Futility Closet - 230-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: December 24, 2018

Here are six new lateral thinking puzzles -- play along with us as we try to untangle some perplexing situations using yes-or-no questions. The sources for this week's puzzles are below. In a few places we've included links to further information -- these contain spoilers, so don't click until you've listened to the episode: Puzzle #1 was contributed by listener Phil Moore. Here are two corroborating links. Puzzle #2 is from Jed's List of Situation Puzzles. Puzzle #3 is adapted from Edward J. Harshman's 1996 book Fantastic Lateral Thinking Puzzles. Puzzle #4 is from Greg. Here's a link. Puzzle #5 was inspired by an item on the podcast No Such Thing as a Fish. Here are two links. Puzzle #6 is from listener Dave Capozzi, who sent this link. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Hello, listeners. Here's another special episode of Lateral Thinking Puzzles. These are puzzles where one of us describes a strange-sounding situation, and the other has to work out what's going on by asking a yes-or-no question. And thanks so much to everyone who's been sending in puzzles for us to try. We can always use more, so please do keep sending them to podcast at futilitycloset.com. We're off next week, but we'll be back on January 7th with another dose of quirky history and another lateral thinking puzzle. This puzzle comes from Phil Moore, who wrote, Hello, Cat and Humans, who I recently discovered from the Patreon feed, our fellow University of Maryland alums. Go Terps! And Phil's puzzle is, on most days of the week,

Heathrow, one of the world's busiest airports, has commercial passenger flights arrive and depart without any actual passengers. Why? Oh, that's interesting. I didn't know that. Yeah, and obviously this is true. Commercial? Passenger flights arrive and depart without any actual passengers.

Okay, just to nail that down, that means a plane arrives at the gate with no one aboard, except the crew, and then departs without passengers. Okay. Just to nail that down, that means a plane arrives at the gate with no one aboard except the crew and then departs without passengers. Correct. Is it just that? Is it the crew somehow just needs to get to the airport and switch planes or something? No. Is it that the plane needs mechanical service or something? No.

Wow. Those were really good guesses, Greg. Those were very good guesses, Greg. Good job. Wow, those were really good guesses, Greg. Those were very good guesses, Greg. Good job. So it's not that the airline benefits in some way from this happening.

The airline benefits in some way from this happening. Okay. Refueling or something maybe? No. I will say the planes themselves don't benefit in some way from this happening, but the airline does. That's interesting. I don't even know some way from this happening, but the airline does. That's interesting. Does this, I don't even know how to ask this. Does this have something to do with regulations?

Like if you touch down at Heathrow, you register as a, I don't know, international flight or something. I don't even know what I'm asking. Oh, no. It's not something like that. No, it's not something like that. They're sort of qualifying for some status. That's not it. Not quite, if I understand your question correctly.

Do I need to know where the, do these planes all come from the same origin? No, probably not. Do they depart for the same destination? Probably not. So they're just converging on Heathrow and then leaving again. Not all converging on Heathrow, but yes. But a lot of them are. Yeah.

I mean, no, they're doing this specifically at Heathrow. They're not necessarily doing this at other airports. They may or may not be doing it at other airports, because I don't know, but this is particularly a thing at Heathrow. Okay. So let's follow one of those planes. It arrives from somewhere. Yes. With no passengers, but some crew. Yes.

Lands. Yes. Does it go to the gate? Possibly not. Whatever it is, would it still work if it just landed and then immediately took off again? I guess so. So no service, no refueling? Well, they might need to refuel.

I don't know. But if they didn't, it would still accomplish this purpose, whatever it is. Yes. Yes. Yes. The important part is they need to have a plane land and they need to have a plane depart from Heathrow. And you're saying it's not like the, I don't even know what, the engines have to cool down after a transit plane to fly. It's not the plane that needs this. It's not the plane that needs this.

It's not the plane that needs this. And these are all commercial? Is it important that they're commercial flights? Yeah, I guess. But I don't know that that's going to help you. Are they all with a certain airline, maybe? No, probably different airlines do this. This is a very interesting puzzle.

