Futility Closet - 365-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: November 29, 2021

For this final episode of the Futility Closet podcast we have eight new lateral thinking puzzles — play along with us as we try to untangle some perplexing situations using yes-or-no questions. Intro: Sears used to sell houses by mail. Many of Lewis Carroll's characters were suggested by fireplace tiles in his Oxford study. 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 Greg. Here are two links. Puzzle #2 is from listener Diccon Hyatt, who sent this link. Puzzle #3 is from listener Derek Christie, who sent this link. Puzzle #4 is from listener Reuben van Selm. Puzzle #5 is from listener Andy Brice. Puzzle #6 is from listener Anne Joroch, who sent this link. Puzzle #7 is from listener Steve Carter and his wife, Ami, inspired by an item in Jim Steinmeyer's 2006 book The Glorious Deception. Puzzle #8 is from Agnes Rogers' 1953 book How Come? A Book of Riddles, sent to us by listener Jon Jerome. 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. Many thanks to Doug Ross for providing the music for this whole ridiculous enterprise, and for being my brother. 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 12,000 quirky curiosities from mail-order houses to Lewis Carroll's fireplace. This is episode 365. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. For our final episode, we have eight new lateral thinking puzzles. 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 again to everyone who sent puzzles into us over the years. We've always appreciated your contributions. You all really helped make this show what it was, and we hope you enjoy this last set of puzzles.

Starting around 2010, when customers of the online eyeglass website Decor My Eyes complained about poor service and misfilled orders, the company responded with insults, threats of violence, and other harassment. Why? They responded to the customers who were complaining with these things? Yes. Huh. They deliberately wanted bad reviews? Yes yes were they a real company yes were they really selling eyeglasses yes uh was it because they wanted the reviews to be so bad

that nobody would take them seriously because if if a review seems like so bad and so over the top, you think, okay, that's just a troll. That can't be for real. That's a creative answer. But no, that's not it. Oh, really? Okay. Does it matter in what form the complaints were made or the responses were made? Like whether it was on Twitter or on their own website or by email? Does it matter how this was done? Yes, the complaints. Okay.

They were banking on the complaints being made in a certain way. Okay. So was this something public like Twitter where other people would be able to see them? Yes. Okay. So people were complaining about the service from this website. Yes. On Twitter.

Well, on... Or social media. Online complaint websites. Online complaint websites. Online complaint websites. Okay. And then the company would respond on the same website? No? Yes.

Yes. They didn't need to, though. I guess maybe that's a clue. They didn't have to respond in the same forum with this with insults and threats of violence threats of violence were they were they responding under the company's own name so that it was clear who was making the responses yes so people would complain about the company and then the company would respond with threats of violence under their own name yeah the response conceivably might even have been done privately

they could have emailed them what they were hoping to benefit by was the public complaint they wanted public complaints they thought they would benefit by this if they were obnoxious enough that it would get picked up either in the media or on social media? No. Just to give them free advertising? If this happened to you, if I ran a business and disappointed you and- I would tell everybody I knew somehow? And what specifically might you say?

If you wanted to warn other people- How terrible you were? Online, what elements would your message contain? Well, it would contain the name of the company so it would just improve their SEO like their search engine optimization. Yes, basically that's it. The company's founder, Vitaly Borker

had discovered that outraged customers would post links to his business on online complaint websites and the volume of these links drove his site to the top of Google searches, earning him more business. He told the New York Times, I've exploited this opportunity because it works. No matter where they post their negative comments, it helps my return on investment. So I decided, why not use that negativity to my advantage? The practice caught up with Borker. Eventually, in 2011, he pleaded guilty to interstate communication of threats,

and Google and other sites have changed their practices to combat this exploitation. So nobody should bother trying now themselves. This puzzle comes from Dickon Hyatt. A man is so good at his job, he nearly bankrupts his employer. How? How? Right. Bankrupts his employer. Is this selling something? No. Would you say he's providing a service?

