Futility Closet - 086-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: December 21, 2015

Here are six new lateral thinking puzzles to test your wits and stump your friends -- play along with us as we try to untangle some strange situations using only yes-or-no questions. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- on our Patreon page you can pledge any amount per episode, and all contributions are greatly appreciated. You can change or cancel your pledge at any time, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation via the Donate button in the sidebar of the Futility Closet website. This episode's puzzles were contributed by listeners David White and Sean Gilbertson and drawn from the following books: Edward J. Harshman, Fantastic Lateral Thinking Puzzles, 1996. Kyle Hendrickson, Mental Fitness Puzzles, 1998. Paul Sloane and Des MacHale, Intriguing Lateral Thinking Puzzles, 1996. David White sent two links to corroborate the third puzzle -- these contain spoilers, so listen to the episode before clicking. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Hello, listeners. Here's another special episode full of lateral thinking puzzles. Yeah, the lateral thinking puzzles are a very popular segment of the show, but very difficult to predict how they're going to go. Yeah, compared to the rest of the show, this is really unruly. So sometimes someone will get lucky and solve a puzzle too quickly or unlucky and take too long to solve it, and it won't fit into the space we had carved out for it in a given episode. But sometimes the puzzles are really good,

and so we end up just keeping them and putting them together for specials like this one. Please keep sending in your puzzle ideas. We're very grateful to receive all of them. You can send them to podcast at futilitycloset.com. And if you've sent in a puzzle and you haven't heard it on the show, we're sorry about that. Sometimes they really just don't go well, and they're just not worth running at all. For any of a thousand reasons.

But we really do appreciate all the submissions we get. So enjoy these puzzles, and we'll be back next week with some more quirky history and a brand new lateral thinking puzzle. Greg's going to be trying to solve a lateral thinking puzzle. I'm going to give him an odd-sounding situation, and he has to try to work out what's going on, asking only yes or no questions. Are you ready?

Yes, ma'am. Okay. This is from Edward J. Harshman's 1996 Fantastic Lateral Thinking Puzzles. David got out of bed, washed up, got dressed, ate breakfast, walked outside, got into his car, drove 300 miles, left his car, went inside, ate supper, got undressed, and went to bed. His bedroom was the same as when he left it before driving, but he was 300 miles away from his earlier location. He did not drive in a circle. How can this be?

All right. Just to get this clear, is it the same bedroom? Yes. So, can I dispense with all the preliminaries? Yeah, yeah. They're just kind of telling you that he went through his day. A man wakes up in one bedroom. Yes.

Drives 300 miles and arrives at the same room. Is that right? Ends up going to bed in the same room, yeah. Drives a car. Drives a car. Which is what I think of as a car. What do you think of as a car? And reaches the same room after traveling 300 miles.

Yes. And doesn't go in a circle. Does not go in a circle. Is his occupation important? No. Are other people involved? No. Is it true?

I don't know. It might be. Not a specific, yeah, it could be. Is the geographic location important? No. The time period? No. The time period? No. But the setting?

I mean, is he in space or? Nope, nope. Setting's not important. Okay. So basically how can, and is the fact that this is a bedroom important or is it just that he travels 300 miles and arrives at the same location? The way you've worded that question, I can't quite answer it because you've given me, I have to pick one alternative or the other, and I'm not going to agree with either of them. Could we simplify it just by saying a man starts in one location, travels 300 miles, and arrives at the same point?

No, that wouldn't be correct. He's actually, the puzzle says he's 300 miles away from his earlier location. But, so his bedroom has moved, is that accurate, 300 miles? Yes. So it's not that he circles the pole or something. Right. But he's driving at the same time. Does he drive the bedroom? Is he transporting the bedroom in some sense?

I'd say yes. Like if it's a... He's not driving the bedroom, but... For example, like a motorhome, if he just drives 300 miles, he'll get into the same bedroom and it's 300 miles from where it had been. Is it something like that? It is something like that. But it's not that he's transporting it himself.

He is transporting it himself. But he's driving a car, as I said, in the puzzle. Does he sleep in the car? No. The car is not the bedroom? But you're on the right track. You're very close. Is it a trailer or something like that?