All right, I'm just making this up. Let's say a plane does that. It lands and then takes off again. Yeah. And I'm not sure if it takes off immediately or it needs to wait a particular amount of time, but it's going to try to land at a particular time, roughly, and take off at roughly a particular time. At a prescribed time. Yeah, yeah. Oh, that's a clue. So this can't just happen anytime. It's a scheduled flight. Right, no, it cannot happen at any time. It's a scheduled flight, yes, and that's important. Is it, how do you ask this?

Is it because it needs to do this in order to keep the proper schedule promised to other airports? No, but that's close. So it's marking time, so to speak, on the ground in order to... Not exactly, but it needs to keep the schedule with Heathrow. Okay, so it's in line somewhere, I guess, because Heathrow is an incredibly busy airport. It's a very busy airport. So I guess one of these flights, even if it had no passengers,

would have a specified point in the queue where it has to land. See what I mean? Like it has to do this in order to keep the whole system working. It has to fulfill its position even if there's no one aboard. Yeah, that's not quite it, but it's along those lines. Okay. In other words, let's say this. If they didn't do this for some reason.

Oh, that's a good point. Figure out what would happen if they didn't do it. That would cause some kind of trouble at the airport? No. At the airline? Possibly. For the airline. I wouldn't say at the airline, but for the airline.

If they didn't do this. Okay. But there's no one aboard. Right. But the airline needs to have a plane... Arrive at Heathrow. At a particular time, yes. Whether there's anybody aboard or not. See, that still sounds like a regulation, like they're

fulfilling some obligation that they promised legally to someone somehow. No, it's not that. This is to the benefit of the airline. They're going to run into a problem if they don't do this. Heathrow is a very busy airport. So let's say you had a flight like from, I don't know, New York to Frankfurt

that was supposed to stop at Heathrow on the way and just didn't do that. Suppose this didn't happen. Okay. The plane just flew straight from the U.S. to Germany. Sure. It's hard for me to see if it's not, and they're not refueling. It's hard for me to see what consequence could possibly hurt anybody.

Well, it's not going to hurt anybody. It's just Heathrow's going to say, okay, you didn't stop here. And there's going to be a consequence to you for that. We were expecting you to land here, and you didn't land, and we have lots of planes that want to land. So if you don't need to land here... Then someone else will... Oh, someone else will get your spot. Someone else is going to get your spot, right. Heathrow operates with only two runways, believe it or not, and it's extremely competitive for airlines to get what's called a slot pair or the rights to land and take off at a specific time.

There are only 650 slot pairs per day at Heathrow, so airlines might spend a lot of money to buy the rights for a prime slot pair, but if they don't use it at least 80% of the time, Heathrow will reassign it. So you have to go through the motions. So you have to go through. And so if you don't have a scheduled flight, you will fly an empty plane in and out of Heathrow so that you can keep your place on the schedule. And it's a huge waste of money and resources, obviously, to fly an empty plane. But for example, obviously, to fly an empty plane. But for example, Oman Air spent $75 million to buy a coveted slot pair from Kenya Airlines. So it's worth a lot to the airlines to keep these slot pairs and not lose

them. Although, you know, it's kind of a scandal at the money that they're wasting and the potential environmental impact of flying empty planes. Yeah, because those are all empty seats that could. environmental impact of flying empty planes. Yeah, because those are all empty seats that could... Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, there are sometimes there have been airlines that'll fly an empty plane, you know, six times a week for months. I mean, they had a plane that was doing that for a while. So it's just, it's kind of crazy, but yeah. Beulah died in the Appalachians while Craig died at sea. Everyone was much happier with Craig's death. Why?

Are these non-humans? Yes. This is like my expression. You just went right to that question. Bula died in the Appalachians and Craig died at sea. Are they both the same species? I can't answer that. They're non-humans, but you're not sure what species they are?

That is not the case. Oh, no. Okay, let's start again. Are there two different animals? I'm not sure what noun to use. There are two different animals, one named Beulah and one named Craig? No. No. They're the same animal?

They're not animals. They're not animals. They're plants? They're something that dies. This is a lot more fun than I thought it would be. Are they living beings? No. Oh, they're not living beings at all.

But you would say they died and they had names. Yes. Were they fictional works of fiction? No. Fictional something or others? What do people name? Were they some mode of transportation? No.

