Get the RSS feed or search “Lateral” on your podcast app
| Previous Episode | Index | Next Episode |
Episode 111: The life-changing drink
Published 22nd November, 2024
Karen Kavett, Francis Heaney and Sam Meeps face questions about audacious accessories, cunning cricketers and digital designs.
HOST: Tom Scott. QUESTION PRODUCER: David Bodycombe. EDITED BY: Julie Hassett at The Podcast Studios, Dublin. MUSIC: Karl-Ola Kjellholm ('Private Detective'/'Agrumes', courtesy of epidemicsound.com). ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS: Jerry Depew, Emily Sparks-Welch, Alex Bowen, Luke Mackenzie. FORMAT: Pad 26 Limited/Labyrinth Games Ltd. EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS: David Bodycombe and Tom Scott.
Transcript
Transcription by Caption+
Tom:
In a T20 Blast cricket match on 8th July 2022, what was amusing about the dismissal of batsman Mike Pepper?
The answer to that at the end of the show. My name's Tom Scott, and this is Lateral.
A question for the audience at home. How can you tell that the producer's writing my introduction at two o'clock in the morning? This.
Hoping they still have some reserves of midnight oil, we are joined by three players, one of which has been here before, two are brand new.
We are going to start with our returning player: Karen from Karen Puzzles. Welcome to the show.
Last I saw, you were off to the... is it the World Puzzle Championships in Spain?
Karen:
Yeah, I just got back from the World Jigsaw Puzzle Championships.
My team did pretty well. We are the third fastest puzzle team in the world.
Tom:
Oh, wow, congratulations!
Karen:
Thank you.
Tom:
So I'm assuming you're now just knee deep in editing all the footage.
Karen:
Yeah, oh my gosh. It is so much footage. I'm gonna have so many videos out.
So hopefully by the time this episode comes out, that'll be available to watch, I hope. Or else, you know, I'll have been editing for a really long time.
Tom:
Well, very best of luck to you on the show today. You are joined by two new players.
The first one of which: anime maker and cosplayer, Sam Meeps. Welcome to Lateral.
Sam:
Happy to be here.
Tom:
We just sort of missed each other at Open Sauce out in San Francisco. So I guess for the audience who don't know you:
What do you make? What's going on in your world?
Sam:
Yeah, so I'm working on a Demon Slayer coffee table right now. Which, if you are into anime, that'll mean something to you. And if not, that'll mean nothing to you.
Tom:
What sort of things do you make?
Sam:
I make a lot of cosplays, so, of course, Halloween's coming up. So, that's Olympic time for cosplay people. So, yeah, working on something, hopefully, will be done in time.
Tom:
Well, good luck on the show today as well.
And the last member of our panel today: puzzle writer and editor extraordinaire, with puzzle books out, including, I do have to say...
They are the executive editor for Puzzle Write Press... who might have a book out soon that's something to do with this. Francis Heaney, welcome to Lateral.
Francis:
Delighted to be here. I've moved from the page to the screen. It's very exciting.
Tom:
(laughs softly) It is a delight to talk to you, not over the pedantic details of small translation things for the US edition of the Lateral book. (laughs)
Francis:
Oh, you know, it wasn't that hard. A lifetime of anglophilia has served me well for translating purposes.
Tom:
It felt a lot like moving the metric measures later, and dropping a few Us here and there.
Francis:
Yeah, pretty much that.
Tom:
Tell me about AVCX as well.
Francis:
Oh, well, AVCX is a sort of indie puzzle collective that's been going on for years and years. It started out as the crossword puzzle in The Onion, in the AV Club section. And we kept the initials over the years. For a while, we were the American Values Club Crossword, in an attempt to reclaim American values for people who aren't terrible. And...
Tom:
(laughs)
Francis:
That got us some interesting subscribers who got very angry at us for some of our political clues. So we had to let go.
Tom:
(laughs)
Francis:
And anyway, now we have expanded. And we have a bi-weekly cryptic, which I help edit. Or as you would call it over there, a crossword.
Tom:
Yes! (laughs) There is a big difference between the two.
Francis:
Yeah, and we're, you know, we're trying to round up some new subscribers because we lost some of our big money funders.
SFX:
(both laugh)
Tom:
Get the blatant plug in while you can. God knows I've been doing that for the book.
Well, good luck to all our players... which is, apparently all it says on my notes today. You can tell the producer's really been phoning this in.
Although, why they're phoning it in by typing on a Nokia 3210, I'll never know. Here is question one.
Thank you to Jerry Depew for sending this one in.
How did Steve's life change, partly because his British wife told him to down his drink quickly?
I'll say that one more time.
How did Steve's life change partly because his British wife told him to down his drink quickly?
Karen:
Well, this has to be something about words meaning different things in the UK versus America.
Francis:
Yeah, is there a British phrase akin to "bottoms up" that would just... come off very differently to someone who didn't know what it meant?
Karen:
Also, I just immediately assumed that Steve was American. I guess he could be any nationality that's probably not British.
