*blink*

James Cameron’s “Avatar” cost around $237 million. That’s not the most expensive film yet (Pirates 3 was $300 million), but holy crap.

At a running time of 162 minutes, that means each time you blink your eyes, you missed about $8,500 worth of movie.

So overall, your blinks missed about $7 million.

Really puts clean eyeballs in perspective, doesn’t it?

www.LyricPuzzles.com

For those of you who enjoyed the Sprocket PictoPuzzle last week, check out my newest pet project LyricPuzzles.com.

Law: All chick flicks must cast Judy Greer as the lead's best friend

I knew it.

Google Suggest is quickly becoming my favorite Google tool.

Start typing a string into the Google search box and a cool list of AJAX-powered predicted finished queries are presented to you. “4 9 e” – ah, here it is “49ers schedule”. Very helpful. It seems simple and innocent enough.

But try typing “Christianity is ” or "Judaism is " and you’ll see a potential problem. Offended much?

So why would Google suggest that “Christianity is bullshit” or that “Chinese people eat babies”? Well, technically they aren’t. YOU are.

Google keeps its Suggest algorithm under strict lock and key, however hints from Google insiders reveal that the suggestions are naturally what you’d expect – they are largely dependent on a search string’s popularity. Those offensive and juvenile suggestions exist because normal people like you and me have actually typed those exact words into Google. And it’s not just one person – tons of people are using that search phrase!

It’s hard to believe though, isn’t it? Are there really that many people searching for “jon stewart is a douchebag”?

How to be Cool

The issue here is the concept of “trending”, where something’s popularity is ironically a function of its own popularity.

You must have experienced this countless times in your own life: Paris Hilton, The Jonas Brothers, Twilight. An item gets exposure by being popular, and more exposure leads to more popularity. It’s a frustrating cycle, especially because the real “value” of the item is typically lost in the mix. Does Paris Hilton have “value”? Are the Jonas Brothers more talented than any other garage band on your block? Is the Twilight story anything new? No! But they’re popular! Why? Because they’re popular! (See my TrendSim post for a cool simulation of this effect).

So how does this relate to Google Suggest? Follow me:

By including a certain search string in the suggestions, Google is increasing that particular string’s exposure. People are now more likely to click the suggestion, even if it’s not what they were originally looking for. This increases the string’s popularity, and cements its justifiable exposure. A search suggestion stays popular BECAUSE it is popular. The problem with this system is that queries of little “value” get sucked into this engine. This is why we see useless suggestions like “neil armstrong is my uncle” and “jackie chan is dead”.

Updating the Google Suggest Algorithm

It’s a tricky problem.

If they aren’t already, Google should strive to improve the Suggest algorithm to combat this “trending” effect. Here’s one way:

Each new search string receives "popularity points" each time that they are a fully 100% text entered search. “Popularity points” decay over time, so to maintain growth, a string must be frequently searched for. If a defined point threshold is reached, a string may start to appear as a suggestion to all users. Once popular, the search string subtracts "popularity points" each time that it is successfully clicked via suggestion. Points can still be added however for natural searches – those where a suggestion is NOT clicked.

This algorithm becomes a self-regulating control system. Popular queries naturally converge to the threshold, able to fall of face of the Internet if they are not readily maintained. It’s not perfect – people might see a popular suggestion and still type it without clicking the suggestion. But it should at least help.

Meanwhile, relax and enjoy the mayhem that Google Suggest brings. Did you know “Google is Skynet” and "Obama is literally Hitler"?

With all this Mayan "2012" and Apophis end-of-times nonsense, I thought we could all use a little brain teaser to relax.

The following 11 images are generated automatically using the Google Images API. Which image should come next? If you're stuck, try regenerating the images for new clues.

For those awesome enough to figure it out, post a link to the NEXT possible image, and rejoice with superior laughter over your defeated peers.

Cheers to our winner Zack!

Everyone else: Keep the chain going; plenty more photos needed. What's next??

The Third & The Seventh was created entirely by Alex Roman. USING A FREAKING COMPUTER.

That's right. That thing you just drooled over was entirely CGI. The whole damn thing.

Every season I swear I'm quitting.

