Crossword compiler
A few weeks ago, Feedback ran a letter from a reader that raised serious doubts as to the solvability of the 91av cryptic crossword. Taking our duty of care seriously, and being at the same time incapable of distinguishing a cryptic crossword clue from the subject line of a spam email, we decided to consult an expert.
Crossword Genius is a remarkably impressive app that uses an AI to parse cryptic crossword clues and offer potential solutions. Letting it loose on a puzzle by regular 91av setter Wingding proved to be a stimulating experience.
Advertisement
“Family becomes ilk,” it said at one point, “I can’t justify this – if you can you should believe this answer much more.” “Sailboats is the definition,” it opined about another clue, adding, “I don’t know anything about this answer so I cannot judge whether this works.” And for a clue that contained the words “enormous creature” it offered BIGHEAD as a possible answer, saying: “Enormous becomes big (big can be similar in meaning to enormous), creature becomes head (head is a kind of creature).” The real answer – which, to be fair, Crossword Genius also identified – was MAMMOTH.
With the exception of a few clues that stumped the artificially intelligent app and the naturally stupid Feedback, we are happy to confirm that the 91av crossword does, in fact, appear to be solvable. We also advise crossword setters everywhere to be warned – the machines are coming for you, and they know where you concoct evil (4).
Go figure
user @rhodri highlights odd advice in The Telegraph that “groups should picnic in the shape of a parallelogram, hexagon or pentagon” to maintain adequate social distancing. A square would work just as well, of course, as would a circle if you don’t mind the occasional dizzy spell.
But be wary of attempting more complex shapes without adequate supervision. A pentagram might seem like a jolly pattern to try out, for example, but it will soon become difficult to stay 2 metres away from the undead spirits summoned forth at its centre.
Running scared
, The Japan Times reports on new regulations being rolled out in the country’s amusement parks.
“‘Ghosts’ lurking in haunted houses should maintain a healthy distance from their ‘victims’,” say the guidelines, which also advise guests to “refrain from vocalizing loudly” on the rides. The crucial question, as far as Feedback is concerned, is why theme parks weren’t being run along these lines before.
Monster mash-up
It isn’t often that Feedback sympathises with Gothic anti-hero Victor Frankenstein, but on those occasions when we receive emails about nominative determinism the similarity becomes too keenly felt to bear. For there is little doubt that we, too, have created a monster, a source of modest pride at first, but whose tendency to leer horribly at our kitchen window risks pushing us to breaking point.
That being said, there are also weeks when the Feedback well runs dry and we are only too grateful for the monster’s continued reappearance. Such a week, alas, is this. Which is why we extend our thanks to A. Patton for notifying us of the existence of psychologist and psychotherapist Sarah Helps (we’re sure she does), and to Kate Heal for introducing us to vegetarian nutrition researcher Linda Bacon. Hilary Calvert writes in to inform us that the author of a recent article in the Daily Mail about giant hogweed goes by the name of David Leafe, and Ros Hancock points out that the head of shows development at the Royal Horticultural Society is named Katherine Potsides.
We are also happy to recognise Brian Jones for nabbing a lesser-spotted double nominative determinism in the wild. After registering interest in a vegetation management webinar run by a Peter Birch, he received an email on behalf of the organisers signed by an Edward Moss.
Readership figures
In the fleeting moments of the day when our thoughts aren’t consumed by nominative determinism, Feedback enjoys nothing more than misplaced units of comparison. This week’s example comes from Will Kemp, who sets the scene thusly: “I received an email from Australian news web site which included the following: ‘Log into our website to go behind the paywall to leave comments and read everything we’ve published in our 20 years – that’s enough reading to fill a thousand olympic swimming pools.'”
How exactly is this being calculated? Feedback must have misplaced our reading-matter-to-volume conversion slide rule, so the comparison leaves us utterly baffled. Are the editors here suggesting that their website has so much content that, if printed, it would fill a thousand Olympic swimming pools? If so, what font size are they using? What dimensions of paper? Is there water in these pools? Won’t it disturb the swimmers? We may have no choice but to log in and see for ourselves.
Got a story for Feedback?
You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week’s and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website.