I'm not sure. Does the business provide a service? Not really. Not really. What his job is, is not really, you don't really need to know the specifics of what his job is. I guess the bigger question is just in general, how can you be so good at your job that you bankrupt your employer? Hmm. Is this, I guess this is true?

This is true. Yeah. Well, I mean, to bankrupt your employer, you'd have to be somehow spending more money than you're bringing in on behalf of your employer, I guess. That's not exactly right. Okay. Does that have to do with the employer's reputation?

No. No. Would you say he did this single-handed? Yes. Have I heard of this person? Probably not. Is the location important? No.

Did I ask you if the timing is important? This is relatively recent? This is relatively recent. Does it involve technology? No. That's not important? That's not important that's not important um well okay uh could someone else have done this possibly another employee i mean it's not

something specific to this particular man well i think in this case he was so good that it that that that was important. And if somebody else wasn't equally as good, they wouldn't have been able to. But somebody else theoretically could have if they were as equally good at the job. And obviously the employer hadn't foreseen that this might happen. Correct. Was he a new employee? I don't know.

I guess it doesn't matter. I guess so. Yeah. All right. So an employer hires someone and he's very good at the job he's hired to do. Yes. And is doing it as he was expected to do it. Well, better.

He ended up doing it better than they expected was the problem. How would you? Okay. And by bankrupt, I guess I don't need to know more about specifically. That means what I take it to mean. Yes. They owed more money than they could pay. All right.

Well, so I want to think this is something. I don't want to get bogged down in details, but does his job basically involve incurring debt for the company? No. Not normally. And I'll tell you in case it just helps you think about it, he's a Formula One race car driver. Who was very good at his job.

So he was winning races. Yeah. Is it that his employer was, does it involve wagering or betting on the outcome? No. Like someone didn't expect him to do quite so well, and so they bet it. Yeah, no, not exactly. Okay.

So he works for a formula racing company. Yeah, he's a race car driver. And wow, that's interesting. And they didn't expect him to win races? Yeah, I don't know exactly. I'm not up on my car racing, but I don't know if he was winning races, but he was... Doing better than... Doing better than they had expected him to, yes.

Okay, so if he wins a given race, does that affect, for instance, his position in a future race? I don't know. I don't know anything about any of it. Yeah, you don't even need to know any of that. And it doesn't matter specifically that he's a race car driver. I mean, this basic setup could have applied to various other occupations. It's just in this case, this is what he is. He's competing with other people and performing. No, it's not even that. Right. I think what went wrong here could have applied to many other industries. They just set something up without realizing how good he was going to be. Is it that his value as a driver went up because of his success and so he wanted more money?

No. Are other people involved besides just him as a driver? No. It's really just his performance? It really is. It was just something that the company set up with him that turned out to be a big mistake. I mean, I don't know much about racing either, but I should think if you win or do relatively well in races, you reward it?

Like, does he get some kind of cash reward for performance? Let's say he does, but I don't think it's exactly how you're thinking. But keep that in mind. Is it part of his contract with them that he'll be rewarded for good performance? Yes. He almost bankrupted. Yes, exactly. with them that he'll be rewarded for good performance. Yes. He almost bankrupted them. Yes, exactly. Dickens said, a Formula One race car driver, Kimi Räikkönen, signed a contract

with Lotus in 2012 that would award him a 50,000 euro bonus for each point he scored for the underdog racing team. Over the next two years, he achieved unexpected and incredible success, scoring 390 points, earning a nearly 20 million euro bonus and almost bankrupting Lotus. According to this article, they still haven't paid him back. I see what you mean. That could happen in another... It's sure. If you give anybody some kind of signing bonus that if you achieve certain expectations and

then you just achieve them... So there's a risk in doing that. Yeah. And a June 2020 article in Boss Hunting that Dickens sent a link to says that Rai Kunen was never paid about 6 million euros that Lotus owed him, but he didn't pursue it to ensure that no one lost their jobs over the issue. This is from listener Derek Christie. A biologist wants to know how many snails are in her vegetable garden. She goes out one night and collects as many snails as she can, but then she lets them go. Why? Because she just wanted to count them.

