CLOSE
Original image

Don't tell us your password: the top ten

Original image

Passwords rule our lives. You need one to access your computer, your email, your bank account, and on and on. To make matters worse, there are hordes of thieves and hackers out there trying to get the virtual keys to our online kingdoms, via phishing, the hacking of corporate databases, spyware, etc. So why is it, then -- despite ubiquitous warnings to the contrary -- that so many people still make their passwords simple, intuitive, and use the same ones over and over for years at a stretch? The simplest answer, which via Occam's Razor is probably the correct one, is that we're just lazy. If that's the case, and you can't bring yourself to memorize eight randomly-generated numbers and letters strung together rather than using the name of your family pet to secure that million-dollar 401k account, then at least take our advice and avoid these most commonly used passwords:

10. [The user's first name.] In Britain, the tenth most common password is "Thomas," which in 2000 was also the second most popular name given to male British children.

9. blink182. Lord knows, Blink182 isn't the most popular band in America. We're betting it has something to do with the fact that it combines numbers and letters, which many password engines require of new passwords these days. Just don't do it, people -- the band, or the password.

8. password1. Lazy, lazy lazy.

7. myspace1. This is likely a testament to the staggering number of people that have MySpace.com accounts, all of which require a password. (We think it's up to about 177 million now; that's how many friends MySpace co-founder and face-of-myspace Tom Anderson has. And everybody is Tom's friend.)

6. monkey. This one baffles us a bit. 1.33% of all passwords are "monkey," which may be because a) it's six letters long, the minimum number allowable in most passwords, b) easy to remember and c) the keys required to type it are spaced out in a way that makes typing it quick, and actually, sort of pleasant. (Monkey. Monkey monkey monkey. I could type that all day.) If there's some other reason that millions of Americans use this as their password, I'd rather not know about it.

5. letmein. I guess there's a certain power thrill in commanding a site to "letmein" and then being obeyed?

The top four passwords are so mind-numbingly lazy they require almost no comment. They are:

4. abc123

3. qwerty

2. 123456

1. password

Let's just hope that people using any of the above four passwords don't really care if their respective accounts are safe or not. I'll admit to making up crappy passwords like, say, "password" when forced to register for a website that I'm only ever going to view once, and on which I leave basically no personal information. But statistically, it's a sure bet that somewhere out there are nuclear secrets or marriage-ruining emails flimsily protected with a mere "123456." Don't let it happen to you!

Thanks to our friends at Howstuffworks for the cool close-up of a lock!

Original image
iStock // Ekaterina Minaeva
technology
arrow
Man Buys Two Metric Tons of LEGO Bricks; Sorts Them Via Machine Learning
May 21, 2017
Original image
iStock // Ekaterina Minaeva

Jacques Mattheij made a small, but awesome, mistake. He went on eBay one evening and bid on a bunch of bulk LEGO brick auctions, then went to sleep. Upon waking, he discovered that he was the high bidder on many, and was now the proud owner of two tons of LEGO bricks. (This is about 4400 pounds.) He wrote, "[L]esson 1: if you win almost all bids you are bidding too high."

Mattheij had noticed that bulk, unsorted bricks sell for something like €10/kilogram, whereas sets are roughly €40/kg and rare parts go for up to €100/kg. Much of the value of the bricks is in their sorting. If he could reduce the entropy of these bins of unsorted bricks, he could make a tidy profit. While many people do this work by hand, the problem is enormous—just the kind of challenge for a computer. Mattheij writes:

There are 38000+ shapes and there are 100+ possible shades of color (you can roughly tell how old someone is by asking them what lego colors they remember from their youth).

In the following months, Mattheij built a proof-of-concept sorting system using, of course, LEGO. He broke the problem down into a series of sub-problems (including "feeding LEGO reliably from a hopper is surprisingly hard," one of those facts of nature that will stymie even the best system design). After tinkering with the prototype at length, he expanded the system to a surprisingly complex system of conveyer belts (powered by a home treadmill), various pieces of cabinetry, and "copious quantities of crazy glue."

Here's a video showing the current system running at low speed:

The key part of the system was running the bricks past a camera paired with a computer running a neural net-based image classifier. That allows the computer (when sufficiently trained on brick images) to recognize bricks and thus categorize them by color, shape, or other parameters. Remember that as bricks pass by, they can be in any orientation, can be dirty, can even be stuck to other pieces. So having a flexible software system is key to recognizing—in a fraction of a second—what a given brick is, in order to sort it out. When a match is found, a jet of compressed air pops the piece off the conveyer belt and into a waiting bin.

After much experimentation, Mattheij rewrote the software (several times in fact) to accomplish a variety of basic tasks. At its core, the system takes images from a webcam and feeds them to a neural network to do the classification. Of course, the neural net needs to be "trained" by showing it lots of images, and telling it what those images represent. Mattheij's breakthrough was allowing the machine to effectively train itself, with guidance: Running pieces through allows the system to take its own photos, make a guess, and build on that guess. As long as Mattheij corrects the incorrect guesses, he ends up with a decent (and self-reinforcing) corpus of training data. As the machine continues running, it can rack up more training, allowing it to recognize a broad variety of pieces on the fly.

Here's another video, focusing on how the pieces move on conveyer belts (running at slow speed so puny humans can follow). You can also see the air jets in action:

In an email interview, Mattheij told Mental Floss that the system currently sorts LEGO bricks into more than 50 categories. It can also be run in a color-sorting mode to bin the parts across 12 color groups. (Thus at present you'd likely do a two-pass sort on the bricks: once for shape, then a separate pass for color.) He continues to refine the system, with a focus on making its recognition abilities faster. At some point down the line, he plans to make the software portion open source. You're on your own as far as building conveyer belts, bins, and so forth.

Check out Mattheij's writeup in two parts for more information. It starts with an overview of the story, followed up with a deep dive on the software. He's also tweeting about the project (among other things). And if you look around a bit, you'll find bulk LEGO brick auctions online—it's definitely a thing!

Original image
Nick Briggs/Comic Relief
entertainment
arrow
What Happened to Jamie and Aurelia From Love Actually?
May 26, 2017
Original image
Nick Briggs/Comic Relief

Fans of the romantic-comedy Love Actually recently got a bonus reunion in the form of Red Nose Day Actually, a short charity special that gave audiences a peek at where their favorite characters ended up almost 15 years later.

One of the most improbable pairings from the original film was between Jamie (Colin Firth) and Aurelia (Lúcia Moniz), who fell in love despite almost no shared vocabulary. Jamie is English, and Aurelia is Portuguese, and they know just enough of each other’s native tongues for Jamie to propose and Aurelia to accept.

A decade and a half on, they have both improved their knowledge of each other’s languages—if not perfectly, in Jamie’s case. But apparently, their love is much stronger than his grasp on Portuguese grammar, because they’ve got three bilingual kids and another on the way. (And still enjoy having important romantic moments in the car.)

In 2015, Love Actually script editor Emma Freud revealed via Twitter what happened between Karen and Harry (Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, who passed away last year). Most of the other couples get happy endings in the short—even if Hugh Grant's character hasn't gotten any better at dancing.

[h/t TV Guide]

SECTIONS
BIG QUESTIONS
BIG QUESTIONS
WEATHER WATCH
BE THE CHANGE
JOB SECRETS
QUIZZES
WORLD WAR 1
SMART SHOPPING
STONES, BONES, & WRECKS
#TBT
THE PRESIDENTS
WORDS
RETROBITUARIES