Get the RSS feed or search “Lateral” on your podcast app
| Previous Episode | Index | Next Episode |
Episode 130: Disappearing toffees
Published 4th April, 2025
Sam Denby, Adam Chase and Ben Doyle from 'Jet Lag: The Game' face questions about animal accidents, severed signage and baby birth rates.
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: Gregor, LWChris, Jon Sweitzer-Lamme, Brady Joyce, Jonathan Cooke, Karthick. FORMAT: Pad 26 Limited/Labyrinth Games Ltd. EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS: David Bodycombe and Tom Scott.
Transcription by Caption+
Tom:
In what way are giraffes 30 times more vulnerable to injury than humans?
The answer to that at the end of the show. My name's Tom Scott, and this is Lateral.
We are joined today by three people who have recently been running around Europe while ripping open a bunch of envelopes. And one day the tax authorities are gonna catch up to them.
For now, they are sheltering in the safe harbour of doing a podcast.
From Jet Lag: The Game on Nebula, we have, first of all, Sam Denby.
Sam:
Hello.
Tom:
Welcome back to the show. How are you doing?
Sam:
I— It's— In recent seconds...
Tom:
(laughs heartily)
Sam:
It's become clear to me, or I've remembered that unlike our podcast, we actually have to think on this show, which is... I don't know why we agreed to this. We have to apply ourselves.
Tom:
Oh. Yeah, we're doing two episodes of this, back to back, and then immediately going into recording the last episode of The Layover, so...
Sam:
But that's the correct order, because look, The Layover, you don't need to apply yourself much. All you have to do is defend.
Tom:
This is the companion show for Jet Lag: The Game. Which, last time you were on, I was merely a viewer of, and now we're at the end of the season. there's one episode to go on YouTube, I think, as this goes out. It's been a strange few weeks.
Adam:
I came onto this call directly from editing the finale of the season.
Sam:
Have you figured out who wins yet?
Adam:
No, but I'm excited to see the end.
Tom:
Adam Chase, second member in chronological order, in the order of which I've introduced you today of Jet Lag: The Game. Welcome back.
Adam:
Yes. Thank you so much, Tom. I think I've told you this before, but I am a genuine fan of the Lateral podcast. I listen to this podcast.
Tom:
Awh, thank you.
Adam:
And, I am sort of... I'm excited to do the thing where when you actually have to do it, it's a lot harder than it seemed like it would be when you're listening.
Tom:
(laughs) Oh yeah. Definitely know that feeling.
Well, good luck on the show today.
We also have the third member, again, in chronological order of being introduced today: Ben Doyle!
Ben:
Hello, Tom Scott. I am— I'm here. I'm ready to compete.
Tom:
(laughs)
Ben:
And think, and all sorts of things. It is really quite, I'm realizing very intimidating to be on a podcast that's good.
Tom:
(laughs uproariously)
Ben:
I really like being on a podcast that's bad.
Tom:
We have a producer, question writers, a thorough edit on everything. And, yes, I can understand seeing how much work goes into it, why sometimes you might just wanna talk for 45 minutes and put that out.
Adam:
Look, we make a show that has a— that you— requires a crazy amount of effort. So we're allowed for our other thing to just be chill, okay?
Tom:
Yes, you do. Absolutely.
Very briefly, tell us about Jet Lag: The Game for the audience who don't know you.
Ben:
Jet Lag: The Game is a lovely travel competition show on YouTube and Nebula. One week early on Nebula, folks.
And yeah, it's fun. We go to all manner of different countries and play all manner of different games.
And our most recent season featured a fella by the name of Tom Scott, who you might be familiar with on this podcast. And it was a lot of fun.
Tom:
And it was an absolute delight to be part of. Thank you very much, folks.
Well, I hope this is as good an experience for you as Jet Lag was for me, and it's gonna be interesting to see who's gonna claim the most questions on today's show.
Let's lock in to question one.
Sam:
That's a reference.
Tom:
Yeah.
Sam:
(wheezes)
Tom:
Thank you to Brady Joyce for sending this question in.
In the US, road signs with thick wooden posts have two holes that are 14 inches apart. Why?
I'll say that again.
In the US, road signs with thick wooden posts have two holes that are 14 inches apart. Why?
Adam:
Okay, so—
Sam:
That's a good question.
Adam:
So, wait, so, sorry. Just so I, as I wrap my head around this... You're saying that road signs that are affixed to a large wooden post...?
Tom:
Yes, I used the words "with thick wooden posts". But yes, that sort of road sign.
Adam:
It's affixed to a wooden post.
Tom:
Yes.
Adam:
It's affixed to the post. And it— And the post is large and wooden. And you're saying that these signs have two holes in them, and those holes are 14 inches apart.
Tom:
Correct.
Adam:
I mean, my first obvious thought is like, that's where the nails or screws go, right? There's two holes in the sign, and that is... The 14 inches is the width of the post.
Sam:
Yes, yes, but this is—
Adam:
And so you—
Ben:
It would be crazy if that was the answer to this question.
Sam:
What is a logical screw hole, podcast?
This is— I think it's aerodynamics. It has to do with aerodynamics, Adam!
Ben:
I was gonna say, I think it's probably to let air thru.
Like, you know how some toys have holes in it, so that if you are a baby, and you eat it, then you can breathe?
I'm not saying that a baby would eat the sign, but sometimes you gotta let air pass through the sign like a baby's throat.
Sam:
Well, here's another question, gentlemen.
Have you ever seen what Tom is on about, or is he just totally making this up? We live in America.
Adam:
Yeah, that's true. I don't know what you're describing. Here's the thing. I also don't think that it's the holes that the screws go in, but we had to start there, right?