Yes, yes, yes. His home is a trailer, which is fastened to his car. That makes sense. This is from Kyle Hendrickson's 1998 book, Mental Fitness Puzzles. Mick often went hunting in the extensive marshlands which surrounded the local airport. One day, a plane was forced to make a crash landing. Although Mick never fired his rifle or any other weapon, his hunting trip was directly responsible for the tragedy.

How did Mick's hunting trip turn deadly? Hmm. Did he have something that created light, either directly or by reflection? No. Okay. Good guess. Mick is a human? Yes. Does it matter where this happens other than woodlands or something surrounding an airport?

No. Does anything else about the setting matter? No. Does anything about the time period matter? No. Do I need to know anything about Mick's identity? No. Other than that he hunts?

No. Okay. So he didn't fire his weapon, but he somehow directly caused the plane to have to make an emergency landing, did you say? Make a crash landing, yes. Make a crash landing. Did it make a crash landing at the airport that he was nearby? That he was near? Yes.

Was the plane coming into the airport? Do I know that? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Possibly, yes. Whether it was coming in or going out. Okay, so a plane was in the air.

Yes. An airplane. Yes. With people inside of it. Yes. Okay. Okay. Was in the air and something happened, something occurred.

Yes. That made the pilot decide to have to make a crash landing? Yes. That's right. So this was a decision the pilot made, not that the pilot was dead? Yes. That's right. So this was a decision the pilot made, not that the pilot was dead or unconscious. That's right. Okay. So the pilot makes a decision, gee, I'm going to need to make a crash landing. That's right. Okay. Was something about the plane not working properly? Something on the plane itself was no longer working properly?

That's the reason for the landing? Yes. Yes. Was it that Mick had summoned ducks with a duck call and one of them got sucked into the plane's engines? No. Oh, shoot. I thought, that has to be it. That's not it. But you said something was not working properly on the plane. Right.

And somehow this relates to Mick's hunting activities. Exactly. But it's not that a bird got sucked into the engine, because I want that to be correct. That is correct. A bird did get sucked into the engine. Yes. I just said the wrong bird. Oh, but it was Mick's bird.

Mick was hunting with a bird. Yes. Like he was using a falcon or something. Exactly. And that's what, aw, and that got sucked into the engine. Mick is a practitioner of falconry. One of his hunting falcons was sucked into the jet's intake and caused the engine to fail.

This week's puzzle was sent in by David White. Good. Yay. Hi, David. Hi, David. In 1994, Steve Davies played his debut game for a professional English soccer team. He played reasonably well with his team

and even contributed to the team's 4-0 victory by scoring a goal. At the end of the game, however, Steve was removed from the team roster and sent away. He asked if he could at least keep the jersey from his debut game, but his request was refused. He never played for that team again or any other English soccer club. What had happened? Wow. Okay, this is true, obviously. This is true, yeah.

So he only played in one game? He only played in one game. Okay. Do I need to know what position he played? No. Or specifically, he must have done something during the game, right? Done something? Well, to incur.

I mean, he played soccer. Would you say he was banned? Is that the word you would use to describe what happened? No, no. So he was capable of playing soccer beyond word you would use to describe what happened? No. So he was capable of playing soccer beyond this. He just wasn't allowed in the league. Is that right? I wouldn't say it that way, but I guess that's technically right.

Well, like he wasn't injured or... Correct. He was not injured. And he wasn't under a cloud somehow? That's not the reason? Correct. I would say that's not the reason. But you said he wasn't allowed to play... I didn't say not allowed to play. He never played for that team again or any other English soccer club. So it was his choice then not to play?

No. But it wasn't the league's choice. They didn't. You say you wouldn't call this a ban. I wouldn't call this a ban, no. Did he want to play, conceivably? Possibly. All right, so it's possible he wanted to play more, but something prevented him.

I don't know if I'd say something prevented him, but you could say that. You could say that, I suppose. I'm just trying to figure out what. So was it that he chose to do something else instead of playing soccer? No, I wouldn't say that. Okay, do I need to know what unfolded in this one specific soccer game that he did play in? Not particularly. Do I need to know more abouted in this one specific soccer game that he did play in? Not particularly. Do I need to know more about him personally?

I guess I do. I guess there is something you do need to know. Okay, in other words, it wasn't something that happened on the field that day. Correct. That led to this outcome. That's correct. Something about who he was or... I would say yes, that's closest.

All right. Something about him physically? No. No. I'm trying to think? No. No. I'm trying to think. No. Okay. Something about his, I don't know, his history, his...