Sam:
Yeah. I wonder if a British wife, does that have something to do with it? Does that matter?
Francis:
I mean, it sounds like— I also assumed he wasn't British from the fact of bringing that word in, you know.
Tom:
Steve is not British.
Francis:
Hm. (snickers)
Sam:
Did something bad happen to Steve? (laughs) After he downed his drink?
Karen:
Yeah, it just said his life, was it changed permanently? But you didn't say if it was for the good or the bad.
Tom:
It certainly changed things. It wasn't a disaster, but there was a turning point there.
Francis:
That's what got him fully addicted to tea in the end. (snickers)
Sam:
(laughs)
Tom:
It was tea! This absolutely was a mug of tea.
Francis:
Did he burn himself?
SFX:
(Tom and Francis laugh)
Francis:
I mean, I don't want it— "And he was permanently injured, so his life changed forever."
Tom:
We don't tend to have those questions on Lateral. It happens sometimes, but—
Francis:
It seemed like an unlikely outcome, but...
Karen:
I mean, I drink tea every day. I'm not a coffee person. But I can't think of... what would happen if you drank tea too quickly, besides just burning the inside of your mouth.
Francis:
If you had a tea bag in the cup, you might... It might slap you in the face, as has happened to me. Because I'm sure this is not the condoned British way of making tea.
Tom:
(laughs)
Francis:
I just leave the bag in the cup forever, and...
Tom:
Oh, I know people who drink it that way. Absolutely, just as strong as possible.
Francis:
Yeah.
Karen:
I feel like it was very specifically worded. Down the drink quickly.
Tom:
Yes.
Karen:
That's not a common way to say... you know, finish your drink so we can get going.
Tom:
Rather than thinking about what might happen if he downs it quickly, what would happen to the tea if he hadn't drunk it quickly?
Francis:
Well—
Sam:
It gets cold.
Francis:
It would get cold, yeah.
Tom:
Mm.
Karen:
It might stain the mug. I mean, that's a permanent change.
Sam:
Maybe he invented something... because of it.
Francis:
He wanted to drink his tea slower and find a way to keep it warmer longer.
Karen:
Did he invent iced tea? By drinking cold tea?
SFX:
(Tom and Francis laugh)
Tom:
Oh yeah, growing up, iced tea or cold tea was just unthinkable. That was just not a thing I'd ever heard of.
Francis:
Yeah, ice was already so new.
Tom:
(laughs heartily)
Francis:
Putting it in things, he had a long way to go to get there.
Tom:
You will have heard of this Steve.
Karen:
Steve Jobs.
Sam:
Steve Harvey. Oh wait, who has a British wife? Which Steve has a British wife?
Francis:
It's definitely not Steve Sondheim.
Tom:
(laughs) It is an entertainer.
Karen:
I literally once— I have a friend named Steve.
And we— And at his birthday party, we all made PowerPoint presentations. And the one that I made was rating other Steves compared to him.
Tom:
(laughs)
Karen:
And now I can't think of who any of those other people were.
Tom:
It is very specifically Steve and not Steven.
Karen:
Did this person invent, or was a part of, some kind of food and beverage brand?
Tom:
No, but you will have heard the thing he was part of.
Karen:
Wait, isn't there a wrestler or someone? Ice Cold Steve something?
Francis:
Oh, oh, yes. Stone Cold Steve Austin.
Tom:
Yes!
Francis:
What?
Tom:
Yep. Keep talking, Francis. What might have happened?
Karen:
(giggles)
Francis:
So... She must have said something like, "If you don't drink your tea, it's going to get stone cold." And he thought, that just sounds so badass.
Tom:
(laughs)
Francis:
(snickers)
Tom:
Yeah, you're absolutely right. That is the story of how he got his name.
Francis:
The most He-Man tea ever.
Tom:
He was originally called the Ringmaster, and he didn't think it was working. The wrestling promotion faxed him three pages of apparently very bad nicknames.
And he sat in the kitchen. His British wife made him some tea, and at some point says, "Oh, you should drink that before it gets stone cold."
And Steve Austin goes, "You know what? That is my new nickname. I am Stone Cold Steve Austin."
Francis:
Amazing. (chuckles)
Tom:
Stone Cold Steve Austin is one of the most famous WWE wrestlers.
Francis:
And he must be very famous for me to know who he is.
Tom:
(laughs)
Francis:
Because as you can see, I'm just tres sportif.
Tom:
Sam, we're going to go over to you for the next question, please.
Sam:
In 1937, André Basdevant proposed a scheme where cars could be driven 377 feet up a helix-shaped ramp, along a short roadway, and down the other side. The journey is simple by foot. What was the point of this structure?
In 1937, André Basdevant proposed a scheme where cars could be driven 377 feet up a helix-shaped ramp, along a short roadway, and down the other side. The journey is simple by foot. What was the point of this structure?
Francis:
So these are... pretty old cars. (snickers)
Tom:
(laughs)
Francis:
When was the car invented?
Tom:
Not that long before then. I think we were on from Model Ts then, but not by much.