Oh, does she like paint them like in a way, like put luminescent paint on them so then she can, they'll go find their snail friends and she can follow them and see where they go? That's close. She does paint them. I'm astounded that was your first question, but yes. Oh, so, I mean, does she paint them in a way that they'll now be visible again? Oh, then she'll know which ones she's already collected and counted, so that if she sees another snail, she'll know if it's... You're on the right track. No, no, no.

That's right. Do snails congregate in families or groups or something? Let's say they don't. Let's say they don't. Let's say they don't. Okay. I don't know if they have friends or not. Okay. So she collects a bunch of snails and then she paints them.

Does it matter what she paints them with or how she paints them? No, she just marks them. She marks them so that she can recognize them again and then she lets them go. Right. And then does she want to see like like, when she sees snails, what proportion of them are painted versus unpainted, and then she can sort of do some statistical analysis there and sort of... Have you heard of this before?

No. The fact that you came up, it's been a minute and 21 seconds. Yes, that's the answer. This is known as the Mark recapture method. The biologist goes back the next night and again finds as many snails as she can. Some of these snails bear paint and some don't. If 20% of them bear paint, then the biologist can assume that she had painted 20% of the whole population on the first night. In this way, she can estimate the total population without having to count every snail. Thanks, Derek.

this puzzle comes from ruben van selm from new zealand a man is driving past a restaurant and sees an ambulance outside he immediately knows that whoever the paramedics are responding to is seriously injured slash unwell or dead. How does he know? You said an ambulance? Yes. Well, wouldn't you, maybe this is obvious, wouldn't you ordinarily normally summon an ambulance only if someone's in pretty bad shape? Yes, but in this case, he knows it's even more dire than possible other circumstances.

Okay. Can he see anyone? No. All he sees is a restaurant with an ambulance outside. I guess there's maybe something else that he sees. Okay. Something besides the ambulance. Yes.

Do I need to know more about the restaurant? No. Could this have happened outside some other place of business? Yes. So just someone inside the building, presumably. Presumably. Is in some extremity and needs help. Right.

All right, so he sees something else. Does the something else that he sees, is it the property of the presumed patient who's inside the building? No. Like a certain kind of car or something that tells you something about that person? No. Is it, let's call it a clue, whatever it is? Okay.

Does the clue reflect on the identity of the person who's receiving the medical attention? No. No. Is it, let's call it a clue, whatever it is? Okay. Does the clue reflect on the identity of the person who's receiving the medical attention? No. No. Does it tell him something about, wow, about the paramedics? I don't know how that could be. No. Okay, then it tells him something about what, more specifically what they're doing, what kind of treatment they're giving the person?

No. What could you see outside? Is it a vehicle? No. Okay. Well, you said it wasn't the property of the person. Right. Is it one person inside who's getting treated?

We presume. We don't know. Possibly. Yeah. All right. And I don't need... You said it doesn't have to be a restaurant, so I don't need to figure out what exactly the ailment is.

Is that true? Correct. Is it something about the ambulance itself? No. Um, okay. What would tell you? So, okay, you said that by seeing this, whatever it is, he's able to infer that this person is in worse shape than you might otherwise expect.

Yeah, that it must be really serious. And it's not something... Do I need to know anything more about the identity of the man who's driving by and seeing all this? No. He has some special expertise or something? No. He's just a passerby? That's correct.

Okay. Is the location important? I was waiting for you to ask that. Yes. Something about the location is important. I was just about to give you a hint that you'd forgotten to ask a question you normally ask. Is this true? I don't know, but it could be. You said the person

who said it is from is in New Zealand? Yes. And that doesn't matter. Okay. It doesn't have to be in New Zealand. This could happen in the US. All right. So is it something like altitude? No. Location. Is it sort of like the geographic setting, like a desert or a mountain, something like that? No. But it relates to what you're calling the clue, the other thing that the man driving by sees. That's the important thing about the location. Time of year? No.