The plots are horribly recycled, and the real-time aspect has become overly gimmicky. But I'm too hooked at this point and I've given up trying to fight it. Jack Bauer is just too badass and my liberal brain needs an outlet.

So to make "24" easier to digest, I've decide Bingo cards are in order.

And speaking of original ideas, I've apparently run out myself.

As I sat down to code up a JavaScript "24" Bingo card generator, I happened to notice that someone had beaten me to the punch by a good two years. Much credit and cheers to plutor.org for their incredibly awesome original 24 Bingo Card, from which I am technically now "inspired".

This newer version works in some recent "24" cliches from the past couple seasons.

"24" Day 8 premieres January 17th at 9PM on FOX. Dammit!

On April 13, 2029, Earth has a 1 in 250,000 chance of having a very bad day.

Instead of freaking out, maybe we should catch it?

WWJD?

The indisputable evidence box was a conceptual mind-exercise I came up with a while back to test one’s ability to maintain justifiable skepticism. It’s like a pregnancy test for logic, except you don’t have to pee on anything.

In a nutshell, the test is to imagine a set of hypothetical evidence that is so overwhelmingly AGAINST your own belief system that you’d have no choice but to accept that you are undeniably wrong. The question is then: presented with this indisputable evidence box, would you abandon your beliefs?

I like this exercise because it’s naturally polarizing. For those with a strong scientific background, it’s a layup; the scientific method flourishes in this sort of situation where new evidence presents itself against a commonly accepted theory.  But when the user’s response is fuddled, ambiguous, or even hostile toward the test, it’s quite clear that skepticism and rationality are not frequently-used tools in their personal bag of tricks.

Arguing Over Dinner

The indisputable evidence box is a good opener for any of your standard family holiday dinner discussions. When the conversation turns to hot topics like evolution, global warming, vaccinations, or any flavor of conspiracy theory, test your opposition’s IEB reflex before you waste your breath on a fruitless debate. After all, there’s nothing like arguing with someone who is too stubborn or irrational to accept that they might be wrong.

The exercise, in effect, is a test for the user’s null hypothesis comprehension. The null hypothesis is quite simply a hypothesis that can be disproven. For example, if you strongly believe “X has an effect on Y”, you should also probably check to make sure “X does not have an effect on Y”.

Googlegate

Conspiracy theorists often have a difficult time with this concept, where frequently a null hypothesis is conveniently absent. Recently, there was a very passionate and vocal pitchfork army who attacked the Google Web Search forum with allegations that Google was censoring the term “climategate” from its auto-suggest feature. The "Googlegate" theorists alleged that Google, a somewhat liberal and active believer in global warming, wanted to suppress the term from the Internet in order to promote its own political agenda.

"Al-Gore-ithm" seems to be working now

The official response from Google employees on the matter echoed that of many other rational bystanders – that the term was relatively new and that “it's totally normal for a suggestion to take time to appear consistently in [the] query suggestions”. Sure enough, the term did indeed eventually appear in the auto-suggest box, but not without the conspiracy theorists’ canned “we caught you and you caved” cackle.

So we have two scenarios here. Either the algorithm operated exactly as it was supposed to -- reacting to search query popularity and trending to provide a shortcut search string.

Or the following occurred: Google CEOs sat around a table discussing the recent "climategate" debacle. They closed the shades, and after heated debate decided the only option was the immediate and ongoing censorship of the term "climategate" from the auto-suggest algorithm. Nevermind the already existing  auto-suggestions for "global warming" like "global warming hoax" or "global warming myth" -- the best way to influence the public opinion right now is to not assist a user in finishing their search string. Yes. A perfectly subtle and effective solution. And get Bing.com on the phone -- we're going to collaborate this with them as well!

-- Days later --

Blast! These people are more clever than we thought. They've noticed that "climategate" isn't appearing. Hrmmm... alright. You win this round! Johnson! Uncensor the damn Internet!

I always wonder what these types of people would do with an IEB. Even with only a dumbed down “really overwhelming" evidence box, could there ever be enough evidence to convince them that their conspiracy theories are nothing but a warped, confirmation-bias laced crock of fiction?

Or maybe I’m just part of the conspiracy and I want them to think that.