Karen:
Yeah, so... I mean, we wouldn't have had... power steering and... you know, Elon Musk's tunnel.
Tom:
My first thought was some weird sightseeing attraction. You— It's a way to get up to the top card.
Francis:
Oh, for a photo op? To get your car to the top of the mountain so you could be like, "Look, I made it up to the mountain."
Tom:
Yeah, but I realise what I'm remembering is a thing from a kid's series that I watched when I was young.
Episode one of Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons has the Car-Vu car park, which is just this ridiculously impractical fictional thing that was just a giant helical ramp up to an observation deck car park 1,000 feet in the air.
Terrible idea, wouldn't have worked in real life, and my brain's going, "Oh, that's the invention. It's from Captain Scarlet." No, it's not.
Francis:
(giggles)
Karen:
Can I just— I don't know if I'm picturing the right thing. What, a helix ramp? It would just be a spiral going up, right?
Francis:
Yeah, the opposite of one of those spiral slides in the playground.
Karen:
So you're basically staying in pretty much the same physical location. You're just maybe getting higher up.
Tom:
And then going down the other way.
Sam:
Yes.
Francis:
I mean, the first thing I picture is a roller coaster, that you know, there's a thing to get you up high, so that you can go fast down the other side. So I mean, I don't know if it was a very primitive thrill ride to just be like, it's too hard to get up the hill, but it's very easy to get down.
Sam:
I will say, it would've provided useful access to some place, somewhere.
Tom:
Okay. I've just realised that a bring-your-own-car roller coaster is just a downhill rally. That's literally, that's a downhill rally.
Francis:
(snickers)
Tom:
(laughs)
Karen:
I drew a little diagram to try to...
Tom:
Yeah, I've got a doodle in front of me as well. It just looks like two slinkies next to each other.
Francis:
So is it a— But the way to get down on the other side is not also a helix, or is it?
Sam:
I believe it would also be a helix shape on the other side.
Karen:
I was thinking it would be like, you know, you would drive up on one side of the road and drive down on the other side, but is it two helixes or just one helix?
Sam:
That's a good question. The question says—
SFX:
(Tom and Francis chuckle)
Sam:
Okay, listen, this scheme was proposed, so I'm assuming it didn't actually happen.
Tom:
Oh, okay.
Sam:
And it is going 377 feet.
Tom:
That's a very specific number.
Francis:
Yeah, what's 377 feet high?
Karen:
If it's simple by foot... Does that mean there's just a very simple, maybe walkway across... some sort of natural... I don't know, thing that you can't drive over? But you can easily climb over it or walk over it in some way? Something really tall, but—
Sam:
You're on the right track.
Francis:
You know, if it was like getting out of the Grand Canyon, which is probably deeper—
Tom:
I was just thinking that. It's a lift out the Grand Canyon. But that's not an easy walk by foot.
Francis:
I was gonna say, that's not an easy walk. In fact, it's rather arduous.
Tom:
I think there's still a mule train that goes down to one village at the bottom of the Grand Canyon to deliver the mail every so often.
Francis:
Wow.
Sam:
Mhm.
Karen:
Is it something like in Arches National Park, it's like an arch where you can walk through the middle of it, but you would have to go over it to get a car through?
Sam:
Although bridge-like, it wasn't built over a river.
Tom:
Oh! No, it's too late for that. Is this an— I don't know why I assume this was somewhere in America. Particularly given the name André Basdevant? I think that sounds French.
Sam:
Mhm.
Tom:
Was this a design for the Eiffel Tower— Well no, Eiffel, obviously it's named after him, but was this a design for the Eiffel Tower or something like that, as a tourist attraction?
Sam:
It was. It was indeed.
Tom:
Oh!
Sam:
It is related to the Eiffel Tower.
Tom:
As a replacement?
Sam:
So the question was, what was the point of this structure? I guess, more specifically.
Francis:
Was it to get yourself at the same level as the top of the Eiffel Tower, so you could, you know... get a good photo of it, or wave to the people on it?
Sam:
I think that counts as getting the right answer.
It's so that you can drive to the second floor of the Eiffel Tower.
Because apparently there's a restaurant on the second floor of the Eiffel Tower, which I didn't know about. It's three Americans here, I didn't know there was a restaurant.
Francis:
I did know about it because I was there, last year, and I was like, oh, we're never getting reservations at that restaurant. But it's nice from down here.
SFX:
(Tom and Francis laugh)
Tom:
I remember some... I think it was a designer or an art critic or something, who enjoyed having lunch in that restaurant, because it's the one point in Paris where you can't see the Eiffel Tower.
Francis:
(snickers)
Sam:
That's funny.
Francis:
Hated it so much.
Sam:
This kind of helical ramp on either side, you would have had to take at least 10 really tight turns in order to drive up 377 feet or 115 metres.
Francis:
And instead they were like, what about an elevator? What if we did that?
Tom:
(laughs)
Sam:
Yes. Apparently, André Basdevant also proposed a rotating aircraft runway that would have been built directly over the river Seine, so...
Tom:
Wow!