Like people named ships and stuff? Mm-hmm. But they had names. Yes. Were these like code names? No. They had names and they were said to die. Okay.

But they're not living beings or they never were living beings. That's correct. Were they facsimiles of living beings? No. Dolls or something? No. Oh, they's storms. I never know what's going to stump you or when you're going to just leap in. Yes, they're hurricanes. Well done. This puzzle is adapted from Edward J.

Harshman's fantastic lateral thinking puzzles. A woman went to a drugstore to buy some toothpaste. She found her favorite brand and compared the prices and cost per ounce of various sizes. She wanted the best possible value for her money, but she nevertheless deliberately chose the size that had the greatest cost per ounce. Why? Wow. All right. You mentioned brand. Is brand important? No. And toothpaste is what I think it is? Yes. Is her identity important? No. Are there other people involved? Nope. So basically, a consumer chooses the product with the highest price per ounce.

Yes. And otherwise, the different tubes she'd been considering all contain the same product. There's no other difference among them except the price. Is that fair to say? There were different sizes. Okay. Yeah. But that,

I mean, that's not the key that there, she wouldn't value one over another because of the substance of the product itself. No, it was the same toothpaste we presume in each tube. Yeah. Okay.

So why would she pay? Why would she choose? Does it matter that it's toothpaste? Could we, would she have done the same thing with cranberry juice or something? Really? Definitely. Yeah.

So it doesn't even matter what the product does? Correct. Highest available price per ounce? Yeah, she nevertheless deliberately chose the size that had the greatest cost per ounce. Does that have something to do with making change? No. Oh, that's a good thought. Does it matter how she pays for this?

No. Does it matter that it's a drugstore? No. Is her occupation important? No. Does it matter that it's a drugstore? I mean, this... No. Is her occupation important? Nope. Okay. Does she buy anything else? Unknown. So she might buy one tube of toothpaste... Correct. And choose it because it

had... because of its... Would you say she chooses it because of its cost per ounce? No. Unit price? No. She chooses it for some other reason? Yes. Is it just that she needs a certain quantity of toothpaste? No. Unit price? No. She chooses it for some other reason? Yes. Is it just that she needs a certain quantity of toothpaste? No. All right. She chooses it for some other reason, even though it's the same product as other tubes

with a better unit price. Correct. That's true. Yes. Why would you choose? So it's the size? Did I just ask that? A different size that she needs?

She has to buy it in a certain size and just has to make the sacrifice of paying a higher price per... She doesn't have to buy it in a certain size. That's not what makes her decision. Right. She's not constrained that she needs a particular size. So why would you buy a tube of toothpaste? If you didn't need a certain quantity, it seems like the rational thing would be to buy the tube with the lowest unit price. Why would she choose that one? And it doesn't even matter that it's toothpaste.

Is the currency important? Anything like that? No. Like the location or the country she's in? The location is important in a very, very general kind of way. Is the time period important? No. Location is important.

This is on Earth? Yes, it is. And I can't give you a specific location, but it's relevant in a very general kind of way, but I can't tell you a specific location. Like if you asked me where this is, I couldn't tell you. But there is something about the location that is relevant. The climate?

No. The language spoken? No. Would it help me? Okay, you can't. So if I asked you if it's the United States, you couldn't tell me that? I couldn't tell you that. But for a hint, let's say this wouldn't have happened if she'd been shopping at her usual store.

Where she would normally buy her toothpaste. Is she abroad? She's traveling, yes. She's traveling. That's germane. Is there some confusion at all? Like she doesn't intend to do this? No.

She would... She does this all very deliberately. But she's not at home, and that's relevant. Okay. Is she... Do I need to know the method of payment? Like she's using traveler checks or something? That doesn't matter.

That doesn't matter. She could be paying for it with cash in the whatever country she's in. She could be paying for it with cash in the whatever country she's in. And I don't need to know why she needs... No, let's just presume she wants to brush her teeth. Highest price per ounce. I keep coming back to the currency, like she wants to use a certain combination of coins or something. It has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Any payment method would work for this puzzle.

So she's not focused on the actual price, the total price that she'll owe. Right. She's focused on trying to get the best value she can manage to get in her specific situation.