Weather? No. Time of day? No. Something about the location, something that the man driving by sees. So by location, you mean location of the restaurant, that specifically? Yes. Not as opposed to a region of the country or something right right something much more specific yes something much more specific something that the passerby sees is the restaurant a building like a freestanding building that i'm let's say it is like the

average restaurant it's not a floating correct something, yeah. Not that I know, I'm aware of, but it could be. It doesn't matter. Okay. Location of the restaurant. Okay, so are there other places of business or buildings or something nearby that are related to this? Yes. Is it a hospital or the source of the ambulance? Yes.

Very interesting puzzle. Okay, so there's a restaurant next to a hospital someone goes and has some trouble in the restaurant yes oh and he couldn't walk to the hospital right yes that's exactly it reuben says the restaurant is right across the road from the hospital the person must be so incapacitated that they couldn't just walk or be helped across the road to the emergency department. That's good. This is from listener Andy Bryce. A woman picks up a large rock and drops it into a lake. The rock sinks. The level of the lake goes down. Why?

The rock goes through something and creates a hole or something in the bottom of the lake. Yeah, exactly. That's not it. Okay. Does it matter where this is? No. Did this actually happen? Probably at some time. Okay.

So it's not like some specific event I'm trying to divine. That's right. Okay. Does it matter if it's a natural or a human made lake? No. Does it matter anything about the rock? No. Are there any properties about the lake that I need to work out? No, there aren't. Okay. So it's not like there's ice involved or something that the rock crashes through or anything like that? Nope.

Is this on Earth? The old standby question. Yes, it is. Dang. Okay. So does the rock... Is the rock what I would think of as a rock? Yes.

Does the size of it matter in any way? No. The shape of it? No. Okay. So a woman picks up a rock and throws it into a lake. Yes. The lake has no particularly special properties whatsoever.

That's correct. The rock lands in the lake, remains in the lake. Yes. And the water level goes down. Yes. Does the rock somehow change the temperature of the water? No. Oh, see, you could work out things where that would work. Yes, you could. Okay, never mind. you could okay never mind um um so how does throwing a rock in a lake cause the water level to go down oh does the water level like splash out over the sides and then when it's done doing that there's less water in the lake no oh okay um all right and the rock doesn't create a hole All right. And the rock doesn't create a hole or something in the bottom of the lake. No, the initial location of the rock is important.

Oh, the initial location of the rock. Did the rock come out of the lake? No. Was the rock near the lake? Yes. Is the rock from Earth? Yes. Okay. Oh, was the rock covering or plugging something?

No. Okay. So she picks up a rock from a specific location that is near the lake. Yes. She picks it up with her bare hands, possibly. Yeah. The rock is near her at the start. The rock is near her.

Neither of them are in the lake. Is that incorrect? That's, I guess the way that's phrased, I can't quite say. Oh, are they on the surface of the lake? Yes. She's in a boat. Yes. The woman is in the boat.

Oh, and the rock is in the boat with her. Yes. Ah. Basically, that's it. The woman is in the boat. Oh, and the rock is in the boat with her. Yes. Ah. Basically, that's it. That's what makes the difference. Yeah. The woman is in a boat with the rock. While the rock is in the boat, it displaces an amount of water equal to the mass of the

rock. This is Archimedes' principle. When the rock is underwater, it displaces an amount of water equal to the volume of the rock. We know the rock is denser than the water. It sinks. So the amount of water it displaces while in the boat is greater than the amount of water it displaces underwater. Therefore, the level of the lake goes down. Now we just have to figure out why she was in a lake

with a rock in a boat, but I'm sure there's a good reason for that. Yes, I'm sure there's a reason. This puzzle comes from Anna Joroch from Germany. In the village of Klein-Galienicke in Germany, people had to lock up their ladders. If they got caught with an unsecured ladder, they would be fined five marks. Why? Is this today? I mean, some modern? No.