Francis:
What was the benefit of the rotation?
Tom:
You could always take off into the wind. Doesn't matter which direction the wind's coming from. You'll be able to take off into it.
Francis:
That is clever. Very impractical, but clever.
Tom:
Yes, yes.
Sam:
(laughs)
Tom:
This question has been sent in by both Emily Sparks-Welch and Alex Bowen. Thank you to both of you.
In 1980, Maureen Wilcox decided to buy a couple of state lottery tickets. She soon realised that she had chosen the winning numbers for the Massachusetts draw on a ticket with the right date, but she didn't win a penny. Why not, and why was it particularly disappointing?
I'll give you that one more time.
In 1980, Maureen Wilcox decided to buy a couple of state lottery tickets. She soon realized that she had chosen the winning numbers for the Massachusetts draw on a ticket with the right date, yet she didn't win a penny. Why not, and why was it particularly disappointing?
Sam:
Did so many people win that day that the payout was zero?
SFX:
(group snickering)
Francis:
More people won than the amount of money in the prize.
Tom:
We've had a question like that before, where some of the numbers from Lost came up, and it turns out so many people are unimaginative that they won very little.
Sam:
Mm.
Francis:
I mean, you can, I think, disqualify your ticket by scratching off something in the wrong place. If you scratch off the serial number, it renders the ticket void, I think.
And it could be that if it's a scratch-off ticket, you're excitedly scratching off the numbers, and you just go a little too far.
Karen:
But if she's choosing the numbers, that would be the paper ticket, right? Not a scratch-off one.
Francis:
Yeah, you're right.
Sam:
Maybe her dog ate the ticket.
Tom:
The first note I have is that nothing bad happened to the ticket.
Sam:
Ah. (laughs)
Karen:
(giggles)
Sam:
Never mind.
Francis:
Has she selected one too many numbers, and that invalidated the ticket?
She chose ten numbers, and you're only supposed to choose nine, and nine of the ten were the winning numbers, but that tenth one just ruined the whole deal?
Tom:
Oh, Francis, clearly someone who does not play the lottery here.
Francis:
Oh, okay.
Tom:
(laughs)
Francis:
It's true, I don't. I'm very risk averse for gambling.
Tom:
You fill out a ticket with the numbers, and you hand it over to a clerk, and they will scan it and put it into the system, and that will print your ticket for you.
Francis:
So if there was an error at that stage...
Tom:
It would just have never been issued.
Karen:
Okay, great. So we have at least two people here who have never bought a lottery ticket.
SFX:
(group laughing)
Francis:
My grandmother played all the time. So I should have some vestigial memory of the process.
Tom:
I've played once in recent years, and it cost me £2.50, and I won £3.50. And I've just decided I'm probably going to call it quits then.
Francis:
Yeah.
Sam:
(laughs) Quit while you're ahead.
Francis:
Leave while you're ahead.
Tom:
Yeah.
Karen:
That happened to me in Vegas.
I've gambled once. I played one table of roulette. I won $35, and I was like, "Alright, I'm set for life. Now I'll always be a winner."
Tom:
Excellent, yep. Good call.
Sam:
I've done it once too. When the Powerball in the States was massive a couple of years ago.
And I just remember being in the gas station with my boyfriend, and we were arguing about what numbers to choose, because he was insistent that we should say 1-2-3-4-5, just consecutive numbers.
Because he was saying,
Tom:
No, no!
Sam:
"The odds are the same," and I said, "Absolutely not."
Francis:
Because he was such a fan of Einstein on the Beach, he just picked those numbers.
Tom:
(laughs)
Sam:
(laughs)
Tom:
That's happened a couple of times in lotteries around the world, and it turns out, again, so many people do that, that you end up winning almost nothing, compared to the millions that would be in a lottery.
You still win a bit, but not what you wanted.
Karen:
So I feel like the common advice that you're given if you win the lottery is to not tell anyone, to immediately talk to a lawyer, set up, you know, an anonymous company to claim the money.
Did she... Was she maybe not a citizen? So she couldn't do that, or for some reason, she wasn't able to claim it anonymously, and so she just didn't?
Francis:
Or she was related to someone who worked for the lottery, and that disqualified her? Because there's various rules that are about who's not eligible?
Karen:
I actually did listen to a really interesting podcast about a guy who worked for the lottery, and was able to write something in the code that picked the numbers so that people that he knew just kept winning.
Tom:
In this case, no.
Maureen could just look at the tickets and she could see that, rules aside, anything like that, she wasn't entitled to anything.
Karen:
Okay, so, this stood out to me, that when you first read the question, "Didn't win a penny."
Did she ask for the money in cash? And they could only give it to her as a check and not in coins?
Tom:
No, she wasn't entitled to anything.
Francis:
So, you said that it was a ticket that had the date on it that matched those numbers.
Tom:
Yes.
Francis:
Was there a misprint on the date? She actually bought it on the next, the wrong day? No?
Tom:
I'll give you that bit of the question again.