The best value, not the worst. Right. Even though what she buys has the highest cost per ounce. For her, that's the best she's going to do. For her, that's the best she's going to do.

In the situation, yes. Meaning she... Let's assume she's in some tourist destination where everything's very pricey. And you realize you're out of toothpaste. And you go and you go to this super overpriced store and find the worst deal and rejoice. That's not exactly.

They're all bad deals, right? Compared to what you'd be expecting to pay. It's not that she's trying to use up her. I keep coming back. No, no, no, no, no. The best deal for her, meaning getting the smallest amount of toothpaste for the price she's paying.

Does that have to do with the weight of the product? No, no, but she does pick the smallest size, which normally you might not do because that's not the best price per ounce, but why would you do that? Because she's traveling. Yeah, but why would you do that? Because she's traveling. Yeah, but... Because she only needs a small amount

because she's on the road. No, no, no, no, no. This is still the best she's going to do in terms of not the best value she's going to be able to get in this situation. See, that's what I hang up on. If she's paying the most per ounce, then she's getting the worst deal.

Yeah, but let me just tell you, she wanted to be overcharged as little as possible, so you buy the smallest size, right? So even though you're paying the most per ounce, the total amount of additional money that you're paying on top of what you would normally pay at home is the least amount possible. I see. That makes sense. Yeah. is the least amount possible. I see. That makes sense. Yeah. Banker James M. Fail repeatedly donated money to his alma mater,

the University of Alabama, but he turned down opportunities to lend his name to a facility there. After all, he said, who would want anything with the name Fail on it? But in 2008, he found a place to put his name. Where did he put it? So it was a facility that he wanted to have the name Fail on?

Yes. Yes. Hmm. Did it have something to do with the university? Yes. Fail. Fail safe. Fail.

I'm trying to think of phrases that have the word fail in it that would be like a positive connotation. Okay. the word fail in it that would be like a positive connotation. Okay, so this was, would you say it's like a building as opposed to a facility at the university? Or more like a facility? I think building would be fair. Building. Either.

Okay, so there's a building at the university with the name fail on it. Are there other words too? Presumably, I mean. Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm trying to think of how to even attack this. Is this a kind of a building that would be found on most university campuses?

Yes. So it's sort of typical? Okay. Library? No. Residence hall, dormitory? No. Classrooms?

No. Labs? No. What do you have yes something to do with athletics which i was guessing only because that's what i associate with the university um something to do with athletics and you want the word fail on it a specific kind of athletic a specific kind of athletic? A specific kind of sport? No. No. The stadium? Part of the stadium. Part of the stadium. Oh, the part of the stadium where the visiting team sits? Yes.

Well done. The visitor's locker room in the football stadium. It's now officially named the fail room. Fail said, I figured it was the most appropriate opportunity I would ever have to use my name. I wonder if that works psychologically, right? Fail, fail. I got the idea for this puzzle from something that I heard on the podcast, No Such Thing as a Fish.

In 1969, an Eastern Airlines flight en route to Miami was hijacked to Cuba. Although this was potentially a rather frightening situation, several of the passengers were not at all anxious about it. Why? Do I need to know about the motivation for the hijacking? Anything about the politics? No. Okay, that's not part of it.

Correct. 1969, is that particularly important? No. Okay, so a plane... Actually, I take it back. Mildly important. Somewhat important. Really? I'm changing my mind. Okay, so a plane... Actually, I take it back. Mildly important. Somewhat important. Really?

I'm changing my mind. Okay, so you say a plane was headed to... Miami. Miami. Does it matter where it was coming from? No.

A plane headed to Miami gets diverted to or toward Cuba. Yes. Was it just a regular airline or do I need to know anything about... It was a regular airline.

Okay, so it's just what I think it is, just a plane full of people. Yes. You said a group of people on the plane were not anxious about the hijacking right okay in not being anxious is that because they expected the plane to arrive ultimately in cuba no no what an odd answer So they thought they were headed for Miami. Yes. And then realized they wouldn't be landing in Miami.

No. They expected to land in Miami anyway? Yes. All right, hang on. There's a plane en route from somewhere to Miami. Yes. And are told, are the passengers told that the plane's been hijacked? Yes.