Oh, okay. Would it help me to know precisely when it was? Generally. Roughly when it was. Yeah. Roughly when it was. Yeah. 19th century? No. 20th century?

Yes. Sometime in the 20th century, a German village locked up its ladders. Yes. Okay. Suppose they didn't do that. Mayhem would ensue. I don't know about mayhem, but... Someone would take a ladder and use it for some purpose that the society didn't want to happen?

That's close enough. All right, let's follow one of these people on his ladder-related adventure. He takes a ladder out of, I guess, someone else's shed or house? Or yard or whatever. Does he use it to commit a crime? Hmm.

I'm not sure. I'm not sure if this would have counted as a crime. Possibly. So let's say, okay, let's say he does it. Is he still within the village when he does whatever this is? Be more specific. Well, does he go out to an orchard and steal apples or something? I mean, is he within the city boundaries when he commits this deed, whatever it is?

I'm not sure I can answer that the way you're phrasing it. I'm having trouble here. He uses the ladder to do something. Okay. One thing. Yeah. He uses the ladder to gain access to something that he wouldn't otherwise have access to. Is that true?

Okay. Is that above ground level? Yes. Okay. I mean, the wording is a little off here, but I'm trying to go with you as much as possible. He doesn't just sell the ladder. Correct. He does not sell the ladder.

And could one person do this nefarious deed, whatever it is? Yes. Okay. So one person could take a ladder, his own ladder even. Okay. I suppose. That's even possible. They're concerned about other people coming and using the ladders.

Coming from outside the village? Possibly. Ladders. Do I need to know more about where the village is located? Yeah, but that might be hard to guess. But yeah, it would put together with the whole thing. Okay, so this couldn't happen just anywhere? Correct. Alright, okay.

Alright, so this person uses a ladder to gain access to something above ground level that he wouldn't otherwise have access to, but he's not stealing something. Yeah, I mean access is, I mean technically, that's probably not the word you'd use

if you actually knew the scenario, but. What else would you use a ladder for? That's what people use ladders for. You might want to think about the time period a little bit more specifically. Is there a political question behind this? Like, does it have to do with boundaries or borders? Yes.

An escape? Yes. Escaping East Germany? That's it. Wow. That's exactly it. Anna says, the village was right up on the border between the former East Germany slash DDR, where it belonged to, and West Germany. Up until 1961, the border was not

enforced and people could freely travel. In 1961, a wall was erected and most people trying to flee into West Germany simply used a ladder to cross the wall. If your ladder wasn't secured during one of the checks by the border patrol, you were fined five marks, a lot of money these days. I guess that is access. Yeah, access is like sort of. This is from listener Steve Carter, actually from his wife Amy, and I've altered it a bit. In 1911, the stage magician known as the Great Lafayette arranged for his dog to be buried in an Edinburgh cemetery. The city council agreed to provide a plot only if Lafayette himself

would be buried there when he died. As it happened, he died in a theater fire four days later. But when the ashes were returned from the crematorium, they were not interred with the dog. Why? Hmm. When they had him agree that he was going to be interred there, did that stipulate that it had to be his whole body and because he was cremated that somehow obviated the agreement? No. Okay. Was the dog buried?

Yes. Where they expected him to be buried. Does this have something to do with the fact that he died so soon after it? No. Okay. So there's nothing. I mean, that is kind of weird it was four days later like wow um does it matter what did happen to his ashes um i'll say yes like they they

needed to do something different with his ashes i they weren't sure it was his ashes. Like if a bunch of people died at the same time in a fire. That's not a question. Was that, does that have something to do with it? That they weren't sure which were his ashes? Yes. Because several people died at the same time in a fire?

Yes. There's a bit more. So more than one person died in a fire at the same time. Yes. There's a bit more. So more than one person died in a fire at the same time. Yes. They couldn't tell which body was which? Yes. And what might... So they didn't want to bury the wrong person in the plot with the dog.

Yes. That's right. But there's something else. Well, okay. So the ashes came back from the crematorium. Uh-huh. And it was only then that they realized. That they didn't know whose they were?

