Futility Closet - 247-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: May 6, 2019

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 suggested by an item on the podcast No Such Thing as a Fish. Here are two corroborating links. Puzzle #2 is by Greg. Here's a link. Puzzle #3 was suggested by an item in Dan Lewis' Now I Know enewsletter. Here are two links. Puzzle #4 is from Greg. Puzzle #5 is from Sharon. Puzzle #6 was contributed by listener David White, 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, asking only yes or no questions. 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 hope you enjoy these, and we'll be back next week with another dose of quirky history and another lateral thinking puzzle. This puzzle is based on something that I heard on the podcast, No Such Thing as a Fish.

In 2017, someone paid 2,000 pounds for several signatures, even though the buyer knew that most of them were fake. Why? Most of them were fake. Did they know that some of them then were authentic? Mm-hmm. And maybe those were so valuable that they outweighed the cost of the duds?

No. That's not it? That's not it. Okay. 2,000 pounds for how many did you say? Several signatures. When we say signatures, we mean someone's autograph?

Autograph, yes. A written... Yes. Does it matter where this happened? Would it help me to know? Well, answer that question. It might matter some. I don't know.

They paid 2,000 pounds, so it happened in the UK. Okay. All right. That'll help. Would it help me to know whose autograph it was? Were they all the autographs of one person? Of the same person? No.

Oh, that's even stranger. Okay. So that answers the other question. Someone paid a lot of money for a batch of autographs yes from various people yes knowing that some of them were not knowing that some of them were fake uh do i need to know who bought them no do i need to know what purpose they had i mean were they buying them just to own them? Yes. Wow, that's really strange. Okay. Do I need to know the source of them? Like, were they a certain kind of document, for example, or they were, you know, where they had come from? It wasn't, I mean, it doesn't matter a lot what the document was. I'm not sure what you mean by the source of them.

Well, I mean, just being an autograph can just be written deliberately as someone signing their name. Uh-huh. Or it can be on something. Like a collectible item. Do you mean? Anything, yeah. I'm not sure what you mean. I mean, you're either signing your name on a document or.

Yeah, and like, no, you wouldn't say this was like an official document that people had to sign anyway. It's as you're trying to ask. Yeah, and so maybe that document would be valuable. Oh, I see. No, yeah, no, that's not it. Now that I finally understand the question. No, no, that's not it.

I wasn't asking you very articulate. All right, some person buys a lot of autographs. Would the person have paid... Hmm. I can't even ask this. Did the person regard the duds as worthless? No. Okay.

That ought to help. And how many did you say there were altogether? There were four. I didn't say, but there were four signatures. Person paid... 2,000 pounds. For four signatures. were four signatures. Person paid 2,000 pounds for four signatures. And the buyer knew,

I will tell you, that three of the four were fake. That's very specific. It is very specific. Are they four famous people? Yes. Four different people? Four different people. They're not four Siamese twins or a cloned person. Do the four people go together or are they associated with one another?

Yes. So I have heard of them. Yes. Is it the Beatles? It is the Beatles. I guess that's not... Four famous people in the UK. It has to be the Beatles.

Okay, so John, Paul, George, and Ringo. Yes. One each. Yes. Three of them are duds. Yeah. But one of them is good. One of them is the real signature.

But the one signature by itself would not have commanded 2,000 pounds. Yeah, see, that's what it sounds like. That's exactly what it sounds like. Right, but that is not the case. It was not that the person would pay 2,000 pounds for one authentic signature. And had to buy all four because they knew. Right, because they were together. That was the only way of being sure to get.

Yeah, but that's not it. Why would you pay 2,000 pounds for three dud signatures? Especially if you don't have some plan in mind for using them for something. Is it to get them away from someone else? No. To outbid someone else? No, no. And you say it doesn't matter what they're going to... Let's just presume it's a collector.

I like the puzzle. Yeah. Why don't you figure out who did all the signatures? Did someone forge them? They weren't signed. One of them was signed by an actual Beatle. Yes. And then someone, did the same person sign the other three?