Maureen Wilcox decided to buy a couple of state lottery tickets. She had chosen the winning numbers for the Massachusetts draw on a ticket with the right date.
Sam:
You said that it was a Massachusetts lottery? Did she maybe leave the state by then, and she wasn't able to claim it?
Tom:
No, but that's definitely the phrasing to pick up on in this question.
Karen:
Okay, so what are some weird laws in Massachusetts?
I'm from the East Coast, so I feel like... I should know something about this, but apparently not.
Francis:
She hated Dunkin Donuts, and therefore she was disqualified from everything for life.
SFX:
(Tom and Sam laugh)
Francis:
(giggles)
Tom:
She had bought a couple of state lottery tickets.
Francis:
Had she bought just the one ticket with the correct numbers on it, would she have been able to claim the money?
Tom:
No, that would also have not won her a prize. She would have been, I think, less disappointed.
Sam:
Did she misspell her name or something?
Tom:
She soon realised that she had chosen the winning numbers for the Massachusetts draw on a ticket with the right date.
Karen:
Wait, wait, wait, wait. Did she buy the ticket for a different state lottery? And it was the right numbers, but she was in the wrong state?
Tom:
Yes, she had a ticket for the Massachusetts lottery with the winning numbers from the Rhode Island lottery.
Sam:
That's so sad. That's really disappointing.
Tom:
That's the first part of the question.
That would have been disappointing. That would have been bad luck. That would not have been a lateral question.
Why was it particularly disappointing?
Francis:
Oh, were they both the same winning numbers? (snickers)
Tom:
Not quite, but you're very close.
Francis:
Was the other ticket from the Rhode Island state lottery? (laughs)
Tom:
Yes, it was.
Karen:
Oh, did she just switch the numbers so she had... the winning Rhode Island on Massachusetts and winning Massachusetts on Rhode Island?
Tom:
Yes. In 1980, Maureen Wilcox bought one ticket for the Massachusetts lottery and one ticket for the Rhode Island lottery... and got the numbers swapped around.
Sam:
There's no way!
Francis:
Oh, honey.
Tom:
(laughs)
Francis:
Oh, man!
Sam:
Oh, no!
SFX:
(group laughing)
Karen:
I feel like that's less likely than just winning the lottery.
Tom:
One of the sources in my notes is an article called "How the Seemingly Improbable Becomes a Sure Thing."
With all the lotteries and all the people playing them, it had to happen to someone. And Maureen Wilcox was just the staggeringly unlucky person who managed to get the right numbers for the wrong lotteries on the same day.
Sam:
Oh no.
Francis:
Amazing.
Tom:
Francis, we will go to you for the next question.
Francis:
Alright.
Comedy writer Emily Heller trolled photographers at the 2018 Emmy Awards by emblazoning two words on her handbag. What were they?
One more time.
Comedy writer Emily Heller trolled photographers at the 2018 Emmy Awards by emblazoning two words on her handbag. What were they?
Karen:
I will need to step back because I do know exactly what this is.
Tom:
Okay, it's on us, Sam. It's on us.
Sam:
Was it profanity?
Tom:
I was just assuming we were going to have to bleep some stuff in.
Sam:
Yeah.
SFX:
(group laughing)
Francis:
It is clean as a whistle.
Sam:
Oh.
Tom:
All I can think is profanity now.
Francis:
(giggles)
Sam:
Me too! (laughs)
Francis:
So much profanity out there to choose from.
Tom:
But this isn't paparazzi. This is at the Emmy Awards. This is probably someone who's walking the red carpet.
Francis:
Indeed. Although I can see from the photograph it's actually a gold carpet.
Tom:
Okay.
Sam:
Well, I'm imagining it's something that made... Maybe it made it hard to photograph, or... Maybe they weren't able to distribute photos because of what it said?
Tom:
Is there something in photojournalism where... there's words you put on a photo, as an editor, for like, "This is unusable, don't use it," or... I don't know what that could be, but they get written on the photo at some point, "Oh, no, this is—"
Francis:
That is, in some sense, getting towards it. Although it is not something that would render if... It's not something to say, "don't use this photo," although—
Sam:
Maybe it said something like "2017 Emmys." So it didn't make sense.
Tom:
Oh, that's really good.
Francis:
That would be funny. But, no.
Tom:
Oh, that's a shame.
Sam:
Someone should do that. I should try. I've heard there's some celebrity that purposefully wears the same outfit every time they go out. So that whenever a paparazzi takes photos of them, it looks like it's on the same day, and they can't really do anything with that.
Tom:
I think that was Daniel Radcliffe coming out of the plane.
Francis:
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Tom:
Yes.
Sam:
I think so.
Tom:
He just wore the same thing, and it wasn't useful to paparazzi anymore.
Francis:
No, I think you should go back to thinking about... things that might... go on a photo.
Sam:
Like a watermark?
Tom:
Oh...
Sam:
Getty Images.
Tom:
Yes! (laughs)
Francis:
Exactly that!
Sam:
Really?
Francis:
Yes.
Sam:
(cackles)
Francis:
It was the phrase Getty Images with the trademark symbol.