Tom:
Sure. Right.
Adam:
Yes, I agree. My first... My sort of second thought as to how this could be tricky is yeah, that it's aerodynamics, that it's like... That way the post doesn't get knocked down in the wind. It's got holes so that it stays upright, when the wind goes. Is that what it is?
Tom:
It's not, but you are right to say that the holes are in the post, not in the sign.
Ben:
I feel like we should focus on the 14 inches thing. 'Cause I feel like 14 is so specific.
Sam:
What things are 14 inches?
Ben:
A foot and two inches.
Adam:
Yeah.
Sam:
That's right.
Adam:
I would say pretty much exactly a foot and two inches.
Sam:
Could it have to do with the installation rather than the... operations of the sign? Right? Because it's like... Or even the construction. We can't get too centered on the— on sign operations. There are other phases in this process.
Ben:
Maybe there's a kind of machine that puts the posts in the ground. And it's got a little... It's got a little thing. It's got a little thing that is that.
Adam:
Well, I love that, Ben. No, I love that. It's the thing that gets the post in the ground has to hold the post securely, and maybe what it does is it drills into the post 14 inches apart, and then it slams it into the ground. I love that.
Sam:
Well, that was kind of my thinking. But on the other hand... That is a machine that exists, like, post... post... post... machines.
Tom:
(laughs)
Ben:
Yes?
Sam:
And they—
Tom:
The thing is, I was gonna correct you on the technical term, and I couldn't think of it either.
Sam:
Vindicated. (chuckles)
Tom:
Piling machines possibly.
Ben:
But not every post machine works like that.
Adam:
Yeah, maybe—
Ben:
Not necessarily.
Adam:
Maybe these are bad ones or something.
Sam:
Well, America does like doing things in a different way that is worse than the rest of the world. So maybe American post machines do it a different way.
Tom:
Let me give you a bit more details on the holes. In terms of size, they're about big enough to put your thumb into, maybe a little bit larger, and they are perpendicular to the flow of traffic.
Adam:
Are they for your thumbs to rest in? Is that why they're that size?
Ben:
They're for— That's it. If your thumbs get tired while you're driving, you can get outta your car. You stick your thumb in there for a little bit. All rested up.
Tom:
So if you were to look through the holes, 'cause they go all the way through, you would see the road if you're standing next to the side.
Ben:
Do they— Are we putting cameras in them? Maybe there's a camera in them.
Tom:
No, the likelihood that these will be useful is very small, but not zero.
Sam:
That implies to me maybe it's like an emergency thing. Like, it's useful in some sort of emergency situation.
Tom:
(nods silently)
Adam:
(gasps)
Sam:
And he's nodding.
Adam:
Ooh, ooh, ooh. Sorry, yes, Sam. Sorry, keep going. I was agreeing with you.
Tom:
(laughs) You can't interrupt like that and not follow that up, Adam!
Ben:
No, you've gotta follow up on your oohs.
Adam:
Sorry. Could they be used sort of for... Basically to... Basically to tow something, right? It's like if something's stuck in the mud, you could put a rope through them.
Ben:
Oh.
Adam:
And you could pull it.
Sam:
How strong do you think these signs are?
Adam:
No, but I'm saying... they're thick wooden posts.
Tom:
Those last two things you said, actually, that's the question you need to ask. How strong do you think those poles are?
Adam:
He said they were thick.
Tom:
Mhm.
Ben:
He said they were thick. He specified, Sam.
Sam:
The thickest road sign post that I've seen is not strong enough to be a winch point for towing.
Tom:
That's true. It's not. But it might be too strong for some other things.
Adam:
It's too strong? You're saying this is too weak— (gasps) Is it so that if somebody crashes into the post, it will break instead of messing up your car?
Tom:
Yes. Correct answer.
Ben:
That's a good one.
Tom:
All wooden posts greater than four inches wide – under the US regulations – must have two holes drilled into them, one 4 inches above the ground, another 14 inches above that, to break more easily if the pole is struck by a motor vehicle.
Sam:
That makes sense.
Tom:
'Cause it's a lot easier to mess up the post than it is to mess up the hood of your car.
Each of our guests has brought a question along with them. I don't know the question. I definitely don't know the answer.
Adam, it is over to you.
Adam:
Whee, it's my turn. Alright.
This question has been sent in by John Sweitzer-Lamme. If 1966 is anything to go by, Japan's birth rate is likely to drop by 25% in 2026 to help boost the marriage rates in future years. Why?
I'll read that one more time.
If 1966 is anything to go by, Japan's birth rate is likely to drop by 25% in 2026 to help boost the marriage rates in future years. Why?
Sam:
This is obvious. Tom's looking at me with concern.
Tom:
(laughs)
Sam:
The Shinkansen opened in 1965. Everyone was too busy riding high-speed trains to be bangin'.
Tom:
Of course it was a railway reference. Of course it was. I mean, but kudos for finishing a railway reference with the word "bangin'".
Adam:
They were focused on the wrong railing.
Tom:
(snaps) There it is!
Ben:
Ohh. That's so good.
Tom:
There it is.
Sam:
This is a thing that constantly happens in Jet Lag, is that I say a joke, and then Adam basically says the same joke, but much better phrased, three seconds later.
Tom:
(laughs uproariously)
Adam:
It's called a punch-up.
Sam:
And then inevitably that is the one that makes the cut. So, you know.
SFX:
(Tom and Adam chuckle)
Tom:
All I know about Japanese demographics is that their birth rate started declining before nearly any other country. They've had a rapidly aging average population for quite a while now.
Adam:
I wouldn't focus on that.
Tom:
But it sounded like this is something specific about 1966?