I guess that's closer. Yeah. Identity? Yeah. I mean, something along those lines. Okay. I hate to mislead you, you know, by saying, you know, I want to give you answers to the exact question you're asking, but I'm sometimes worried that you're thinking something different.

You know, I do the same thing as you. Thank you. Okay. Identity. Did he have some past that came to light? No. All right. And by his identity, he didn't have some other identity or something.

He was who he seemed to be. He was who he seemed to be. And there's nothing physically unusual about him. Nothing physically unusual about him. And you say what he did in the actual play of the game that day didn't have a bearing on what happened. Correct. Was there any...

So are there other people involved? No. I mean, there was a whole soccer team there, but... Is there any sort of crime or foul play or anything like that? No, no. Or, you know, cheating at the game, anything like that? Would you say that on the game day, the game started like any other game? I mean, no one expected something unusual to happen?

I'd say so. Would you say that people were surprised by the end of the game at this outcome? What outcome? Well, I'm not quite sure. He didn't play again. He didn't play again. This is the only game he played in. So presumably the fans of his team recognized that he didn't play again.

That's correct. They weren't surprised to see that. No. All right. So I need to work out why he didn't play again. It wasn't a—does it matter where the game took place? No. Who the opponent was?

No. Anything about the fans or the... Nope. Media coverage? Nope. Do we need to work out specifically what he did do with his life after this one game? No. All right.

It's just that he played one game of professional soccer. Yes. And then didn't play again. Correct. Do we need to know his age? No. His health? then didn't play again. Correct. Do we need to know his age? No. His health? No.

Anything like that? No. You say there aren't other people involved. And I don't even know where this happened. Do I? No, no. And this is... This is a true story.

Okay. So let's say at the end of the game then, you said his team won the game, was it four? Four to zero. At that point, he's just a victorious soccer player on a winning soccer team after a game, right? Would you say that? I might not say that. When we say soccer, you mean what I think of as? European football, I mean.

What they call soccer in the U.S. You might not say he was victorious? Is that the part you're hesitating at? No, no, that's not the part I'm hesitating at. Is he human? Yes. Always check if they're human. Okay, you said you wouldn't hesitate to say he was a victorious soccer player?

I would hesitate to say that. But you wouldn't hesitate to say he was playing soccer? That's correct. I would not hesitate to say that. I'm just trying to help you a little bit here. I feel like I'm making a peculiar sort of progress. I just can't make sense of it. Okay. You'd hesitate to say he's a soccer player? Yes. But you would say that he's playing soccer. Yes. He's not a player? He's not a player. He's not a player of soccer.

Well, he is a player of soccer. But he's not a soccer player. Right. Meaning he's not, is he on the team technically? No. Read the statement again. In 1994, Steve Davies played his debut game for a professional English soccer team. He played reasonably well with his team and even contributed to the team's 4-0 victory by

scoring a goal. At the end of the game, however, Steve was removed from the team roster and sent away. He asked if he could at least keep the jersey from his debut game, but his request was refused. He never played for that team again or any other English soccer club. What had happened? And I won't make you guess the specifics, but what the general well he's not on the team because what am I saying that I wouldn't agree to that I'm I feel like I'm right on the brink but I'm not seeing is he a mascot no he's on the roster for this game meaning he played on the field in a designated position in a regulation soccer game. I don't know about regulation. It was a pre-season game.

Okay. I don't know how that works. Okay, but he played soccer. He did play soccer. And contributed to the... Contributed to the team winning. But you wouldn't say to the victory. He did contribute to the victory.

Okay, but he didn't play he did play he's not a player he's not a player he did play yes but he's not a player right is he a coach or an official or no no should i just tell you you sort of have it he's just not a soccer player he was a fan that got drafted in to play this one game oh okay he's not actually a soccer player. He was a fan that got drafted in to play this one game. Oh, okay. He's not actually a soccer player. He's not actually. But he played a whole game? No, part of the game. David writes, Steve Davies was not a professional soccer player at all. That's what I was trying to get you to get. He's not a professional soccer player. Rather, he was a dedicated fan of the

West Ham Soccer Club. Like many English football fans, Steve had a big mouth and wasn't shy about yelling at West Ham players whenever they didn't live up to his standards. During a preseason game in 1994, a number of West Ham players were injured, with Steve Davies running his mouth and West Ham not having enough players to fill the field, because they just kept getting injured and having to be pulled out of the game, and they couldn't field a whole team anymore. The manager looked at Steve on the sidelines and and called out oi can you play as good as you talk the rest became a soccer legend the only time that a fan was called on to play in a

professional soccer game steve played as well as you would expect from an amateur player and helped west ham win a four to zero victory although he wasn't able to keep his jersey at the end of the game because west ham needed it for another player, he still called it the happiest moment of his life. Yeah, that makes sense. So I read an article on this after David sent it in, and there's this whole long article about it. Steve Davies really was like a total super fan from the time he was five years old.