Tom:
Oh, that's wonderful.
Sam:
That's so good.
Francis:
So, you know. Many of the photographers were annoyed, but at least one was very delighted.
SFX:
(Tom and Sam laugh)
Francis:
So Emily Heller, nominated for writing on Barry. Great show, very dark comedy drama. Put the words on her handbag to make it look like the photo was watermarked.
And on Instagram, she wrote, "You know who was really excited to take pictures of this purse? Getty Images. You know who wasn't? Every other photographer there."
Tom:
Yeah.
Sam:
Amazing.
Tom:
There have been celebrities who have been sued for taking photos of themselves on the red carpet and putting them on Instagram, because they don't have the rights to do that. Just 'cause their face happens to be in the image, they actually have to license that, yes.
Francis:
If you took a selfie on the carpet, you could use that.
Tom:
That's fine. You've got the copyright to that. But if you want to use someone else's work, then they need a license.
However, putting a Getty Images watermark on it doesn't work that way. (laughs)
Thank you to Luke Mackenzie for this next question.
eBay.com changed its background from yellow to white as part of a major relaunch. According to UI expert Jared Spool, so many users complained that they changed it back. A few months later, the background was white again, yet hardly anyone complained. Why?
I'll say that again.
eBay.com changed its background from yellow to white as part of a major relaunch. According to UI expert Jared Spool, so many users complained that they changed it back. A few months later, the background was white again, yet hardly anyone complained. Why?
Sam:
I'm gonna step back from this one. I'm a UX designer as my day job, so... And this story is legendary, so...
Tom:
(laughs)
Francis:
Oh wow.
Tom:
Alright, Francis, Karen, it's on you.
Karen:
I mean, I have dabbled in UX design early in my career, so I feel like I should know this, but... And I also use eBay a lot. So I definitely should know this.
Francis:
Yeah, I don't remember when it had a yellow background, honestly. This must have been quite a while ago. Did something else about the design unrelated to the background change, that made the change to white less aggravating to users?
Karen:
I mean, did the technology change around the same time? is this when people were moving to using the internet on their phones? Or something about, computer screens changed?
Francis:
I mean, when I think of backgrounds making it difficult to use a web page, it's because the font is too close to the color of the background, like, you know, the... If you click a link, the color that changes— it changes to after you've clicked the link is suddenly the same color as the background. And so you can't read the text anymore, and that's irritating.
Tom:
The same white was used. The same new background.
Karen:
Did this happen at the same time as some other big news event? And so all the focus was on that, and no one cared about complaining about eBay?
Francis:
Or was it the announced reason for changing it that people got offended at? They're like, "I'm not going to use this new woke eBay" or whatever.
Tom:
(laughs)
Francis:
(snickers) You know, when it was— When they just did it quietly with no announcement, no one noticed.
Sam:
(giggles)
Karen:
So, when you're on eBay, I mean, I'm just trying to think— picture it in my mind. You have the product page, essentially, and then there's the background behind that. So was it the entire... I would think the product page itself, with all the info, would always have had to have had a white background, and then maybe yellow behind it, and now the entire thing is white? Am I picturing that right, or was the entire thing yellow?
Tom:
I'm not certain, but it was a big change. I don't know whether it was sort of the far background, or the background of the whole page, but it was a lot. There was something different about how the change was implemented the second time.
Karen:
I mean, when they went back to yellow... did they go back to a lighter yellow, and then when it changed to white, it wasn't as drastic as a darker yellow to white? And so people didn't notice?
Tom:
You're right to think about how human nature works with changes and things like that.
Francis:
So, did people complain when they changed it back to yellow? Because some people liked it white?
And so, they just were like, "We can't please anybody, so we'll go back to white again." And everyone who complained the first time had already been like, "Well, I already complained once. What's the point?"
Tom:
The design team were certainly playing the long game.
Francis:
Did they change it back to a very annoying yellow? Just an egregiously painful to look at, just the ugliest chartreuse green?
Karen:
Yeah, they're like, "If you want it yellow, we'll give you yellow. And then you'll see how good you had it when it was white."
Francis:
Eat this, users!
Karen:
I mean, I feel like we've proposed two opposite solutions. Either, you sort of inch your way there slowly, so that people get more used to it...
Francis:
Oh, did they just— Did they do it as a gradient? Change it a little bit gradually, one day at a time?
Tom:
Yes, they did. Absolutely right.
Karen, you were so close for so long. I just, it wasn't quite there.
Yes, Sam, you will have heard this story then.
Sam:
Yeah, it's incredible. It says so much about human nature, doesn't it?
Tom:
Mhm.
Sam:
Yeah, they made it 1% of a lighter yellow over the course of, I think, a year or something crazy.
Francis:
So yes, you said one day it was white again, but it wasn't suddenly white again.
Tom:
Yes, it was— Yes, the question very carefully edged around that.
A few months later, it was white again, and people had just steadily got used to it over the course of months.
Karen, it is over to you for the next question.
