Futility Closet - 353-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: August 9, 2021

Here are six new lateral thinking puzzles -- play along with us as we try to untangle some perplexing situations using yes-or-no questions. Intro: Lili McGrath's 1915 "floor polisher" is a pair of slippers connected by a cord. Eighteenth-century English landowners commissioned custom ruins. The sources for this week's puzzles are below. In some cases we've included links to further information -- these contain spoilers, so don't click until you've listened to the episode: Puzzle #1 is from listener Moxie LaBouche. Puzzle #2 is from listener Cheryl Jensen, who sent this link. Puzzle #3 is from listener Theodore Warner. Here's a link. Puzzle #4 is from listener David Morgan. Puzzle #5 is from listener Bryan Ford, who sent these links. Puzzle #6 is from listener John Rusk, 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. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Welcome to the Futility Closet podcast, forgotten stories from the pages of history. Visit us online to sample more than 11,000 quirky curiosities from a polishing dance to a sham ruin. This is episode 353. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. This is another special episode of Lateral Thinking Puzzles, where one of us will describe a strange-sounding situation, and the other has to try to work out what's going on by asking yes or no questions. Thanks very much to everyone who's been sending in puzzles for us to try. We can always use more,

so please keep sending them to podcast at futilitycloset.com. And we'll be back next week with another dose of quirky history and another lateral thinking puzzle. This is from the euphoniously named Moxie LaBouche of the Your Brain on Facts podcast. A couple is hiking in the mountains. They're not super outdoorsy, and they become lost, unable to tell which way is which. They don't have a compass. The sky is solidly overcast, so they can't see the sun. There is no obvious moss on the north side of the trees. They spot a cabin across the valley. The man looks at the cabin through his binoculars, then confidently declares that he knows which way to go, and he's right. How did he know? Hmm. Does this have something to do with snow? No. I was thinking like the snow might be melted

in one part of the roof or on one part of the cabin. So that meant the sun had been hitting it, whatever. Okay. He looks at the cabin. Does he see anything? Okay, I'm assuming he sees something at the cabin or on the cabin. That's worth checking. Yeah. Does he see something like a sign that says, you know, civilization that way?

No. No, he doesn't see a sign. Does he see anything living that's germane? No. So he sees a cabin. By a cabin, do you mean like a small dwelling that people could live in? We've already done this one. I know. We did this. I was so stuck on that it wasn't the same kind of cabin i was thinking that was years ago it's what you're thinking ah okay see i learned my lesson ask what kind of cabin it is funny it was exactly okay okay does he see something other than something that's in or on the cabin. No. Okay. So by seeing something, does something about the cabin indicate to him some kind of geopolitical boundary?

No. Like he can tell that he's on a border and he's that side of the border or the other side of the border. No. He's got like a flag or something, you know. But he does see something in or on the cabin. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Something that tells him a direction, like which way is north or east or west? Yes. Okay. Rather than something that tells him this side is France and this side is a different country or something. Correct. More that he knows the direction. By looking at the cabin, and just the cabin, there's not like water flowing or something else that he sees.

Now, what could you see on a cabin? Is that a weather vane? No, that doesn't make sense. No, but... Oh, something that indicates the direction the wind is blowing? No. No. But something that indicates the direction of the sun.

Like they have a sun dial, and he can see where they've positioned it. These are excellent guesses, but no, that's not it. So, okay. Is it something that indicates, in general, the position of the sun, even if it's not a sundial? No. Something that indicates something about wind? No.

They can see... Something that indicates the direction of travel like they can see where the occupant of the cabin tends to go no and figure the occupant of the cabin tends to go to town right so like you follow the track no that's not it okay they see something about the cabin that tells them which direction is it a specific direction something about the cabin tells them north versus east versus west. Yeah, and I'll just tell you, it's south. He looks at the cabin through the binoculars

and is able to say correctly that a certain direction is south. Does he see plants that are growing? Plants that need southern exposures? No. He can tell what direction south is. Is it by the way the cabin is oriented in general?