West Ham United wasn't even a local team for where he grew up, so nobody else supported them in his area, but he would travel 182 miles round trip to see the West Ham United wasn't even a local team for where he grew up, so nobody else supported them in his area. But he would travel 182 miles round trip to see the West Ham home games. And then once he got a little older, he traveled extensively throughout Britain so he could also attend the away games. I mean, his whole life was organized around going to all the games. When he was called in to actually play with the team, he recognized that he was obviously completely out of his depth,

and he was actually pretty terrified. But it was like a total dream come true for him. It would be. Yeah, I can see that. Interestingly, there was no hard evidence of this event because this was pre-cameras and smartphones and stuff, 1994. And for many years, most people regarded it as an urban legend just told by West Ham fans. But a journalist spent more than a decade tracking down the story before he managed to find the fan in question and actually verify the story. And it's true.

This is from Paul Sloan and Des McHale's 1996 book Intriguing Lateral Thinking Puzzles. Okay. Victor was smartly dressed, well-shaven, and with the best haircut he'd had for years. Many of his friends and relatives saw him, yet no one complimented him. Why not? Was Victor a dog at a dog show? That's your first question? Yes. No. Oh, it seemed to me like

Victor would be a dog at a dog show. He was all, I guess he wouldn't be dressed. Okay, was Victor human? Yes. Oh, darn. Okay. That would have been really impressive. Yes was it. Yes, that's it. Okay. So, oh, well, okay. You say his friends and relatives saw him, but were they not in the immediate vicinity? Like he's on TV or he's in a play and they're watching from the audience or something. Good thought. No, that's not it. Oh, that's a really good answer, though.

That's a really good answer, yes. That's a really good answer. Okay. All right. So Victor is like smartly dressed and... Well-shaven and with the best haircut he'd had for years. And his friends and family... Oh, he's dead.

He's in a coffin. Yes. Yay! Somebody died! The mortuary had prepared Victor well for his funeral. Today's puzzle was sent in by Sean Gilbertson. Thank you, Sean. And the puzzle is... A man rents a cabin far away from civilization.

On his first night, he drowns while he's sleeping. How did this happen? Drowns while he's sleeping. Yes. Okay. I suppose I should ask if this is true. Not that I'm aware of. By man, you mean a human being?

Yes. By cabin, you mean a cabin like a dwelling? We had one of these once with a different meaning. Right. I do not mean a cabin like a dwelling. Ah. Ah. Yes.

I was afraid you might remember that one. Wow. I thought for sure. Okay. Yes, that held me up for a long time on that puzzle. I'm not quite there yet, though. You say he rents a cabin? He rents a cabin far away from civilization.

Oh, is it on a ship? Yes. And the ship sinks. No. But it's on a ship. Sean just has a different answer, but that would work. So is he in the cabin when he drowns? No.

I'm sorry. He rents a cabin far from civilization. On his first night, he drowns while he's sleeping. Is he sleepwalking? Yes. Oh, that's a good one. I like that. I just stumbled into it.

He walks over the side and into the ocean. I actually like that puzzle. I just happened to ask the right question. This is from Paul Sloan and Des McHale's 1996 book, Intriguing Lateral Thinking Puzzles. A problem which had caused the loss of many thousands of lives and the loss of millions Oh, goodness. Okay, is the time period important? Yes. I'm going to guess it would be.

Hmm. Is it before the 20th century? Yes. Before the 19th century? No. So this took place during the 1800s? Yes. Before the 19th century? No. So this took place during the 1800s? Yes. Okay.

Is the location important? Um... Anything about the location important? You know, I am going to say not really. Not really. Oh, wow. Okay. Hmm.