Yes. They were all forged done by John Lennon. Lennon wrote all the best from the Beatles, followed by the four signatures on a photo of the group on the cover of a newspaper. And apparently he did it just as a joke. And it said that his fakes of George Harrison's and Ringo Starr's signatures were pretty good, but his attempt at Paul McCartney's signature was so bad that it raised suspicions. But the fact that they were all faked by Lennon makes them valuable.

Right, exactly. It made them worth almost as much as if all four had actually signed them. So a Ringo Starr signature signed by John Lennon is worth a thing. That's really good. In 2012, police in Sussex, England were using closed circuit television cameras to monitor an area that had been hit by a series of burglaries. When they spotted a man acting suspiciously, they contacted an officer on foot patrol in the area and sent him after the suspect. But though police said the officer was hot on the suspect's heels for 20 minutes, he was unable to capture him. Why? Was the suspect invisible? That's all I can think of.

Oh, my God. I thought that would take you a lot longer. Okay. Was the suspect a human being? Yes. And so there was a police officer in the vicinity of where the suspect was. And when you say hot on his heels, meaning he was very close, physically close, did the suspect have a jet pack

or some other mode of transportation that they weren't expecting? No. I really want that to be it, but no, that's not it. Oh, a jet pack. That would be cool. Was the police officer able to physically see the suspect? No.

Is that germane? What was preventing him from seeing the suspect? Like there was a lot of fog or there was a lot of, I don't know, there were fences in the way. Like there was something preventing the police officer from seeing the suspect? I'll say yes to that question. Did the police officer have normal vision? Yes. Okay.

So the police officer had normal vision. Could he see other things in the environment clearly? Yes. But he could not see the suspect clearly. That's right. Was the suspect wearing some kind of cloaking or camouflaging device to hide himself? No, that's a natural question. But no, he wasn't.

But yet the police officer couldn't see him clearly. Was there something impeding, like physically impeding the officers being able to see him? Like a fence or a building, like something between the two of them? I can't answer that. Was the suspect in,

would you say he was in something, like in a vehicle, in a building? No. In something. So he's outside. Yes. Okay. On foot?

Yes. Alone? Yes. Okay. He's not surrounded by a flock of pigeons that are hiding him from view. Opportun pigeon. He's hiding in a bush, or you'd say he's outside, or not? Okay.

Yes, he'd be in plain sight to someone else. He'd be in plain sight to someone else, but not... Did it have something to do with this particular police officer? Yes. He's colorblind and the suspect was all dressed in... I don't know. I don't know. No.

Okay. Well, you said he had normal vision. Oh, was the police officer very short? Excellent guesses. No. Okay. you said he had normal vision. Oh, was the police officer very short? That would be an excellent guess. No. Okay. Did the police officer have some distinguishing physical characteristics, such as impaired vision or very short or something like that?

No. Okay. Was the police officer wearing something that would have prevented him or her from seeing more clearly? No. Okay. Does it matter what the lighting conditions were or the weather or anything like that? No.

Okay. Does it matter where this was specifically? No. Anything about the location? No. Okay. Would you say this was, okay, I guess there's three buckets here that I can pursue. Something about the police officer, something here that i can pursue something about

the police officer something about the environment or something about the suspect or none of the above uh the police officer and the suspect both of those things both of them so was it some combination of things that i have to figure out something about the police officer and the suspect did they know each other previously did they have previous history? I have to say yes to that. This, I should, just to be clear, this whole chase was being guided by the closed circuit monitoring officer who was watching it all transpire. Was it an identical twin of the police officer?

And so they couldn't tell which one was the suspect and which one was the police officer? No, that's not it. So they were guiding them all wrong? That's probably happened at some point. That might be really confusing. So was the police officer receiving instructions? Yeah, he was getting radioed.

Someone was watching this whole thing by cameras and was sending him instructions about where the suspect was. And was there something about the instructions he was receiving that were kind of throwing him off or deceiving him? I wouldn't—well, it's hard to answer that. Or that weren't helpful somehow. Was the cameras, whoever watching the cameras, were they able to clearly identify the suspect and where the suspect correctly was? Yes. Yes.

And radioed that correctly and told the officer where? It's not that the cameras are being tricked or fooled or receiving inaccurate information. That's right. So was the police officer really directionally challenged? So like they would say, go to your left and he'd go to the right by mistake or something? No, the police officer would go directly to the place. That he'd been told to. That he'd been told to.