No. So he sees, would you say he sees a particular object? Yes. He sees a particular object that is physically on the cabin? Yes. Not just near it. That's right. He sees a particular object that is physically on the cabin,

and it doesn't involve anything living. That's correct. Including plants or anything. It's a piece of technology that's oriented to the south um oh oh like like like a dish to pick up tv reception or something you get like 50 of the way there and then you just leap from 50 to 100 like more often than that than not. But I never know when, I mean, I guess all these things, and they're all wrong. You didn't creep up to that by degrees. You just jumped on it. Yes, the answer is the man saw a satellite dish on the roof of the cabin, and he knew that all satellite dishes in their region face south.

Oh! I see. I didn't even know. See, that wouldn't have helped me. Like, I didn't know all satellite dishes face a particular way. I was ready to give you a hint. I don't know if Moxie intended this, but she mentions that there wasn't moss on the north side of the trees, which would only happen in the northern hemisphere, which is where the satellite dishes. I don't know if that was like a really subtle hint.

But I was going to offer it if you needed one, but of course you didn't. No, that wouldn't have helped me, I don't think. This puzzle comes from Cheryl Jensen with a bit of rewording by me. Mary, a Canadian, planned a trip to the U.S. She crossed over the border but wasn't allowed further into the country. She sat in her car for a few minutes and then returned to Canada, quite pleased with her trip. Why? So she made it over the border? Yes.

Into the United States? Yes. But then wasn't allowed further into the country? Correct. Okay. Does this have to do with some quirk of the U.S.-Canada border? No. Because there are some interesting areas. Yeah, no, I don't think so. Okay. So she,

would you say she was in the United States for part of this trip? Yes. Well, why would they let you cross the border? And then I guess that's the puzzle. Okay. Would it help me to know which part of the border this was? Like, you know, roughly? No.

Just the U.S.-Canada border? Yeah. Would you say this could have happened anywhere along the border, more or less? It could have. Okay. Do I need to know more about her occupation? No. Are there other people involved?

Yes. Oh. Besides the border agent, whoever it was. Let's say yes. Other Canadians? I don't know. No, I'm not clear. If there were other people involved.

Yeah, there was definitely other people involved, but that might be hard to figure out. Maybe you should think about why she was pleased with the trip. She accomplished something. She did. Is there crime involved? No. Other people. Was she smuggling Canadians into the United States?

No, that would be a crime. I suppose it would. It's a reason to be pleased, though, if that was her goal. All right. Why was she pleased? She had some object then. Yes. When she left, when she went back to Canada,

had she left something or someone in the United States? No. Had she retrieved something from the United States? Brought something with her? I wouldn't say that exactly. This is an odd question. Was she pregnant? No.

You could have like an American citizen. That's really cute, right? We'll make that into a puzzle later. Just go right over the border. Sit there long enough. Yeah. Okay. Well, all right.

Why would you be pleased, though? Is it because she wanted to be out of Canada at a certain time? No. Could this have happened with a Mexican at the Mexican-U.S. border? Theoretically, but this is actually, this setup is actually based on a real event, yes, that happened at a particular part of the Canadian-U.S. border, but it doesn't matter where. So it didn't happen, as far as I know, down at the Mexico-U.S. border, but theoretically it could have. Yeah.

All right. Well, why would—if she didn't take something or leave something, and she wasn't doing anything nefarious, why else would you be pleased to have done that? Was this a wager or something? No. Did it ask you if the time period's important? You did not, but it is. Is it the modern era?

It is. In the 21st century? Yes. Like today? Very recent? This was actually a few months ago, and that is relevant. Is the pandemic part of this? Yes.

That still doesn't somehow shed any light on it. All right, so she's Canadian. She's Canadian. She crossed over the border, wasn't allowed further into the U.S., sat in her car for a few minutes, and then returned to Canada quite pleased. So would she normally have been barred from entering the United States because of COVID restrictions? Yes. At the time, the border was closed. Yes. So that's why she wasn't allowed further into the U.S. And she knew that when she left on the trip. She knew she wouldn't get very far into the U.S. But that's okay. But she still accomplished her goal by getting over the border

and sitting in her car for a few minutes. Yes. Yes. Okay, I'm still not... Does this have to do with U.S. policy, basically? Is that what she's exploiting? No. As opposed to Canadian? No. Neither? Neither. Oh, but you say there are other people involved. I keep coming back to that. Yes, there are other people involved, besides the normal border agents that would be there. And this is true. And this is true.