Is this somehow related to weather? Yes. Yes. Crop failure? No. I'm trying to think what would cause the loss of lives and property. Because, I mean, at first I was thinking disease, but that really doesn't cause property damage, you know? So I'm thinking, okay, a natural phenomenon other than weather?

I just don't want to mislead you. I'm going to say no. I mean, that's not the main thing. Okay. That's not the main thing. Because you said property damage, too. It's not just loss of lives. That's right.

Property damage. Is this something to do with insects or animals no no um okay well let's just rule it out disease no no okay because yeah because it's kind of hard to imagine property damage from disease but war is this connected to a war no no or a series of wars or and the part of the world that it's in isn't specifically important. I mean, you could, you could get more specific. Right. Did this happen in a particular country, in one particular country, whatever this was?

To begin with, yes. Yeah, to begin with, yes. Was it in Europe? Yes. Something in Europe in the 1800s, I'm thinking like the potato famine, but you said it had nothing to do with, did I ask? It had nothing to do with crops, right? Right.

Crop failures? No crop failures, right. That really wouldn't... I mean, unless you count crops as... Oh, when you say property, do you mean something other than other people? Like slaves are technically property? Oh, oh, oh. Yes, I mean something other than other people.

Okay, okay. So when you say property, you mean inanimate objects as property. Yes. You don't mean like cattle or slaves or something? Yeah, no, that's a good question. Okay. Because if it's something killing cattle, then it would be, you know, property damage. Okay.

So when you mean property damage, do you mean like to buildings? No. No. Oh, so you have something specific in mind for what kind of property? Yes. Okay. But not No. No. Oh, so you have something specific in mind for what kind of property? Yes. Okay. But not buildings. Huh.

Something that people would normally own? Yes. Individual people might own it? Might, yes. Might. Okay. Not animals, not people, not buildings, property damage. Land?

No. Hmm. Not crops. Right. not buildings property damage land no um hmm not crops right right not crops i've covered that like six times because i keep wanting it to be crops it's gotta be crops um what else do people own would this would this be owned more by like governments or groups of people than by individual people? I would tend to say so. Yeah. Generally. But not buildings. Works of art? No.

Things that would normally be found in the public area? Like out in the public? I don't even know what I'm asking. I'm trying to think of a hint. Well, it's not like individual houses. Is this something... Okay, loss of lives. I'm just... I need to... I can't get a handle on this. Yeah, because it's not like individual houses. Is this something... Okay, loss of lives. I'm just... I need to...

I can't get a handle on this here. Yeah, because it's very broad. Is this... Okay, are the people all dying of the same thing? Would you say generally? Let's say yes. Okay. And you're saying it's not really a natural disaster?

That's right. It's not really a natural disaster? Yeah, not in the... Yeah, that's right. You wouldn't say so. Would you say that other people are killing them? The people that are dying? No. No, so they're not dying of disease or natural disaster or starvation.

Right. Or exposure to the elements? I think I would have to say yes to that, but I don't want to mislead you. Okay, they're dying from exposure to something weatherish? No, what am I missing? Yes. And you're saying it doesn't matter where this takes place. So it's not like some sort of natural, like there's waterfalls or mountains or like something that's important or near the ocean or...

It's related to transportation. I'm trying to think of a vague enough hint. Oh, is that the property damage, the transportation? Yes. Trains? No. No. Well, okay, boats, ships?

Yes. Ships? Oh. Oh, boy, I just wasn't thinking about this right at all. So like ships are shipwrecking? Not quite, yes. Not quite? Ships are running into each other?

No. So it's not that ships are running into land or ships are running into something? No. No. Ships are going down, though. Yes. Ships are going down, but not because they've hit something. Something has hit them.

No. Icebergs. That's not the heart of it. That's Titanic. No. Okay. So ships are going down, and that's resulting in loss of property and loss of lives. That's right.

That's right. And we're going to keep the ships from going down with a can of paint and a paintbrush. Exactly. We're going to paint something a different color. No. We're gonna, okay, we're gonna paint something. Yes. Yes. But the same color, not a different color. The color isn't important. We're going to paint something. Are we painting the ships with the paint? Yes. Yes. Are we painting some ships? To begin with. To begin with yes we're painting some ships uh to begin with to begin with we're painting some ships oh it's going to keep something from ramming into the ships like whales or something no because

you said animals aren't involved um and it's not it's not going to make is it okay is this to make the ships more visible no okay is this something about the paint? Like it's waterproof or watertight? No. No, it's just paint that makes things colors. Is there some other property to the paint other than it has a color? Well, it's what it's used for. It's not just to change the color of the shit. Okay, okay. Boy, I don't understand at all. Were they making signs? Were they using language or any form of symbols? Yes.