Was there some like real lag in the whole communication process? No. So he was getting really old information? No. And every time he arrived at the street or alley or whatever it was, he didn't... The suspect wasn't there. The suspect wasn't there. The suspect wasn't there.

Not that he couldn't see the suspect. Right. The suspect was not there. That's right. But with the person who was looking on the camera, would he see that the suspect was still there? No. Well... Okay.

Oh, was the suspect somehow receiving this information too? So he knew he was hearing the communication. So he knew when he'd been spotted and when the policeman was coming. And so he knew when to duck out. Another good guess. So let me say this. An observer who was watching this, who wasn't the monitoring person, just another third person watching all this, would never see the police officer and the suspect at the same time. Because they're the same person. Because they're the same person. Oh, they're not identical twins.

They're the same person. The suspect was the officer himself. He was patrolling the neighborhood in plain clothes, and the monitoring officer marked him as a suspect. As the plainclothesman searched the neighborhood, he was constantly told the suspect was in the same street. A senior officer told Police Magazine, every time the man darted into another side alleyway, the PC was turning immediately into the same alleyway, but every time the CCTV operator asked what he could see, there was no trace. Finally, a sergeant entered the control room, recognized the suspect, and laughed hysterically at the mistake, a senior officer said. With the sergeant's sides aching from laughter. He pointed to the PC that the operator had been watching him unaware that he

was a plainclothes officer. Thus, the PC had been chasing himself around the street. That is really funny. I mean, that is just so funny that the PC never caught on to what he was doing. For 20 minutes, he was chasing himself through the street. This puzzle is based on something I read in Dan Lewis's Now I Know e-newsletter. Why does New York City pay people to pretend to be homeless? Hmm. Hmm. So the people who have homes.

Yes. When you say pretend to be homeless, that means, I guess, spend some time on the streets. Is that what that means? Pretend to be homeless? Yeah. There's more than that, but that's part of it. But I'm saying whatever this accomplishes is accomplished. People actually have to not go home, I guess.

They have to live the life of a homeless person. No, I wouldn't go that far. Okay. They have to live some part of it? They have to fulfill some subset of the description of a homeless person? I guess. I'm not sure you're going

in the right direction with this. All right. Pretend to be homeless. Yeah. They do have to be on the streets. Is this to test or assess some provision that the city makes to help the homeless or attend to them somehow? Yes. That feels like progress.

Yes, that's very good progress. Okay, so the city comes up with some measure, I guess, to help, would you say, help the homeless? Okay. And they just need to try it out provisionally before they implement it. Yeah, that's not quite right, but it's vaguely along the right track. Okay. Do I need to work out what this provision is specifically? Yeah. I think that would be difficult because it's not exactly a provision directly designed to help the homeless as you might be thinking of it but this is along the right track this is along the right area well the other way you could go with that is is it to

somehow affect the existing homeless population like to get them to behave differently no no no no that's not it well okay so so they let's say they do this whatever it is so they they pay some people i guess hire some people yes to try this out whatever it is to not really to try something out to go through some process they've designed this is so abstract they've the city so the city is the one who's administering this right yes okay and they they need some people to i don't know how to say this go through it yeah to have it apply to them to to there are they assessing the people's behavior the way they respond no no so they just need some people who are nominally homeless nominally homeless

in order to so that happens these people they get hired to pretend to be homeless present as homeless yeah and the city gets

some information out of that yes yes do they interview the people do they a little bit I interview is a little strong but close Do they interview the people? Do they? A little bit.

Interview is a little strong, but close. Because it's, I think you said it's not that they're assessing their behavior. Correct. So I'm trying to get at what they're actually getting from these people. Yes, but they are getting information, some useful information. From people who pretend. Are they? But interview isn't right. It's not that they ask them to live.

Right. Homelessly for some time and they just ask them about their experience of it. It is not that. That's not it. Is it something to do with their homes? Like they just need them to be out? No. Out of their homes and want to see something like that?

All right. Well, that seems like. to see something like that? All right. Well, that seems like... Why would you do that? Why would you ask people? They're interviewed if you count interview as being asked one question, but they're not interviewed in a whole full interview. Would it help me to guess what the question is?