This is based on an event that actually happened. Oh, I'm sorry. You said her occupation is important? No, her occupation is not important, but the pandemic is very relevant. Did she have COVID? No. No.

Why would you cross the border if I can think of a lot of reasons you'd want to do that but none of them obtain okay she didn't have COVID so she crossed the border something happened that was the object of her trip and then let's say she sat in her car for 15 minutes after that event,

and then went back to Canada. Specifically 15 minutes. Something happened, and I'm sure this is obvious, but I'm not thinking of it. 15 minutes? Yes. And this has to do with COVID? Yes. When have you had to sit for 15 minutes exactly?

After getting the vaccine. Yep. So she came, did she come across to get vaccinated? Exactly. That's exactly it. Cheryl said the Montana Blackfeet tribe shared their surplus of vaccines with Alberta Canadians. At the time, Alberta was experiencing a shortage of vaccines and had one of the highest infection rates in North America. Albertans drove to the border where they were denied entry and told to return to Canada.

Our shared border was locked down across both countries at this time. At the turnaround area, health care workers collected passports and administered the vaccine to everyone in the vehicle. After parking for 15 minutes in case of a bad reaction, the passport was returned, and the newly vaccinated person returned to Canada. Wow, I didn't know about that. Yeah, I didn't know about that either. This is from listener Theodore Warner. Why can't you read the collected works of Margaret Atwood? Why can't I personally, but other people can? No one can. No one can read the collected works of Margaret Atwood. Is because some of them are missing? No. It's because nobody's collected them.

Entirely valid guess. No, that's not it. Nobody can read the collected works of Margaret Atwood. Are some of the works like, I don't know the right word, they've been recalled and they're not going to be republished again until a certain time or something? So like some of them are just not available currently. Those are two questions.

Those are two questions. Two different questions. Two different questions. Is it the case that all of Margaret Atwood's works are currently available to be read? No. So some of them are not currently available to be read. That's right. Deliberately?

Yes. And they're going to be, like, re-released at another time? Or it doesn't matter? The answer to that question is no. I don't want to mislead you, though. So, some works that had been previously published

are now not available? No. They were never published? Yes. So, Margaret Atwood wrote some things that she never published, and therefore I can't read them because they're unpublished. That's basically it. Atwood wrote a manuscript called Scribbler Moon in 2014 for the Future Library, a project organized by Scottish conceptual artist Katie Patterson. 100 writers are contributing manuscripts today that won't be made public until 2114.

Atwood said, there's something magical about it. It's like Sleeping Beauty. 100 writers are contributing manuscripts today that won't be made public until 2114. Atwood said, there's something magical about it. It's like Sleeping Beauty. The texts are going to slumber for 100 years, and then they'll wake up, come to life again. It's a fairy tale length of time. That's really interesting. That's an interesting project. They're planting trees today to be used to make the paper when the books are finally published.

It's interesting. Oh, that is interesting. I wonder how that's going to look. But that also makes an assumption that we're going to be publishing books on paper. Yes. Yeah, it does. It makes a lot of assumptions, I suppose. This puzzle comes from David Morgan, who thought I should give it to Greg. And a shout out to his one-year-old son, Reese, who has apparently been making it a bit difficult for David to manage to listen to podcasts. So we just have to hope that David does get the chance to actually hear his puzzle on the show. And David's puzzle is, there are many books on my shelf. Most of them require the use of two bookmarks to read.

One bookmark is moved more frequently than the other. Why two? That's interesting. So you say that's within one book? Yes. Each book has two bookmarks, one of which moves faster than the other? Yes. Moves more frequently than the other.

Is the fact that he has a kid a clue? No. All right. The fact that there are two bookmarks, does that imply that there are two people making their way through this book? Let's say there's just one book. Can I say that? Okay. We'll pick one book off the shelf.

There's one book on the bookshelf. It has two bookmarks. Yes. One is updated more frequently than the other. Okay. Sorry, what was your answer? Does that mean that two people are reading it? No.