They got all mixed up? Or they were potentially mixed up? Yes. What might lead them to that discovery? Hmm. Was there something among the ashes that they weren't expecting, like a wedding ring or something, that hadn't burned? No, I'll say no to that.

Okay. This has to do with his occupation. He was a stage magician. He was a stage magician. Was it discovered that it might not be his ashes because of something they could see with the ashes? No. With somebody else's presumed ashes? I have to be careful how I answer this.

Yes. Did he have some distinguishing characteristics, something about him that was unusual that would somehow survive cremation. Something like metal or something that could still be seen or not seen, or could be expected to be seen. Yes. And it has something to do with being a magician. Yeah, it was something to do with his act that led to this confusion. Huh. Because I'm thinking like gold teeth or like i'm trying to think well they might melt but i'm something to do with his act after the fire

after the fire they discovered some remains and weren't sure if they were his or not or thought at first they were his that they thought were his Oh, because at some point in his act, like he trades places with somebody. Yes. And so then they have a body, but they don't know whether he had traded places yet or not with his assistant or whoever. Yeah, basically that's it. Oh, wow. Lafayette's body had been identified by the remains of his costume, his shoes, and his

proximity to the props he'd used in the show. His body was sent to Glasgow to be cremated, but it was noted that it lacked some distinctive diamond and gold finger rings. Less than an hour after the ashes were returned to Edinburgh, another corpse was found, this one wearing Lafayette's stage garb and the missing rings. In his act, Lafayette had used a double of his own size and build and who wore the same costume, and that man's body had been discovered first, which means that he doubled Lafayette even in death. Oh, wow. So the dog, by the way, whose name was Beauty, had died of apoplexy on May 4th and was stuffed, and Lafayette's ashes now reside in a box between his paws.

Oh, so the dog isn't even buried there. Nobody's buried in the plot. No, the dog is, and so it worked out the way they had planned. I see. And presumably the double is buried elsewhere. Thanks, Steve and Amy. This is another puzzle from the book How Come, a book of riddles by Agnes Rogers from 1953 that we discussed in episode 306, and you can make some guesses about what's going to happen in the puzzle. A political prisoner was held captive in a fine large house.

There was a guard outside his door and the windows were shuttered and barred, but the prisoner was a determined and patient man. He secretly contrived to make a rope out of sheets, and one dark night he managed to pry open the shutters and successfully lowered himself to the thoroughfare below. Shortly afterwards, the guard entered his room, found it empty, and spread the alarm.

The prisoner was discovered dead. How come? I kept waiting for the twist. There's not even a puzzle here yet. Discovered dead? Yes. Okay. If the sheets hadn't been involved would he have died yes

oh so it's not like he got okay tangled in the sheets or something yeah no so he successfully made it down to this thoroughfare and was clear of the house when he died correct does it matter that he was a political prisoner no all right so a guy in a thoroughfare dies. Yes. Was discovered to have died. Was discovered dead. So he gets as far as, can I just call it a road, this thoroughfare? No. Because I thought, you don't need that whole setup. Does this involve water?

Yes. Or is it a river? Or a canal or something? Yeah, that's exactly it. He was imprisoned in a house in Venice. And not realizing where he was, he didn't realize that he was lowering himself into a canal. And since he didn't know how to swim, he drowned. Fair enough. And the original answer in the book says that he was transported to Venice in a state of coma. I guess that's supposed to account for how he didn't know where he was. But there's no explanation given for why he's in a coma. And I thought it was really energetic of him to engineer an escape like that if he'd recently been in a coma. So I kind of just left that out. It's a very colorful puzzle. And that wraps up our show. You can still visit the website at futilitycloset.com to graze through

Greg's compendium of more than 12,000 singular beguilements and see the links and references for today's puzzles. If you'd like to reach us, you can email us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. All of our music was written and performed by the extraordinary Doug Ross. Thanks for all of your contributions and friendship over the years. And as always, thanks for listening.