You might be able to guess what the question is. Pretend to be homeless and we'll ask you one question. Yes. And the city gets something valuable out of that. They get information, yes. Would they get the same value out of this if they just asked homeless people directly whatever this question is? They're going to ask homeless people the same question, but they get different information or more useful adjunct information by asking pretend homeless people too. Would a real homeless person give

a different answer to this question? No. So you get a real person who has a home. Yes. And ask them if you were homeless, how would you answer this question? No, no, no. I mean, in fact, that's what you're doing. So yeah. Do they actually, you're telling them how to answer the question. The question is, are you homeless? And they pay people to say yes, even though, even though they're not. Yes. So these people say, yes, I am homeless. And is this like a census thing or some kind of tax rolls or something or trying to register? Actually, I take it back. I'm sorry.

I misled you. They would be asked if they were homeless, but then they would fess up that they weren't after they were pretending to be homeless. Okay. Where a homeless person would say, yes, I am homeless. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So what would that tell the city then? I'm sorry. They would identify themselves as being pretend to be, only pretending to be homeless. But at first they would present themselves as being homeless at first. And then they're asked, are you homeless? And they say, no. Is this like something to do with law enforcement? No, no.

And you say it's not the census or tax rules or anything? It's not the census, like the formal census that's done. But they're just counting the population of homeless people in New York City? Yes. And why would you want to get some people to pretend to be homeless and ask them the same question? What would that tell you? If you pay a certain number of people to pretend to be homeless and go out there and look like they're homeless. And you know how many of them there are. Is this, there's a technique.

Is this counting the proportion of yeses to nos as a way of estimating the total population of homeless in the city? No, not exactly, no. What would that tell you? So you hire some people to say to pretend to be homeless yeah they pretend to be homeless they act like they're homeless and then you interview i presumably some homeless and some of these people yeah and some say yes and some say no and some say some will

identify themselves as the pretend people the hired people and the homeless people presumably honestly say yes i am yes so that'll tell you, I keep coming back to. Because you know how many pretend people you've sent out. Right. So you look at the numbers, the proportion of nos to yeses. And that should tell you how many, right? How many homeless people there are? Because you know the proportion.

You know the number of expected maybe that doesn't work yeah like if you send out let's say 200 fake homeless people and then you send out people and you want them to try to count all the homeless people that are actually on the street what does it tell you that you know there are 200 decoys out there. It's so you can see if they all get found or how many of them get found. Oh, I see. So you can gauge the accuracy of the ones you are counting. That makes sense.

So if you don't find all 200 of them, that tells you that you're not counting the whole population. Right. And they actually employ people who used to be homeless in the large part, or they train them how to act homeless so that they can go out and be in the kinds of places where homeless people really would be. And then they see if their little census takers find them all. That's interesting, because you couldn't, there's no other way that I can think of.

To know if you're- That you could be sure, because otherwise you just count the homeless people and you have no idea if you've got all of them. If you're underestimating the true population. That's interesting. Most Muppets are left-handed. Why? Most Muppets are left-handed.

Why? Does it have to do with the fact that the puppeteers are right-handed? Yes. So I'm trying to think. Is it because of the way, is it because they're facing the camera? No.

No. You know. So are the sticks crossed? You control the left hand with your right hand? No. So by Muppet, you mean like Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy? Yes. Okay.

You're laughing at me. I just really like this puzzle. You just really like this puzzle. You seem really pleased. I'm like, what am I saying? Okay. It's because the puppeteers are right-handed. Why would you make the puppet left-handed? So are you controlling the Muppets left-hand with your left hand if you're the Muppeteer? Yes. Huh. But you're right-handed. Yes. Well, most, yes, most people are. Okay.

Most puppeteers are. So it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the puppeteer is right-handed? Yes, it does. It does. But they're not crossed. Right. Right. I'm like waving my hands around here like I'm controlling a Muppet.

So I'm using my left hand to control Kermit's left hand. That's right. And for some reason, I would want him to be using primarily his left hand. Is it because my right hand is doing something else? Yes. My right hand is like controlling his mouth, his face. Yes. Oh.