Let's say David's the only one who reads this book ever. All right. So he's... So it sounds like I need to know more about the book. Like this isn't just any book like a novel or something, is it? Correct. It's something specific. Would you call it like a reference book?

Sure. Is he reading it straight through from front to back? Let's assume he is. Okay. So I guess I should ask, are the bookmarks being used the way people usually use bookmarks to mark a place in a book that you're... I think so. Okay.

Is he translating the book? No. All right. So the bookmark... Do both bookmarks mark progress through the book in some way? Let's say yes. do both bookmarks mark progress through the book in some way? Let's say yes.

Is at least one of them the fact that he's just reading it the way I would read a book from the start to the end? Yes. What does he use the second bookmark for? Is the second bookmark reliably lagging behind the first, would you say? What do you mean by lagging behind? Is the more frequently up... One bookmark represents reading the book the way I would read it.

Yes. Then there's the other one. Okay. Is the other one always to be found at a page that's earlier in the book than the... No. Does it always come later in the book? Yes.

And that's the one that's updated more frequently? Yes. Okay. So one, he's just reading the book normally. Yes. And the other one is actually ahead of that, like further even into the book. Yes. Than that one.

Yes. And is updated more frequently. Yes. Why would you do that? Yeah. And I guess because these are reference books, he thought I should give it to you. Because this would be specifically like non these are reference books he thought I should give it to you because this would be specifically like non-fiction or reference books this wouldn't happen in a novel I don't think do it is it more specific even than that do I need to know like the topic or something no I keep thinking of translation like he's doing some other task

no let's just say he's just reading the book and not doing anything else but trying to read this book. This non-fiction book. And it's not setting like reading goals like I want to reach this bookmark in my next session. Right. Now when you said one of the bookmarks would be further ahead in the book

than the other, that's important. But that's confusing because it marks a point in the book that he hasn't reached yet. He has. He has. He has reached it, but not in reading conventionally. Let's say he has in reading it conventionally, how the book's author might intend for you to read it.

But it's always going to be further ahead in the book, significantly further ahead in the book. Well, but that doesn't—I keep calling him first and second. Okay. The one bookmark that's used conventionally marks his progress through the book. So the other one doesn't. In a way it does, but it marks his progress through something else in the book

that comes later on. Way later on. The index? No, but that's close. References? Notes? Not exactly. Something like that. Something like that. Right.

What would you find where you'd want a bookmark so you could keep getting back to it quickly? End notes. End notes. Exactly. David says, if his research habits are similar to mine, he'll get the answer right away. The extra bookmark is needed to find end notes easily. End notes generally take up fewer pages, so I wind up moving the second one several times in a chapter. That's a good method because he's right. That's maddening when you're actually trying to do that. So it's a legitimate use for a second bookmark.

That's good. This is from listener Brian Ford. A man wins an Olympic silver medal for swimming without getting wet. How? Was the medal for being able for swimming without getting wet. How? Was the medal for being able to swim without getting wet? No. That's how it sounded. Okay. All right. So a man wins an Olympic silver medal. Yes. For swimming. No. Ah, for swimming without getting wet. No. Okay. All right. Let's back, a man without getting wet. No.

Okay. All right. Let's back. A man wins an Olympic silver medal. Yes. Wins it. Yes. But I mean, like not like wins it on an auction site by having the highest bid or something. No.

Wins it through a competitive route. Yes. Okay. By like a bet or something? No. Okay. Did he participate in an Olympic sport? I'll say yes.

Did he win the medal for the sport in which he participated? Yes. In the Olympics? Yes. Okay. This is a human being. Yes. Does the man have any characteristics that I need to know about?

No. Does it matter what nationality he is or who he was competing for? No. Does it matter which Olympics? No. Well, yes. I'll say yes to that one. Like, so was this, this was a specific Olympics that, I mean, a specific year?

Yes. You don't need the year precisely. But I need to know that this happened at a specific time. In an era. In an era. Was this during a war? No. Was this in the current century?

No. Was this in the 20th century? Yes. But not during one of the wars. Was it in a year that the Olympics were actually held? Yes. 1924. 1924 Olympics.

