Wolfson, former chief press antagonist for Hillary Clinton and deputy mayor under Michael Bloomberg. I don't follow you on Twitter, because I'm not too interested in your thoughts on your blandly Napoleanic billionaire patron and how great he is for explaining that God causes homelessness, or how you're hip because you listen to "cool" music and stuff. So please stop paying Twitter to "promote" them to me.

Thanks! Twitter is a free platform, based on the premise that people will gladly share things they find notably smart/dumb/interesting. If you're not an actual commercial brand, and you still need to pay money to get people to read your thoughts, well, good luck with that, Howard.

She is a beacon to liberals, a down-home Texas mom with a Harvard law degree who stood up to conservatives for women's rights. As the Democrats' best hope for governor, she's fighting to turn the Lone Star State blue. Oh, and she gol'-damn loves her some openly brandished hand cannons.

At a time when most progressives are mulling greater constraints on the public wielding of firearms, Davis is boot-scootin' across the aisle, according to Politico:

Rising Democratic star and gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis has joined her top Republican rival in supporting a proposed "open carry" law. It would allow people with concealed handgun licenses to wear a pistol on their hip, in full view, while in public.

Davis has said she supports expanding gun rights in Texas. But in a statement to The Associated Press, she said that includes open-carry — a position that puts her at odds with her own party but could keep her from alienating gun rights advocates in a deeply conservative a state where the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.

Politico's take: Davis now agrees with her opponent, Republican Lt. Gov. Greg Abbott, on open carry, which will help her "to eliminate it as a wedge issue in the campaign." You know what's even better at splitting people than wedge issues? Really huge fucking handguns.

[Photo credit: AP]