That's basically it. So Kermit's just not going to use his right hand very much, is he? Right. If you picture yourself operating a Muppet, you use your dominant hand in the head, which for most puppeteers is the right hand. Yeah. So he's only your left hand free to operate an arm. A smoke detector with no battery in it still manages to save a man's life during a fire.

How? Is this true? Supposedly. A smoke detector with no battery in it. Okay. So you were saying then that the smoke detector doesn't go off? Correct. That's not how it saves him.

Correct. And when you say smoke detector, I'm picturing like the one I can almost see it from here. It's like a little plastic disc. Yeah. So it's about that size. Yeah. And shape. Right. Does it matter where this happens or when? No. Or his identity? No. Does he use the smoke detector as an implement in some way? No. Oh, that's a good thought. No. Like open up, I don't

even know. Smash open a window. You can't really do much with this. Blind smoke detector you said it saves his life yeah do I need to know I guess I already asked this anything more about the circumstances his occupation or no are there other people involved

no so he's just he's in a building I guess when this the building catches fire he's in his home the smoke detector doesn't go off right

because there's no battery. Right. But he snatches it valiantly from the wall? No. From the ceiling? No. Oh, does it matter where it is? It's just somewhere.

It hasn't been mounted yet. It has been mounted. Mounted in a sense. Okay, so it's attached to something. Yes. And he removes it. No. Because I thought maybe that would reveal some kind of opening.

No, yeah, no. No, he doesn't remove it. It's attached to something. Yes. Would you say he manipulates it in some way? No, he does not. Okay, so he doesn't use it as an implement. Does he touch it at all?

He does not touch it. And there aren't other people involved. Right. Does the fire do something to the smoke detector? Yes. Does the smoke detector catch fire? No. My smoke detector's burning. I better leave.

Okay. The smoke detector affects the... I mean, the fire affects the smoke detector. Does the smoke itself affect it somehow? The heat. The heat from the fire affects the smoke detector. Is it the smoke itself affects it somehow? The heat. The heat from the fire affects the smoke detector. Yes. Melts it?

Not the smoke detector. Doesn't melt the smoke detector. Okay, but melts something? Yeah, I guess you'd say that. Melts the surface to which it's attached? Not exactly. Okay, melts... But close.

Melts something that then affects the smoke detector somehow? Yeah. Okay. So, all right. So is it like some plastic item, I guess? I'm not sure if it's plastic. All right. So something melts.

A fire starts and melts something. Yeah, sort of melts. Yeah. And that substance, whatever it is, drips or falls or melts onto the smoke detector? No, no, no. The substance is connected to the smoke detector. The wires? No, no.

Something about the electrical? No. Mm-mm. Remember I said it was mounted in a fashion, sort of mounted. But not on a wall or a ceiling. It is mounted on the ceiling. Oh, it's mounted on the ceiling. Mounted, used loosely, but...

Oh, so something frees it from the ceiling? Gravity would, I guess. The fire... I have this picture that the fire is bad enough that it somehow burns the detector loose from the ceiling and it falls and wakes him? Yeah, that's pretty much it. Yes, he put it up with tape with no battery in it and was dozing in a chair when the smoke detector fell on his head.

Which is a perfectly valid, like you can't sue the company now. I heard about this on the 40th anniversary episode of the British show, The News Quiz. And on the show, they read amusing stories from local newspapers. And this story was said to be from the Huddersfield Daily Examiner. They didn't mention a year, though. And since it was an anniversary special, they were running clips from the last 40 years. So I wasn't able to find this news item myself to verify it. But if anyone lives in or near Huddersfield and you can verify the story, please let us know.

This is from listener David White. A man who was just about to start a new job ended up losing the job because he didn't flush the toilet enough. Why did that tank his job? Oh my. So he never even had the job. That's right.

He didn't flush the toilet enough. Is that something you do with astronauts? No, I can see why you would think that. Weird toilets in space. Okay. By flushing the toilet, you mean a toilet like in a bathroom, like what I would think of as a toilet? Yes. Had he used the toilet in the way that a toilet is normally used?

I am going to say yes. Does this have anything to do with drug testing? No. Ah. Good guess. Because usually, I mean, they have you do something in a bathroom before you get drug tested. Yeah, no, it's a good thought. That's not it.