Karen:
Why did a cereal brand pay a student from London as part of an advertising campaign, even though she didn't appear in it, nor provide anything creative towards it?
And again.
Why did a cereal brand pay a student from London as part of an advertising campaign, even though she didn't appear in it, nor provide anything creative towards it?
Sam:
She didn't appear in it, but was she in a mascot suit that appeared in it?
SFX:
(Tom and Francis laugh)
Tom:
She was Tony the Tiger.
Sam:
(laughs) Yeah, someone's in there.
Francis:
So she didn't accidentally come up with the name of the cereal if she didn't provide any creative input. Unless it's she didn't intentionally provide any creative input.
Tom:
This is an ad campaign. This is a PR company doing some stunt to try and get in the papers.
Francis:
Did they do a stunt based on something she had done? Were they imitating her in some way?
Tom:
She was the one millionth person to buy a box of Frosted Flakes.
That can't be right, but...
She didn't contribute towards it, but she was sort of right place, right person, right time, maybe.
Francis:
The first person who ever said "Cheerio."
Tom:
(laughs)
Francis:
Was it a specifically UK cereal brand? Or just your regular international—
Tom:
We do have Cheerios over here.
Francis:
No, but I mean, you know, you do have weird things like Weetabix.
Sam:
No, Tom, so there's this cereal called Cheerios. They're really good, they're like...
SFX:
(group laughing)
Francis:
You heard of this thing? You heard of this?
Tom:
I have seen someone attempt to eat a dry Weetabix. And if you know what those are...
Francis:
Oh my god.
Tom:
Yeah, it's—
Francis:
They're extra large shredded mini wheats, right? Shredded giant wheats.
Tom:
Yeah, it's just a block of wheat, really. It's just a small block of wheat. You're meant to put it in milk. You're meant to—
No, he just tried to eat one dry, and, didn't go well. Didn't go well.
Francis:
I mean, that sounds like one of those TikTok trends. Like, you know, eating a spoonful of nutmeg that's dangerous and...
Tom:
Yeah.
Sam:
Yeah. Well, to be fair, instruction's unclear, and it looks like a granola bar. I understand.
SFX:
(Tom and Francis laugh)
Francis:
It looks like a cross between a pillow and a hair shirt, is what it looks like.
SFX:
(Tom and Francis chuckle)
Karen:
So the first clue that I have here is: other ads involved a bus driver from London, and a normal bloke from St Albans.
Tom:
Oh, St Albans! St Albans is...
Karen:
(giggles)
Tom:
vaguely in the south of England.
Karen:
I don't think the place really matters. Just, you know, a place.
Tom:
No.
Sam:
It sounds like they were using kind of everyday people for this ad campaign.
Tom:
Yeah.
Francis:
So did they hire actors to emulate ordinary people, but absolutely copy a normal person down to their, every detail of their outfit? You know, if someone was like... "Alright, well, it's gotta have white socks and penny loafers."
Karen:
Well, none of these people appeared in the ads.
Tom:
No, they didn't, so... I guess they didn't ask permission, or... (sighs) I'm stuck on names.
Were these people who had names in common with a cereal brand? And they were trying to pay them royalties?
But I don't know... I don't know who would have been accidentally named ...after a cereal brand.
Karen:
Tom, you're on the right track there. Keep going with that. It's not quite right.
Francis:
Was someone named, you know, Crunchy in Milk?
SFX:
(Tom and Francis chuckle)
Francis:
And they were just like... "Well, we're going to use that phrase, so I guess we should pay em."
Tom:
(laughs)
Sam:
Did they invent these fictional names? And then it turns out there are real people with these names that they had to pay? (laughs)
Tom:
Oh, it's like a settlement.
Sam:
Yeah.
Tom:
They are promising not to sue in exchange for the accidental slander that has happened.
Sam:
Mm.
Francis:
Oh, no one's actually named— No one's actually named Tommy Cap'n Crunch, and then it turns out, oh, there is.
Karen:
You're not quite there, but you're so, so close. What are some other tactics that... you know, that people will use generally in advertising?
Francis:
Oh, endorsements with someone listed as having done an endorsement of the cereal. But... they hadn't. And in fact, they hated that cereal with a deep, deep passion.
Tom:
Did they just take people's tweets about cereal without permission or something like that, and put them up on a billboard?
Karen:
Oh, you're so close. You're so close.
Francis:
So they made up endorsements, but the endorsements happened to coincide with real people's names. So they had to go retroactively get permission from those people?
Karen:
There was nothing retroactively done. This was all planned.
Sam:
Was it pictures of their reviews?
Francis:
Were they reviews of something else that they thought would be funny to apply to cereal, and so they asked if they could use those reviews? (chuckles)
Karen:
Go back to when Tom said, was talking about names.
Sam:
What was the name of this student?
Tom:
That would give it away, wouldn't it?
Sam:
Oh, wait. Oh, was that not part of the question? Oh.
Tom:
No.
Karen:
I didn't tell you.
Sam:
Just a London student.
Francis:
Can you repeat the part that was the answer?