Okay, so the rest of the passengers think they're going now to Cuba. Yes. Right? Yes. But this subset, this little group of them, doesn't think that's true. That's correct. And thinks actually, no, the plane actually is going to land in Miami. That's correct.

Are they right? No. Okay. Do I need to know any more than that? So the plane actually does get diverted at least toward Cuba. Do I need to know, do I need to follow it and know what happens out there? No. Okay. So then the question is, why did this group of people think that that wasn't going to happen? Correct. That is the question. Is there fiction involved in any way? Do they think this was a movie or a, I don't even know what. They thought this wasn't actually really happening. That's correct. They did. That's correct. Meaning, so they were told, a flight

attendant tells them, hey, we've been hijacked and they want to go to Cuba. And these passengers think, no, that's not really true. That's correct. to Cuba. And these passengers think, no, that's not really true. That's correct. But the other passengers around them think, yes, it is. Yes.

So why would you think that? Right. Is it that they didn't understand? Like they don't speak English or something. You just didn't understand what was said. No, that's not it. They understood.

Would you say they had some knowledge that the other passengers didn't have? No, they couldn't be because they were wrong. They had some knowledge that the other passengers didn't have. Are there, do because they were wrong they had some knowledge that the other passengers didn't have are there do you need to know the number of them no their occupation no did they have something in common they must have um very vaguely that would be impossible to guess it's more hinging on they all had some piece of knowledge are they related to the hijackers in any way?

No. Is there some past history I need to know about? Of these passengers? No. Yeah. Really? So they just... They thought they knew something,

or they did know something, which made them believe the situation was different than it was. Something about the plane? No. Something about this flight? No. Okay, so...

Did they think the hijackers would be captured or... No. You know, restrained in some way? They didn't believe a hijacking was occurring. Even though they'd been told that it had? Yes. That it was? Yes.

Why would you because of something they had seen on the plane you mean physically on the plane yes like a legend or some kind of sign or oh no no no in the plane let's say in the plane some measure that would enable the crew of the plane to prevent the hijacking? Did they think that the hijacking would be thwarted in some way and that's why? They thought there was no hijacking. They didn't believe that a hijacking was occurring. But there's no element of fiction.

That's what I'm not getting. They were told something and believed it to be false. Correct. They believed there was an element of fiction. They believed that it was a story. Because of something they had seen in the plane. Did they believe this was a drama then of some kind that it was not exactly a drama they had seen another passenger on the plane that led them to have a false conception of

what was going on someone associated with drama like a film director or something not exactly drama but something like that, someone whose identity... Something along those lines, yes, but not drama. I think I've heard this, Alan Funt. Yes, Alan Funt was on the plane and was recognized by several of the passengers. He was the creator and host of a very long-running TV show called Candid Camera, which featured using hidden cameras to record people's reactions to practical jokes. And the passengers had seen him on the plane and assumed that this actually real hijacking was just a stunt to see how they would react.

But the plane did land in Cuba and the passengers then realized, oh my, this is actually happening. I just had the faintest memory that just came swimming up there. And this was happily a completely non-fatal incident. Apparently the passengers were held in Cuba for 11 hours without being given any information or any way to

contact anyone, but then were put on a plane back to the U.S. So it was probably frightening and pretty inconvenient, but as far as I can tell, no one was actually harmed. All right, and we have that. This is from listener Dave Capozzi. A man seeks directions and ends up getting divorced.

How? Okay. All right. Okay, is there anything involving language here, whether like he was speaking, trying to speak in a different language, and so he said something that he didn't realize he was saying? No.

Like he asked someone to marry him while he was trying to ask for directions, or that, yeah, that he inadvertently said something offensive that he wasn't trying to. No. Okay. When you say ask for directions, do you mean directions from how to get from point A to point B? Yes. Okay.

As opposed to like directions on how to build a desk or something. That's right. Yes. Okay. So, okay. Does it matter where he was? No. Okay. Was his wife with Does it matter where he was? Uh, no. Okay, was his wife with him when he was asking for directions?