He won a silver medal. But that's what's confusing is, okay, would you say that he won a silver medal for a sport other than swimming? Yes. Was he given the wrong medal? No. I'm always so excited. I think, oh, I got it. It's like, nope, nope, I don't have it.

Okay. He won a medal for a sport other than swimming, but you said he won an Olympic medal for swimming in the puzzle setup. That is what I said. That is what you said. So he won a medal for swimming, but he didn't actually swim. Did he swim? Did he swim? No, he didn't.

He did not swim. He did not swim. But he won a medal for swimming. Yeah, and that's important. Was he cheating somehow? No. Was there some really strange rule in 1924 that we don't have anymore that he took advantage of or something? Not in that sense, no, but the Olympics were different in that period. Did they swim in water in 1924? They did. I balked earlier at the word sport. Oh?

This was a competition. But not a sport. I don't think most people would call it a sport. Oh. Was there some event that they had in 1924 that they don't have anymore? Yes. That you would call a competition but not a sport? Yes.

And it's vaguely in the category of swimming? No, it's not. It's not. Okay, would this competition take place on dry land? Yes. But it's somehow connected to swimming? I'm trying to figure out where the swimming comes in. So it's not like water polo or something.

No. Is there something called swimming that I'm not familiar with, that I'm not thinking of? Yes, the answer to that is yes. Yes. So there is some competitive game that you can play,

that you can call swimming, that's not you trying to move through water. I wouldn't say that. The swimming that he won for was unique to his effort. So, oh, so he was competing in an event and did it in an unusual way that sort of looked like swimming or mimicked swimming? No. Swimming was the title of his effort.

So it was like dance or something. And he did an entry that was swimming. Close. Something like that. Very close. Gymnastics? No. No, and not dance.

I'm trying to think of what... Oh, and you said this is an event that they don't really have anymore. So this is something that they did in 1924 that he would have done on land, and he could have titled it swimming. Yeah, this was a competition that they don't have anymore. Is it synchronized anything? No. So he would have done

it by himself? Yes. Not as part of a group or a team? Right. You weren't far with dance. It was more creative or artistic than sporting? Figure skating? No, because that is a sport and they still have figure skating. You don't do that on dry land either. Swimming was the title of an artwork that he created. That somehow was appropriate at the Olympics. Yes, back then. It's like live sculptures? Basically, yeah, you're close enough. Art competitions formed part of the modern Olympic Games during its early years from 1912 to 1948.

There were categories for architecture, literature, music, painting, and sculpture. Really? They had this at the Olympics? Yeah, it was an Olympic event, a series of them. In 1924, the Irish painter Jack B. Yates won the silver medal in the mixed painting class for a work entitled Swimming. So he won Olympic silver medal for swimming without getting wet. Brian says that, strictly speaking, the title is The Liffey Swim, but it appears in the Olympic records as swimming. Oh, my. Okay, see, I don't think I really ever would have guessed that.

I don't think I could have figured out that art used to be part of the Olympics. No, it's amazing that it was. Oh, wow. Incidentally, Yeats' brother, the poet William Butler Yeats, had won the Nobel Prize for Literature just a year earlier in 1923. Whee!

Thanks, Brian. This puzzle comes from John Rusk in Wellington, New Zealand, who says, Here's a lateral thinking puzzle based on a real-life situation. For years, city workers never mowed one patch of grass. Now, thanks to their colleagues in another city department, they do. Why? Thanks to their colleagues? Mm-hmm.

In another city department? Yes. Meaning another department in the same city? Yes. This is in New Zealand? Yes. Not that it matters. I can't imagine that matters.

Okay. They didn't mow one patch of grass. Right. Okay. When you say thanks to, does that mean the other department requested this, I guess? No. Stopped preventing it? No.

Thanks to. I'm having trouble with the thanks to. It could have been reworded due to their colleagues in another department. Okay. Not mowing. Was it not mown because it was not accessible before? That's not correct. Is it because of its location?

Let's start with that. No. No? Correct. Because there is a whole bunch of theories. Because of some, well, obviously, because of some prohibition, like they just weren't permitted to do it. No. It's because it didn't need mowing.