Adam:
The year matters. In both cases, the specific year is relevant.
Sam:
So that's 70 years between, if my math is right.
Adam:
Your math is wrong.
Tom:
(giggles) It's 60 years.
Ben:
You sounded confident though, which is impressive.
Sam:
Well, that's why I asked.
Tom:
Is that something lucky about those numbers? Like the— I don't think 66 is a particularly fortunate or unfortunate number or year. But it's... Is it something about... bad luck to be born in that year or something like that?
Adam:
You are very much on the right track.
Ben:
Mm. What happened in 1966? Elvis happened. He was around.
Tom:
Yes. Yep.
Ben:
Probably not relevant.
Sam:
I assume it's not as simple as just like... 66 and 26 is an unlucky number or something, right?
Tom:
Yeah, it's gotta be more than that.
Sam:
Yeah.
Adam:
It's more than that, yes. But, again, I wanna emphasize you're very much...
Sam:
Hmm.
Adam:
I think I will go ahead and say— So Tom, you asked a question, which was: is it bad luck to be born in 1966 or 2026? It is not exactly bad luck, but it's— there— it's— That's very close.
Tom:
Could it be like a language thing? Like the Japanese words for six, or 66 and 26, sound like... (cracks up) sound like 'terrible child' or sound like 'crime'?
Adam:
This is not the case, but it's a good thought. I want to reread you the question, because again, it's a weird causality here, right?
Tom:
Okay.
Ben:
Hm.
Adam:
If 1966 is anything to go by, Japan's birth rate is likely to drop by 25% in 2026. So you've been focused on that part. But remember the second part is: in order to help boost the marriage rates in future years.
Tom:
Ohh... okay. It's not like you can track years out to when someone's gonna get married. Like it's not like someone gets married when they are 21 years old, always.
Adam:
Can you think of any sort of traditions that work on kind of an annual or set of years basis in Japan?
Ben:
Does it have anything to do with elections?
Adam:
It does not.
Tom:
The emperor changing alters the entire calendar. It resets.
Adam:
Calendar is an interesting word.
Tom:
But none of the others. (snickers)
Adam:
The other words I did not find interesting.
Ben:
He was not interested in those words. But he was interested in the calendar of it all.
Adam:
So Sam, you mentioned before, right, this is a 60-year difference, right?
Sam:
Mhm.
Adam:
Okay. I would like to invite you to... divide the number 60 by 5.
Sam:
Uh, that is 12. Quick maths.
Adam:
Okay. Is this helpful to you at all?
Tom:
That's the number of signs in the Chinese zodiac.
Adam:
That is very much true, Tom.
Ben:
Is there one of the zodiacs— Is one of the zodiacs a one that people hate, and they're like, "I don't want my kid to be a rat"? Or a different one?
Adam:
This is your— Yes, Ben, yes. They don't want it to be a specific one.
Can you think of any reason why preventing them from being that specific one would help to boost marriage rates in future years? What is the superstition, do you think, about people born in one of the certain zodiacs... that avoiding people being born then is gonna help boost marriage rates?
Ben:
I will actually say that I recall when I was— This isn't gonna be helpful, but I'm gonna say it anyway.
Tom:
(laughs)
Ben:
When I was in like first grade, we all learned what our Chinese zodiacs were. And half the boys in the class were like tiger. And half the boys in the class, including me, was like a rabbit or something stupid. And then all the girls were like... "The tiger boys are way cooler, clearly." And so... Maybe that's something. 'Cause I was like, I can't— This sucks that I'm rabbit.
Tom:
Is there just... a zodiac sign that's the odd one out, like... Is dragon one of them? Is there a particular...
Adam:
This is about a specific one, but I mean, you're basically there. You're knocking on the door of it. I just want you to sort of get at... what is the superstition or what is the type of superstition that these people have, that it is held about people who are born in... these years?
Tom:
You might need to tell us the sign. I don't think we're gonna be able to guess the sign.
Adam:
Okay. I will tell you that the sign is... the fire horse.
Ben:
The old fire horse.
Adam:
People born in 1966 and 2026... are born in the year of the fire horse.
Why would you not want your kid to be born in the year of the fire horse? How is preventing this going to help boost marriage rates?
Tom:
Is this something like the Western zodiac, where there are different personality traits attributed to each sign?
Adam:
Yes.
Tom:
So in the same way they say like, oh... Geminis are trustworthy. I don't know which one's which.
Like the fire horse is meant to be bad for marriage, is meant to be unfaithful?
Adam:
Yes, yes. I am going to say that you've got it.
Tom:
(deflates)
Adam:
It is not quite unfaithful. There is a superstition that women who were born in the year of the fire horse will murder their husbands.
Tom:
Wow!
Ben:
That's a good one.
Sam:
Okay.
Adam:
So—
Tom:
Just like all the people in the entire year. Every woman.
Adam:
Yes. So in order to prevent your daughters from having difficulty getting married, couples decided not to get pregnant in such a way that they would have a kid in 1966.
They decided to have kids in '65, or they waited until '67. 'Cause they were worried if they had a kid in '66, and it was a girl, she would have a lot of trouble getting married, 'cause people would think she would murder her husband.
And this superstition was so significant that the birth rate dropped by a full 25% in 1966.
Ben:
See, this is fascinating to me, because I feel like if I met a woman who was prophesized to murder her husband, I would be sort of like... bizarrely into that. I feel like that's quite exciting.
Tom:
Thank you to Jonathan Cooke for this next question.
More than a third of the world's languages don't differentiate between the words for 'hand' and 'arm'. Most of those languages have something else in common. What is it, and why do researchers think that might be?
I'll say that again.