Tom:
(laughs heartily)
Sam:
(laughs)
Francis:
Alas.
Karen:
The ads featured a prominent asterisk.
Tom:
Oh, they happened to have names in common with celebrities?
Karen:
Mhm, there you go.
Francis:
Oh! (snickers)
Tom:
Ohh!
Sam:
Ohhh!
Francis:
There it is. (laughs)
Tom:
Someone in London called David Beckham. Or Tom Jones, or Queen Elizabeth. I don't know, but they picked people with those names?
Karen:
Yep, so the answer is: She shared the same name as a famous person.
So, in 2023, Surreal Cereal hired a student so that she could be used to promote the brand. Her name was Serena Williams.
The ad's tagline was, "Serena Williams [asterisk] eats our cereal," with a footnote adding, "She is a student from London, and we paid her to eat it, but the point still stands."
SFX:
(others laughing)
Karen:
And other ads included Michael Jordan, Dwayne Johnson, and Ronaldo.
Sam:
Tom, that's a good idea for lateral thinking. You know, Britney Spears loves lateral thinking.
Tom:
Yes, yes.
Francis:
Asterisk. It's actually Presbyterians who love lateral thinking, but we anagrammed it.
Tom:
(chortles)
Karen:
(giggles)
Tom:
Wait, is that actually— For a brief moment, you convinced me that 'Britney Spears' was an anagram of 'Presbyterians'. Is it?
Francis:
It is, it is.
Tom:
Really?
Francis:
It's famously an anagram of 'Presbyterians'. And 'Pepsi-Cola' is an anagram of 'Episcopal'.
Tom:
It's rare that I'm speechless. Thank you for teaching me those things.
Francis:
I knew this because... Side move.
Another thing you might remember from my bio is that I wrote a book long ago called Holy Tango of Literature, in which the premise is, what if poets and playwrights wrote works whose titles were anagrams of their name?
Such as "Skinny Domicile" by Emily Dickinson, et cetera, et cetera. And I also did some songs. And one of the songs I did was Presbyterians by Britney Spears.
Tom:
Which just leaves us the question from the start of the show. And I am aware that this is a cricket question to three Americans, but:
In a T20 Blast cricket match on 8th of July 2022, what was amusing about the dismissal of batsman Mike Pepper?
Before I give the audience the answer, does anyone want to have a quick shot at that?
Francis:
Was he accused of as-salt?
Tom:
(laughs) Oh! You're very close.
Karen:
I mean, I don't even know anything about cricket to even... I mean, when you say dismissal, was he playing a game, and they tried to get him off of the field? Or was it, was he let go from the team?
Tom:
Dismissal is the cricket equivalent of baseball's out.
Francis:
Oh, so not ejected from the game, just—
Tom:
Nope.
Francis:
Oh, okay.
Karen:
Oh, okay.
Francis:
Well, I assumed he was ejected from the game. So, assault for Pepper, but...
Tom:
But, Francis, you have basically the right pun there.
Francis:
Oh! Alright. He was tagged out by someone named Salt?
Tom:
Yeah! He was dismissed by someone called Salt. Mike Pepper was third in the batting order for the Essex Eagles. He was stumped by Phil Salt, who was the wicketkeeper of Lancashire. And then, in the next innings, Salt was caught by Pepper.
Francis:
Were there no other condiments or seasonings in the game?
Tom:
(laughs)
Sam:
Mustard.
Tom:
Thank you very much to all our players. Let's find out, what's going on in your world? Where can people find you?
We will start with Francis.
Francis:
Well, you can look me up on the social medias in various forms, or come to our AVCX website. It's avxwords.com. And sign up for altogether too many puzzles. We apologize.
Tom:
And I believe that there's a book you're working on about now.
Francis:
And there's also a lovely book that I edited. And I don't remember who wrote it. But it's all about lateral thinking puzzles.
Tom:
Yes.
Francis:
And it's out now. Tom, do you remember who wrote it?
Tom:
Yes, it is— It's— someone and David Bodycombe. I can't remember the other name.
And it also has 100 questions, most of which have never appeared on the show. But you probably heard that at some point. Sam, what's going on with you? Where can people find you?
Sam:
You can find me also on social medias. On YouTube or Instagram, at @sam_meeps. YouTube for the PG version, Instagram for the version with more cussing.
Tom:
And Karen.
Karen:
Yeah, you can find me on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok. Just look up 'Karen Puzzles', and you'll find more content than you thought anyone could ever make about jigsaw puzzles.
Tom:
(laughs)
And if you want to know more about this show, you can do that at lateralcast.com, where you can also send in your own ideas for questions. We are at @lateralcast basically everywhere, and there are regular video highlights at youtube.com/lateralcast.
Thank you very much to Karen from Karen Puzzles.
Karen:
Thanks, Tom.
Tom:
Sam Meeps.
Sam:
Thanks.
Tom:
And Francis Heaney.
Francis:
Peace.
Tom:
I've been Tom Scott, and that's been Lateral.
| Previous Episode | Index | Next Episode |