Am I to presume that he used the bathroom, say, while he was there for the interview? No. Okay. All right, let's back up. Did he interview for this job? I'm going to say no. But he almost got the job.

Yes. Does it have anything to do with bathrooms or toilets or plumbing? The job itself? Yes. No. He didn't flush the toilet enough. Does this have something to do with crime? Yes. No. He didn't flush the toilet enough. Does this have something to do with crime? No.

Flushing drugs down a toilet? No. No. No. Very creative guess. I keep coming up with things and it's like you're shooting me down. He didn't flush the toilet enough. A particular toilet that he didn't flush enough?

Yes. In a specific location? Yes. Inside a building? Yes. Inside a particular building? Yes. Like with a specific name, like the White House? No. Okay. But a particular kind of building, like a hospital? I wouldn't, well, I mean, yes, it was, because it was a particular building, it had a particular kind, but no, it wasn't, it wasn't like that. Okay. Was it his own toilet? Yes.

Okay. He didn't get a job because he didn't flush his own toilet enough. That's right. And it doesn't have anything to do with trying to flush something down it, like something illegal. No. Just the regular contents of a toilet. That's right.

And nothing else. That's right. And he didn't flush his own toilet enough. Right. Is this something to do with interfering with bugging or people listening in on you? No. Another good guess. And he lost the job. Now, so the question is, how would his

potential employers have known? By job, do you mean employment? Yes. Not somebody refused to marry him or take a personal relationship? It was a job. So his potential employer or employers somehow knew that he hadn't flushed the toilet enough yes well it do they live with him it it came to light because someone how can i say this okay Okay, okay, okay. There are other people involved? Yes. Somebody who lives with him? Important?

No. No, nobody who lives with him. Can we presume he lives alone? Yes. For simplicity, yes. In a standalone house, say. Like he's not in prison or in an apartment complex or anything like that. That's right. Okay.

So he lives alone. Is he a specific person that I would have heard of? Not that you would have heard of, but yeah, this is a real person. So this guy lives alone in a house and has a toilet. Does it matter how many toilets he has? Let's say one. No, it doesn't. Does the toilet have any particular unusual characteristics?

None whatsoever. Okay. And somebody else knew that he hadn't flushed it enough. Yes. Someone else was able to show that he hadn't. They could show that he hadn't because of his water consumption? Yes. Somebody thought he wasn't using enough water.

Yes. And did it matter that it was specifically the toilets? Was it just that he wasn't using enough water? He lost a job for not using enough water. Would you say that that's more accurate than flushing a toilet specifically? Yeah, you could say that, yes. So like if he had taken longer showers, would that have solved the problem? Potentially.

But potentially, by demonstrating that his water usage was low, these people were trying to show something about his behavior. That doesn't clear it up, does it? Okay. What do you show about somebody's behavior by showing that they use too little water? Well, if I could show— Because I can think of so many of the opposite. Like, if he's trying to get a job in some kind of conservation society and they show that he was using a ton of water, they would be like, oh, he's very wasteful.

We don't want him here. But if you could show about someone that they use very, very little water in their house, what would that tend to... Oh! Oh! He doesn't live there and he's trying to apply for... He's running for politics and they're proving that he doesn't actually live where he says he lives. You don't need much help.

Yes, that's it. David writes, the job in question was a seat in the Pennsylvania state legislature. Democratic candidate Frederick Ramirez, running in a heavily Democratic district, was a shoe in for the job. His campaign was derailed, however, when a judge ruled that Ramirez was not actually a resident of the district. Although Ramirez owned a house in the district, the court discovered that he'd used only 95 gallons of water in 11 months, or less than two toilet flushes a month. In addition,

his bedroom light was always on, there was never a trash can out for curbside pickup, there were no photographs or pictures in the house, and his teenage daughter's room was still decorated for an infant. The ruling of the court ended his candidacy, although the party eventually still won the election with a write-in candidate. So he should have just claimed that he had these great water conservation tactics. He built an outhouse in his backyard. He's even more deserving. So thanks, David, for sending that. Thank you, David. And if anyone else has a puzzle they'd like to send in for us to try, please send it to podcast at futilitycloset.com.