More than a third of the world's languages don't differentiate between the words for 'hand' and 'arm'. Most of those languages have something else in common. What is it, and why do researchers think that might be?
Adam:
Okay, starting place. I'm just saying, guys, can we brainstorm:
What is a characteristic shared by about one third of languages? Maybe that gets us somewhere.
My first thought – no idea if this is helpful – Languages that are pictographic in some way, right? Like Chinese, Japanese, right? Are maybe about a third of languages pictographic or character-based?
I don't know the proper term.
Sam:
Yeah, 'cause Latin root languages do differentiate.
Adam:
I would have to assume. Yeah, the Romances do.
Sam:
Yeah, from my knowledge of those languages. So I feel like it has to be a different category. And I think you're right that anecdotally it seems like about a third of languages, at least by population...
Adam:
Right.
Sam:
Are... are... I don't know if pictographic is right. I don't really know, but—
Adam:
I don't know the term, but you know, that are—
Sam:
But not using Western lettering, you know?
Adam:
Yeah, where it's not letter-based, it's character-based. Where there's symbols for words, as opposed to that you build a word out of letters.
Tom:
I unfortunately have to tell you that the very first note I have is that it's nothing to do with how they are spoken or written.
Adam:
Well, tough.
Ben:
Nothing to do with the way that they're spoken or written.
Tom:
No.
Adam:
Wait, what? If it has nothing to do with the way the language is spoken or written, then those are the two things that you do with language, Tom!
Tom:
(cackles) That's true, but it's not in how it's written down, I mean, or it's not in the sounds that are being produced.
Ben:
Okay.
Tom:
Or anything like that.
And, just to clarify what I mean by not having a word to differentiate:
It's not like someone in that language can't point to their hand and describe their hand. It's like, in English, we don't have a word for the first knuckle of our finger. We just describe as 'finger' or 'first knuckle of finger'. There's not a special word for that.
Adam:
I call it Ferdinand. That's what I call mine.
Tom:
(laughs)
Sam:
Oh. I mean, what this sounds like to me is like in these languages, it's all just one thing.
Ben:
Yep.
Sam:
And it's like, this is like the front of the arm thing. This is the back of the arm thing.
Tom:
Yeah.
Sam:
And this is the arm thing, you know?
Tom:
Yes, correct.
Ben:
So I would presume that maybe there is something to do with the way that different cultures use their arms. Does— Is anyone out there doing something with their arms that we can think of?
Sam:
Is any culture not big on wrists?
Ben:
Yeah.
Sam:
They're not really big wrist fans.
Ben:
'Cause it wouldn't be Italians 'cause they're using their wrists all the time.
Tom:
(laughs)
Sam:
Oh yeah, yeah.
Adam:
Here, here's— I have two unbelievably stupid thoughts, but maybe they will get us somewhere. Are you ready for them? Thought number one.
Tom:
Yes, absolutely.
Adam:
People who live places where it's very cold are gonna have their hands in some damn mittens. Maybe that makes them less distinct from the rest of their arm. Is that anything, Tom?
Tom:
That's the first stupid thought. What's your second stupid thought?
Adam:
Okay. Tough. Alright. My second stupid thought – and this one is even stupider. That's why I saved it for the second. Does it have anything to do with sign language? 'Cause it would be annoying to point to your hand with your hand.
Ben:
Whoa.
Tom:
Your first stupid thought is much closer than you might think. You've almost got it. You've just kinda got it the wrong way 'round.
Adam:
Where it's hot. People love their hands where it's hot. They don't have a word for their hands where it's hot. Why would you not have a word for your hands where it's hot?
Tom:
So have a think about geography rather than just hot countries. What might connect all these languages?
Adam:
Equatorial.
Tom:
Equatorial. Yes. Most of these languages sit in the equatorial belt.
Sam:
What?
Tom:
Yep. And Adam, your stupid thought about mittens? Kinda the answer. Just flip it on its head.
Adam:
They...
Ben:
You're wearing short sleeves?
Sam:
When it's hot, I guess you don't have long sleeve versus short sleeve stuff.
Tom:
Yeah.
Sam:
You just always are... But what are the implications of that?
Ben:
Well, 'cause then it doesn't cut off at your hand.
Tom:
Right, you—
Ben:
Your sleeve— Yeah, your sleeve doesn't cut off at your hand.
Adam:
Oh, it's like if you're wearing a long sleeve shirt, it's like, yeah, this is the arm, and this is the hand. But if you're always shirtless, it's like, yeah, that damn thing's just your arm.
Ben:
It's one damn thing.
Adam:
It's all arm, baby.
Tom:
Yes.
Sam:
Sure, yeah.
Tom:
Absolutely right.
To be clear, that is a theory by researchers. It's gonna be almost impossible to prove.
But what is certain is that a study by Cecil H. Brown looked at 617 different languages. 228 of them had the same word for hand and arm, and most of those languages originate around the equator where it's hottest.
And the theory goes is that if your clothing does not differentiate hand and arm, then neither does your language.
Sam, it is over to you for the next question.
Sam:
This question has been sent in by Gregor.
In 2006, Katrin traveled from the German city of Deggendorf to Karlsruhe, some 250 miles away. It was necessary to take a detour of more than 5,000 miles. Why?
In 2006, Katrin traveled from the German city of Deggendorf to Karlsruhe, some 250 miles away. It was necessary to take a detour of more than 5,000 miles. Why?
We've been to Karlsruhe.
Ben:
We have.
Adam:
This... Oh, oh, oh. God dang it.
Tom:
We're all thinking Deutsche Bahn, right? We're all thinking Deutsche Bahn.
Ben:
Yeah. (chuckles)
Adam:
I...