Correct. But it wasn't bare earth. It was a patch of grass that didn't grow. Yes. For some period of time. Well, I wouldn't say it didn't grow. I'm sorry. Didn't need mowing.

Didn't need mowing, yes. But did grow, perhaps. Presumably, yeah. It wasn't dead. It wasn't dead grass. So was it just luxuriating, just growing to some length? It must have been.

No, no, that's not it. Was it alive? Yes, yes. It's what I think of as no, that's not it. Was it alive? Yes, yes. It's what I think of as grass. Live grass, yes, that city workers never mowed until their colleagues in another city department did something. Was it growing in the ground the way I think of grass growing? Yes, yes. Was there other grass nearby that was getting mown?

Not in this one specific area. Okay, but it was outdoors on the ground in New Zealand somewhere in the city? Yes. Okay. And I asked, was it dead? No, it's not dead. It's living grass. Living grass that wasn't mown.

Okay. This other department took some action that led to the city workers beginning to mow this patch. Yes. The grass now needed to be mowed. Needed to? Yes. And that's not due to some regulation or something? Okay. So when you say needed to be mowed, it was growing longer?

Yes. And like the way anyone would mow grass if it gets too long? Yes. Which implies that before it wasn't doing that. It wasn't doing that. It wasn't needing to be mown before. All right. So the second department did something to encourage the growth of this patch of grass.

I wouldn't say it quite like that. You wouldn't say that? No. Or to stop inhibiting it or something. That's closer. Does that have something to do with sunlight? No. Or water or something like that?

No. What can you do? You said it's closer to say they stopped inhibiting it. Yes, something was inhibiting the grass from getting too tall. Something, that doesn't make any sense. Physically, I don't know how you'd stop grass from growing. No, not if I think I understand you. And it's not sunlight or water or something?

Mm-mm. Well, what? Fertilizer? Nope. Something like that, some nutrient? Nope, nope, not even close. Okay, was this deliberate, I should ask? The other city department, whatever it did,

did they do it for this reason? They didn't do it for this reason, no. So you say it's inadvertent? This was a byproduct of what they did. They took some action. Okay, and so the first department is just in charge of mowing grass, I guess, and found that they didn't need to do this before. Right, right.

The grass never got tall enough to need to be mown in this one area. And that's all we have to say about that. That's all we have to say about that. That's all we have to say about that. It's their job to cut long grass. And then another department did something, and now the grass needed to be mowed again. But it would be best to figure out why the grass was never getting too tall. What stops grass from growing? It's not that something actually stops the grass from growing but what else would

i don't know decrease the length of grass oh something was eating it yes an animal yes a bunch of animals so they were like i'm making this up sheep or something on that area they were keeping it it was actually. And they moved the rabbits away? No. Oh, they killed them. Even sadder, they killed the rabbits. John says, the patch of grass was populated by a colony of rabbits. The rabbits kept the grass short by eating it, so it never needed to be mowed. Until, that is, the rabbits were poisoned by the pest control department.

And he adds, this is based on a real-life patch of grass. It's on a wide median strip between two lanes of a highway. There are shrubs for cover and apparently some nice dirt for burrowing. based on a real-life patch of grass. It's on a wide median strip between two lanes of a highway. There are shrubs for cover and apparently some nice dirt for burrowing. I'm not sure it really never needed to be mown, but it was certainly always very short until they killed the rabbits. Nobody died except quite a lot of rabbits. And John sent a link to a satellite map of the area if anyone wants to see where the rabbits had been

that we'll have in the show notes. Futility Closet is supported entirely by our incredible listeners. If you'd like to contribute to our celebration of the quirky and the curious, please check out our Patreon page at patreon.com slash futilitycloset or see the support us section of the website at futilitycloset.com. While you're at the site, you can also graze through Greg's collection of over 11,000 captivating diversions. Browse the Futility Closet store,

learn about the Futility Closet books, and see the show notes for the podcast with links and references for today's puzzles. If you have any questions or comments for us or a puzzle to send, please email us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Our music was written and performed by Greg's extraordinary brother, Doug Ross. Thanks for listening, and we'll talk to you next week.