They were painting some, you would say, some form of symbols? Yes. Language? No. I don't want to lead you in the wrong direction. No, I would let's say not language. But like eyes or something that would have meaning to somebody. Something that would have meaning to somebody. Something that would have meaning to somebody.

Painting flags? No. But they're painting on the ship. Yes, they're painting on the ship. You're doing very well. I just, I have to think of hints. This is so vague. That aren't going to put you.

Okay, okay, okay. Are you painting, so it's not, you're painting the whole ship. You're painting one part of the ship? That's right. That's right. So it's not you're painting the whole ship. You're painting one part of the ship? That's right.

That's right. Are you painting this in some way that's going to benefit the sailors? The sailors on a particular ship. Are you painting something on their ship that will benefit the sailors of that ship? Well, yes. Well, yes, but it will also benefit somebody that's not on the ship currently? No, I think you would have to say, given that choice, that it benefits the people on the ship. But the sailors specifically.

Try to figure out which part of the ship. Yeah. It's not the whole ship that's getting painted. Right. It's not the whole ship that's getting painted. Something to do with steering? No. To help the ship maneuver better or steer better? No.

Something to help them tell directions better? No. Parts help them tell directions better? No. Parts of a ship. I'm doing terribly. No, it's just a... You're so good that I'm afraid of just giving it away? Okay, all right. So you're going to paint something on the ship, and it's not to make it more visible.

Is it to make it clear? Something that will help distinguish two things or more from each other? No. And it's not to make something more just visible in general? That's correct. That's correct. So, because you said it doesn't matter what color they paint it, but they're painting symbols. You said, but it's not language. It's some sort of symbol.

Yeah. But not language. An X sort of symbol yeah but not language um an x on something that's poisonous so that people won't drink it no you're doing great at coming up with guesses um i'm trying to think what would be on a ship that you would need to paint some kind of symbol on it and this will keep okay are you painting the doors no are you painting like specific objects like casks no you're painting so you're painting some permanent part of the ship yes okay and it has nothing to do with the steering or the navigation are you painting something on the outside of the ship like the hall yes okay you're

painting something on the outside of the um and this has nothing to do with like being you know fired upon by other ships no and it has nothing to do with trying to keep wildlife away or to keep other ships from ramming into you. Correct. That's all correct. If this were done to even a single ship, that ship would benefit, even if it never encountered another ship or a sea creature.

Really? So you paint something on the outside of the ship and it benefits the ship itself? Yes. Oh, boy. That's a really good question. So what could you paint on the outside of the ship and it benefits the ship itself yes oh boy that's a good that's a really good question so what could you paint on the outside of the ship would it be under the water line i can't answer that would it be at the water line yes so you're going to paint something at the water line specifically yes you're very close now but But I still have absolutely no idea.

I'm just asking questions and trying to hope that something's going to come to me here. So they want to see where the water line is? Yes. Why would that vary? Why would that vary? Why would you need to mark? So they know if they're taking on water? No. So if their load is too heavy?

Yes. Because ships didn't know that the loads were too heavy, so they were overloading the ships? Yes. And then the ships were just foundering because they had too much on them? Yes, basically. Seriously? That's enough. Well done.

Not very. A man named Samuel Plimsoll initiated a movement that led the British in 1875 and subsequently other nations to draw a line which became called the Plimsoll Line on the hull of every cargo ship, showing the maximum depth to which the ship could be loaded. Prior to this, many ships had sunk because they were overloaded, either in storms or because once insurance was introduced in the 19th century, Some owners actually deliberately overloaded their ships, hoping that they would sink so they could collect the insurance money. I had no idea. So what the plimsoll line would do is it's a little symbol you draw at the bottom, I mean, near the waterline of the ship, so people who are loading it will know when it's got to the maximum amount

that you can safely load it. Did not occur to me. So well done. I'm sorry, I didn't want to give you really good hints because you would just zip right to the solution. Well, if anybody has any other puzzles to send in and apparently don't send in for me to do ones about ships, you can send them to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com.