Sam:
Yes, we just need to avoid the Deutsche Bahn.
Ben:
Yeah, it might be faster.
Adam:
Does it have anything to do with the partition of Germany? Is it like the Berlin Wall?
Like you have to go the other way around the world to get to the other side of Germany because of the way that immigration worked when it was East and West Germany?
Ben:
Mm.
Sam:
No!
Adam:
Damn.
Tom:
Not in 2006.
Adam:
Oh, did you say 2006?
Tom:
Yeah.
Adam:
Ah, damn.
Ben:
They brought it back, baby.
Tom:
(laughs)
Sam:
Look, here's my clue, Adam. You are... incredibly far. Impressively far off.
Tom:
(laughs heartily)
Ben:
Okay, okay.
Tom:
But you did say 5,000 miles. How much is around the world?
Sam:
More. It's like 24,000, I wanna say.
Tom:
Yeah, okay. That's like London to LA kind of distance, isn't it? Maybe London to Chicago. Okay.
Sam:
Yeah. London to LA-ish. Yeah.
Ben:
And, wait, Sam, what did you say were the two locations?
Sam:
Deggendorf and Karlsruhe. What do you remember about Karlsruhe?
Adam:
Uhm...
Sam:
Its geography?
Ben:
I had a ham sandwich there.
Sam:
Mm, now you're onto something.
Adam:
I remember that it was sort of like a hub where I transferred trains. I remember that it's in the south.
Tom:
I wanna say southwest, yeah.
Adam:
I think, yeah, it's in the southwest. 'Cause I've been there going from France, like the... I remember being down there... in Strasbourg, and I think I went to Karlsruhe from Strasbourg.
Ben:
Yeah, yeah, because it's right next to the French border.
Tom:
That first town you named doesn't have an airport. I don't think the second one does.
But 5,000 miles feels like they're flying somewhere and coming back.
Adam:
Ryanair? Is it Ryanair?
Tom:
(laughs)
Adam:
Is it that you had to fly to Ireland to connect, and then go to the other place?
Sam:
That's not 5,000 miles, no.
Ben:
This is an ad for Ryanair.
Sam:
Look.
Tom:
(chuckles)
Sam:
In your description of Karlsruhe, you mentioned an aspect of it that is tangentially relevant to the explanation here.
Adam:
It's near the border.
Sam:
Mhm.
Adam:
Of France and also I guess Switzerland.
Sam:
That is tangentially relevant to the explanation.
Ben:
Okay.
Adam:
Okay. My guess is this is a weird border thing. It has to do with borders. It has to do with—
Sam:
No.
Adam:
No. Oh, okay. Well then, great.
Sam:
But that's a clue.
Tom:
If you get 2020 in the question, it's almost certainly a COVID lockdown question. Some weird border thing, but 2006? Hmm.
Sam:
What makes up the border in that region between Germany and France?
Tom:
Oh, the Rhine. The Rhine River.
Sam:
Mhm.
Tom:
I don't know how that helps, but that is a very long and very big river.
Adam:
Did she take a boat?
Sam:
Yes.
Ben:
Was it just that the river is so windy and long that it ended up being 5,000 miles throughout Germany?
Tom:
No, it's more than that. The Rhine goes to the coast. Karlsruhe is on the Rhine. Is Deggendorf on the Danube?
Sam:
I'm not looking at a map. Probably.
Adam:
The answer surely is to get between those two places by boat, you have to go 5,000 miles. 'Cause that's how you— That's the only way to get between them on water.
Sam:
Well, yes, but... it said it was necessary to take a detour of more than 5,000 miles. Why did Katrin have to take a 5,000 mile detour?
Tom:
If Deggendorf's on the Danube, on the other side of Germany... and Karlsruhe... is on the Rhine... I don't think those two rivers meet. I think you would have to go all the way to the end of the Rhine... circumnavigate Europe... and come back into Germany from the other side.
Sam:
That is right.
Tom:
I think that's the most efficient route between those by water is 5,000 miles.
Sam:
Right, and I have confirmed – for what it's worth – Deggendorf is on the Danube.
Ben:
But that's not the full explanation.
Sam:
What I need is why was it necessary for Katrin to—
Adam:
So clearly there was some reason why she had to get there by boat. She could not get there by train or plane. She had to get there by boat.
Tom:
Yes.
Sam:
Here's a question. How many people do you know whose name is Katrin?
Adam:
I don't know any, but I don't know a lot of German people, I suppose.
Sam:
It's interesting.
Adam:
Is Katrin a person?
Sam:
No.
Tom:
Is Katrin a boat?
Ben:
Oh, is Katrin a giant machine?
Sam:
No, Ben is pretty much right. I think—
Ben:
So I think I— Katrin is like one of those... It's like a neutrino detector or something like that.
Sam:
Yes. Yeah. Look, Ben is very good at digging up old knowledge of what things are named clearly. KATRIN is the Karlsruhe Tritium Neutrino Experiment.
Tom:
(sighs)
Ben:
Yeah.
Sam:
Which is too big to go by road.
Tom:
Where did that come from, Ben?!
Ben:
I don't know. I dunno.
SFX:
(Tom and Ben giggle)
Sam:
Yeah, so, in summary:
KATRIN is this giant neutrino experiment, a cylindrical vacuum chamber 10 metres wide and 24 metres long. Too large to go by road.
So it went... I guess it started in Deggendorf, then it went out the Danube, down around Spain, through the Mediterranean, up through Istanbul, into the Black Sea, and then up the Rhine to make it to Karlsruhe.
And then it only did five miles by road, just in and around Karlsruhe.
Tom:
Wow.