He seeks directions. Oh, he seeks directions. He seeks directions. And I don't know whether she was with him. Okay. All right, was he trying to seek directions from another person, a specific other person? No. Was he doing to seek directions from another person, a specific other person? No. Was he doing something online?

Yes. Okay. Does it matter online in what way, like whether it's through a phone or a computer? Or is it just that it's online is the important part? Pretty much just that it's online. It doesn't matter what kind of gizmo he was using. Right. Right.

Okay. He's seeking directions online. Did he end up at the wrong kind of website? These are all excellent. One that his wife didn't really appreciate him going to? No, that's not it. Oh, because apparently that can happen sometimes. You click on a link.

All right. So he was seeking directions online using, would you say using some kind of like a mapping program? Yes. Like Google Maps or does it matter what the mapping program was? Yes. It does matter what the mapping program was. Google Maps? Yes. Like Google Maps? Or does it matter what the mapping program was? Yes. It does matter what the mapping program was.

Google Maps? Yes. Okay. He's seeking directions. Oh, does it matter what he was seeking directions to? No. Ah, okay.

These are all great guesses. Seeking directions to his mistress's house. Okay. So he was seeking directions from Google Maps. Mm-hmm. Okay. So he was seeking directions from Google Maps. Okay. And did his wife see something? No. His wife divorced him?

No. No. Oh, he ended up getting a divorce, did you say? Yes. Oh, was he seeking directions to a divorce lawyer? That would be a very straightforward puzzle. He seeks directions to a divorce lawyer. He goes. He gets his divorce.

No, that's not it. Okay, so you said it didn't matter what he was seeking directions to. Did he request a divorce from his wife? Yes. Ah, oh, when he's looking for directions on Google Maps, does he see that she's been looking for directions to something? No, but you're getting close. Okay, because you know, like, you can start your search and it can assume that it knows what you're looking for. Right, oh, that's good.

So he could see that his wife had been looking for directions to a divorce lawyer or her lover's house or something. No. No, okay, that's not it. He seeks directions. Was he intending to get the divorce before he got on Google Maps? No. Ha ha. So in the course of trying to get directions from Google Maps, would you say he learned something? Yes. Learned something about his wife? Yes. Learned something? Yes.

Learned something about his wife? Yes. Learned something about his wife from Google Maps. Did their house come up with some kind of title on it, like she was running some sort of business that he didn't approve of out of the house? No. Okay. Like Google Maps identified them as... A little label.

Yes, exactly. All right. So he learned something about his wife from Google Maps. Yes. Did he have tracking, location tracking on her so that he could see where she was at that time? No. No. You're just full of great guesses.

I have so many good ideas, but they're all wrong. So he learned something about his wife from Google Maps. Specifically Google Maps. From specifically Google Maps. So this wouldn't have worked on some other mapping program. I don't believe so. What could he learn about his wife from Google Maps? It's not her current location.

It's not a location that she has tried to look up herself. That's right. For getting directions for. There's a feature on Google Maps. Oh boy. That used. Not a search history. No. I guess I don't use Google Maps enough. There are different modes. You can look at a map of a location.

Alright. And then there's another mode you can... Street view? Yes. Okay. So he could... Was street view showing him his wife doing something? Yes. At his house? No.

Street view... Oh, like he was trying to go to his friend's house, and he could see that his wife was already there at his friend's house. This is... Basically, you're there. He was trying to go to his friend's house, and he could see that his wife was already there at his friend's house. Basically, you're there. In October 2018, a Peruvian man was using Google Street View to find the best route to reach a bridge in the capital city of Lima. While he was moving the camera at street level, he saw a woman on a bench with a man's head on her lap. The woman was his wife, and she was stroking the stranger's hair.

The photo had been taken in 2013, but the two had been married at the time. He confronted her, she confessed, and they divorced. This really happened? Wow, what are the odds? He was just trying to get to a bridge and saw his wife on the street. I thought it would make more sense if it was like a friend's house, like somebody they both knew,

but just this random spot. It was just pure chance, yeah. Oh, my. Although so many people use that, I imagine that's maybe not the only time it's happened. Wow. So thanks, Dave, for sending that. Thank you.

And if anybody else has a puzzle they'd like to send in for us to try, please send it to podcast at futilitycloset.com.