Adam:
That's crazy, Ben, that you were able to pull out that it was a neutrino experiment.
Ben:
(chuckles)
Tom:
Right?!
Ben:
I think I was looking at this for a recent Half as Interesting.
Tom:
This question was sent in by Karthick. Thank you very much.
In 2025, the India business website, Mint, ran the headline: "How 16.73 billion UPI transactions killed the ubiquitous toffee business." Explain that story.
And one more time.
In 2025, the India business website, Mint, ran the headline: "How 16.73 billion UPI transactions killed the ubiquitous toffee business." Explain the story.
Sam:
So, what is UPI?
Ben:
Isn't UPI... Well, this could be a different UPI, but I know that there is a UPI that is, I think it's United Press International, and it's like a... like news... It's not like a news agency, but they sell stories to other news agencies.
Tom:
Not that UPI, I'm afraid.
Ben:
Not that UPI, okay.
Tom:
You wouldn't have 16+ billion transactions.
Ben:
I don't know, Tom. The world is a weird place.
Tom:
That's true.
Adam:
16 billion UPI transactions killed the toffee business.
Tom:
Yes.
Adam:
Killed the once ubiquitous toffee business.
Tom:
Yep.
Adam:
Okay. Here is... a que... Toffee is still... You can still buy toffee. So I'm wondering if the key here is the ubiquity of toffee. Did somehow the nature of these transactions cause the toffee business to become highly centralized? As opposed to it being previously ubiquitous?
Ben:
Well, also, seemingly, this has something to do with India. It's like the toffee business in India, which I imagine is kind of colonial project.
Sam:
My, yeah, my first guess here is like, it's something like these UPI transactions killed some older way of doing things. And as a little treat, whenever you did the thing, the transaction in the past, they gave you a toffee.
Ben:
Ohh.
Sam:
As a little thank you, you know? You know, but now, it's like an automated system. So you don't get any more...
Adam:
(gasps) Oh, I love that, Sam.
Ben:
That's pretty good.
Tom:
You're mostly right there, apart from treat. Treat is not the right phrasing there, but yep. An old way of doing things had been replaced, so there
Adam:
So, there used to be a thing where... once an in-person thing happened, you would give the person a little toffee. Right? And now because those are digitized, that doesn't happen anymore.
Tom:
Yes.
Adam:
The question is, why was toffee given?
Tom:
And it might be worth thinking about what UPI might stand for. With the word transactions after it.
Sam:
Universal...
Ben:
Is this gonna work, Sam?
Tom:
Postal... Or you're just gonna say words? (laughs)
Ben:
That start with these letters?
Tom:
Well, I think transactions is a big clue there.
Ben:
Is it like there was toffee at the bank when you would go to the bank, maybe?
Adam:
Mm. I love that.
Tom:
Getting closer.
Adam:
What is something that you used to do in person that now you do online? What is something you used to do in person where there would be toffee, and now you don't do it in person, and they don't give you toffee?
Tom:
Well, maybe it's done electronically rather than on the internet.
Ben:
Is it the... mailing letters? At the post office, they had toffee, but now people just send emails?
Tom:
Oh, it's not P for postal. But if you can think what other P might go with transactions.
Ben:
Purchase.
Tom:
Closer, Ben.
Sam:
Payment?
Tom:
Payment. Yes. I can tell you that UPI – and you were nearly there with universal – UPI is the Unified Payments Interface.
Ben:
Okay. I take back my criticism of Sam for saying random words until we got it right.
Tom:
(laughs)
Adam:
Okay, so what? So, because you pay with a credit card now instead of cash, this happens?
Tom:
Yes. I'm not sure if it was a credit card system, but they've always been a long way ahead in sort of small electronic transactions.
Ben:
Hmm.
Tom:
'Cause remember, 16 billion, and that is in one month.
Sam:
There was toffee... at the bank?
Adam:
No, we keep being told there wasn't toffee at the bank.
Tom:
I don't think there were 16 billion bank transactions in a month.
Sam:
It's like a billion people.
Adam:
I mean, in a month. If it's 16 billion of them, then... surely that's the amount of transactions that ev— is the total of every person in— Does the average person in India make more than 16 transactions in a month? Probably not, right? if it's 16 billion a month, that has to mean that... this was... payment for everything. It's not just banks.
Ben:
Yeah.
Adam:
We're talking... The shift— clearly what's happening here... I shouldn't say clearly 'cause it's still very unclear, but it seemed, what I have gleaned so far seems to be the transition from paying in cash or in a different way to paying by electronic payment led to a lot less toffee.
Tom:
Yes.
Adam:
Was it customary when you bought something for the person to just give you – anywhere in India – to give you some toffee?
Tom:
Yeah, mm. In small retailers, yes. There was a reason for it beyond just courtesy.
Sam:
Here's another wildly hot take. You know all these countries that are like, "Let's eliminate the penny"? Maybe it's like, instead of pennies, if we round up, we give you a little toffee?
Tom:
Sam, you've got it. Yes.
Sam:
Oh, hell yes.
Tom:
In India... or at least in parts of India, it used to be customary that retail shops would not stock small change and instead they would just bulk buy individual candies and give those to customers instead of the coins. So that would reduce the change they needed.
Sam:
Can't believe that worked.
Tom:
It would reduce how much effort they had to do, and also it would bump up the retailer's profit a bit, because implicitly you were buying a few candies, so you didn't have to get the change. the Unified Payments Interface came along, everyone's paying electronically, and suddenly there was no need for bulk candy purchases. And the toffee industry found their sales had slipped.
Ben, over to you for your question.
Ben:
Okay, folks. Allow me to regale you with a fact.
This question has been sent in by LWChris.
According to a popular story, Carl Friedrich Gauss once proposed to sow three giant fields of wheat in Siberia. Why?
Tom:
Wow! Do you wanna give us that one more time?
Ben:
According to a popular story, Carl Friedrich Gauss once proposed to sow three giant fields of wheat in Siberia. Why?
Tom:
(sighs) Okay, Gauss. The connection I have with that is either Gaussian as in, the mathematical blurring algorithms.
Adam:
Yeah, like Gaussian noise, yeah.
Tom:
Yeah. Or— Oh yeah— Or the mathematical noise algorithms or... the concept of degaussing a television.
Back when we had CRTs, and there would be a button that you would push to... clean up the magnetic fields. Degaussing something is magnetically... cleaning it.
I don't have a better word than magnetically cleaning, but removing stray magnetic fields.
If you have a giant ship that has picked up magnetism over time, you put it in an industrial-size degausser at a dry dock, and it is no longer magnetic.
Adam:
Is this Gauss guy, like, that guy who was a mathematician or whatever, or is this just a guy with a funny name?
Ben:
No, this is that Gauss.
Adam:
This is that guy. Okay.
Tom:
Okay.
Sam:
So this is like a mathy thing.
Ben:
I would say that this is a mathy thing.
Tom:
Huh, okay.
Adam:
Alright. Let me hit you with something here. Gaussian noise, to my understanding, is a sort of like... truly, it's in a random pattern – right? – that is applied to data or whatever in order to... kind of make it less perfect, to make it, you know, to jostle it up a little bit.
Tom:
To fuzz it up a bit.
Adam:
Yeah, yeah. I also know that... getting things that are truly random is extremely difficult.
Tom:
Hmm.
Adam:
And so... I don't think this is probably right, but I'm wondering...
Was there some way in which he was like, "I know what I'll do to get a truly random sample of whatever. I will plant a bunch of wheat in Siberia, in a big field, and whatever... the outcome of that, the ones that grow or don't grow, each one will be like a node. And it's a one or a zero if it grows. And that's gonna get me a big thing of... maybe not even totally random, but weirdly correlated, noisy stuff"?
Did I do a perfect job?
Ben:
I would say that you did a perfect job of coming up with an idea that is wrong.
Tom:
Ohohohoho!
Adam:
I feel like I have now established that my deal on this show is coming up with something really elaborate that's not close at all.
Sam:
Okay, here's a question, Ben. Is the fact that it's three fields relevant to the explanation?
Ben:
Yes.
Sam:
The number three?
Ben:
Yes.
Tom:
So maybe one field has some property, another field has some property, another— and he's testing... He's doing some sort of ABC test on wheat.
Adam:
He did it in Si— You said he did it in Siberia.
Ben:
Siberia.
Sam:
Which is, to my knowledge, is not known for its wheat growing qualities.
Adam:
Well, that's kind of what I was gonna say too. Seems like the worst possible place to try to grow wheat.
Tom:
I mean, if anyone from the Jet Lag team is going to know wheat exporting facts after this recent season, it is gonna be Ben.
Ben:
You know what? That's why I liked this question.
Adam:
Well, that's why he's @TheWheatGerm.
Ben:
That's correct.
Tom:
Eyy!
Adam:
I think we can all agree that almost certainly... this man's goal was not to grow wheat to sell. This was for some experimental purpose. Right?
Tom:
And it was mathy.
Sam:
And it's mathy. Which kinda taps me out. 'Cause as we established earlier, I don't do math.
Tom:
(laughs softly)
Ben:
Here's, I guess, a hint is that I would say that the mathematical principles at play here are not going to be foreign to any of you.
Tom:
Oh?
Ben:
I think.
Tom:
Median, mode, and mean. He's got three average fields of wheat in different ways? No!
Ben:
I'll give you another hint. 'Cause this might sort of send you down the right path. The orientation of the fields were different to one another. They were all sort of... pointed in different directions.
Tom:
When you say orientation, is that the direction the fields are plowed? 'Cause a stalk of wheat is just one... one thing pointing up.
Ben:
I would say that the shape of the fields was identical, but they were all... The orientation of the shapes was different.
Adam:
Did he want to freaking write a message that was visible from the air?
Tom:
(cackles)
Ben:
I would say that that is part of it, yes.
Tom:
Oh?
Adam:
What?
Sam:
What?
Tom:
Okay.
Ben:
What do you think the shape of... these fields is? What is the shape of a normal field?
Adam:
Normal shape: square.
Tom:
Yeah, square or rectangle.
Ben:
Yes. These were all square fields.
Tom:
(flails tight-lipped)
Ben:
Oh, Tom.
Sam:
Tom is having a revelation.
Ben:
He is freaking out.
Tom:
Magnets!
Ben:
Nope.
Tom:
Ohh!
Adam:
(blurts laugh)
Tom:
It's like one is pointed at magnetic north, one is pointed at— They're plowing the field in some sort of magnetic orientation he's trying to work out.
'Cause it's Gauss. 'Cause he did magnets.
Ben:
Another fabulous theory that is wrong.
Tom:
Aaggh.
Sam:
Was the purpose of this... as an input for another mathematical endeavor, or was this the end result of an experiment?
Ben:
This has nothing to do with an experiment. I would say.
Adam:
What?
Sam:
It's just recreational wheat farming?
Ben:
I would also say that crucially, all of these fields, though they are the same shape, were different sizes.
Adam:
So we— You said that he wanted to make a message visible from the air. Is that the deal, and we just have to figure out what the message was?
Ben:
I think you need to figure out what the message is and who he was trying to communicate that message to.
Adam:
Okay, but that's why he did it, was to— so that a message was visible from the air above the area?
Ben:
You were correct that this is a message.
Sam:
The aliens.
Ben:
It is for the aliens. What is he trying to tell the aliens?
Sam:
That our wheat is better than their wheat.
Adam:
Is it an arrow? Is it pointing towards something?
Tom:
It's an arrow.
Ben:
It's not an arrow.
Tom:
Oh...
Adam:
(wheezes)
Ben:
Here's another important effect. The fields are all touching each other at three points.
Adam:
Okay. Then that means
Sam:
Okay, I feel like—
Adam:
they have to be oriented (shows a triangle formed from three rectangles' sides) ...like this, right?
That's the only way that's even possible.
Sam:
Yeah. But we said they were different sizes.
Ben:
They are different sizes.
Sam:
So, here's a thought. Which, I don't know if this works for the aliens, but I do know that around the US, there— they built... I don't know when— I don't know— When was Gauss alive?
Ben:
The early 1800s.
Sam:
Oh, okay, well then, this idea's out the window then.
I was thinking it was the things that they used to calibrate the visuals on satellites. Imaging satellites, but...
Tom:
Oh yeah.
Ben:
Yeah, no.
Sam:
Those don't exist though.
Ben:
No satellites.
Adam:
(holds up diagram) So, but this is— This has to be— I mean, there are different— This has to be how they were oriented, right?
That's the only way that they can all touch at one point.
Ben:
Okay, so here's a question, Adam, about your diagram.
What is the shape in the middle of those fields?
Adam:
It's a freaking triangle, Benjamin.
Ben:
That is...
Sam:
This is Pythagorean.
Ben:
It is a— yes.
Adam:
Is he trying to show that we know what the Pythagorean theorem is?
Tom:
Yes, because you use squares. It's the sum of the squares. So you—
Sam:
A² + B² = C².
Tom:
And you mark the squares out. This is...
He's signaling aliens that there is intelligent life here?
Ben:
That is correct. That is it, yes.
Sam:
(trills)
Tom:
Wow!
Sam:
Wait, why is he doing that in Siberia?
Ben:
Well, I don't know. I don't really know why it was in Siberia.
But, in 1820... German astronomer Carl Friedrich Gauss was like, "Hey, there might be aliens on the moon or on Mars, and we gotta tell 'em that we're here and we're thinking about stuff." So he was like, "Yeah, let's make a big sort of diagram of the Pythagorean theorem with rows of pine trees in the middle to highlight the central triangle."
And he was like, "They'll check this out. And they'll be like, 'Wow, they're so smart'."
Sam:
We just gotta hope that the aliens are smarter than us, I guess.
Ben:
Mhm.
Tom:
(laughs)
Which brings us to the question I asked right at the start of the show.
Thank you to Owen T. for sending this in.
In what way are giraffes 30 times more vulnerable to injury than humans?
Anyone want to take a quick shot at that before I give the audience the answer?
Adam:
I mean, it's gotta be messing up their neck or their long dang legs, right?
Ben:
It's gotta be messing up their freaking necks.
Tom:
They're certainly more vulnerable that way, but... not quite.
Adam:
I know that there's a really weird thing that giraffes have where they have some vein or whatever that goes a crazy way because of evolution. Is it about that?
Tom:
The vagus nerve, yes. It's not about that, but they do have that.
Adam:
Well then, I don't know. (wheezes)
Tom:
This is a risk that humans also face.
Adam:
(gasps) Is it... Sorry. I did the gasp, and it's not gonna be good at all.
Ben:
You can't do the gasp.
Adam:
It's actually gonna be really stupid.
Sam:
Really hypes it up.
Adam:
If— If— (cracks up) If a giraffe gave birth, there's a long way for the baby to fall down. Is it that?
Ben:
Oh, that's kinda interesting.
Tom:
Oh, it's not, but that's a lovely story.
Adam:
(wheezes)
Ben:
Is that a lovely story? That doesn't sound very lovely.
Tom:
Also, the risk of that is still high. The risk of this happening is still very, very small. Is it... is it... they do the splits too hard? You know when people say that your odds of things are as unlikely as...
Adam:
Being struck by lightning.
Tom:
There we go!
Sam:
Oh, there we go.
Tom:
Yes.
Adam:
'Cause they're like a dang...
Ben:
Oh my god.
Adam:
They're like a freaking, yeah, like a pole. They're like a lightning rod.
Tom:
Zoologist Luis Villazon calculated that giraffes are 30 times more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than humans.
Ben:
That's great.
Tom:
In sub-Saharan Africa, there are fewer lightning storms, but it is a factor you have to bear in mind when making enclosures for giraffes held in captivity.
Ben:
(chuckles) That's so tragic. The idea of a giraffe being struck by lightning.
Tom:
(chuckles) So yes, that is the show. That is all the questions we have. Thank you very much to the players from Jet Lag: The Game.
Who wants to talk about the show and where you can see it?
Adam:
Jet Lag: The Game is the best show in the world.
Ben:
That's true.
Adam:
And it is... It's on YouTube.
Tom:
And Ben, what's it about?
Ben:
It's a great competition travel show.
We're on it. We do challenges. We travel all around. We play these freaking games. And it's a lot of fun.
Tom:
And Sam, where can you find it?
Sam:
Nebula and YouTube.
Tom:
And if you wanna 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. There are regular video highlights at youtube.com/lateralcast and full video episodes on Spotify.
Thank you very much to Sam Denby.
Sam:
Bye.
Tom:
Ben Doyle.
Ben:
Bye.
Tom:
Adam Chase.
Adam:
Good bye.
Tom:
I've been Tom Scott, and that's been Lateral.
| Previous Episode | Index | Next Episode |