Lateral with Tom Scott - 83: The user un-friendly library

Episode Date: May 10, 2024

Abigail Thorn, Annie Rauwerda and Jordan Harrod face questions about book buying, cancer care and studio symbols. LATERAL is a comedy panel game podcast about weird questions with wonderful answers, hosted by Tom Scott. For business enquiries, contestant appearances or question submissions, visit https://lateralcast.com. HOST: Tom Scott. QUESTION PRODUCER: David Bodycombe. RECORDED AT: The Podcast Studios, Dublin. EDITED BY: Julie Hassett. MUSIC: Karl-Ola Kjellholm ('Private Detective'/'Agrumes', courtesy of epidemicsound.com). ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS: Dylan F. (x2), Aaron Z. Best, Youenn Fenard, Katie Waning, Peter Scandrett. FORMAT: Pad 26 Limited/Labyrinth Games Ltd. EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS: David Bodycombe and Tom Scott. © Pad 26 Limited (https://www.pad26.com) / Labyrinth Games Ltd. 2024. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Will you rise with the sun to help change mental health care forever? Join the Sunrise Challenge to raise funds for CAMH, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, to support life-saving progress in mental health care. From May 27th to 31st, people across Canada will rise together and show those living with mental illness and addiction that they're not alone. Help CAMH build a future where no one is left behind. So, who will you rise for? Register today at sunrisechallenge.ca. Why does John Wainwright have a Seattle building named after him after buying a book for $27.95

in 1995? The answer to that at the end of the show. My name's Tom Scott, and this is Lateral. [♪ Music playing. Some people don't believe in coincidences, but I'm looking at my screen here and I can see the same three faces that were in our last recording session two hours ago. What are the chances of that? First of all, we have, from the depths of Wikipedia, Annie Rowder. Hello, thank you for having me. How are you doing?

In the two hours. See, this script has given away the secret here that we block record these. If anyone hasn't worked this out, how are you since the last moment of recording? I'm doing well. Yesterday, I was partying all day celebrating the birthday, the 191st birthday, of Jonathan, who is a tortoise, who turned 191. He's the oldest living land animal we think we don't really know. We don't actually know if yesterday was his birthday, but that's the day we celebrate.

I tell you, he throws a heck of a party too. I'm still hungover. Also joining us, and apparently also slightly hungover, presumably from the last recording session's parties, we have actress, writer and creator of Philosophy Tube, and, from the Kill James Bond podcast, Abigail Thorne. Hello, how's it going? I'm not really hungover. Also, has it only been two hours for you guys since we recorded the last session?

I think your studio must be near a black hole or something, because for me it's been 25 years, Tom. I plugged the podcast this time. I forgot to do that last time. Do you want to talk through what's going on in that show? So me and my two best friends, Alice Caldwell-Kelly and Devon run a podcast called Kill James Bond where we talk about movies that have something to do with masculinity. We started with the James Bond franchise.

We finished that. We did Rambo. We've done Jason Bourne. We're doing Euro spy movies at the moment. And at some point, we're going to probably move on to like Johnny English and Mission Impossible and stuff. So any movies that have anything to say about like men and being macho, that's a job for three people, none of whom are male. Have you killed James Bond yet?

Yeah, we did. He dies in No Time to Die. We got his ass. We got it live on stage. We did a live recording. And this is why you knew the Moby reference to Extreme Ways and the Bourne movies last time. Exactly, because we killed Jason Bourne after we killed James Bourne. The final one of our trio is still working on her medical engineering PhD specialising in artificial intelligence and talking about it for the internet. Jordan Harrod. Thank you for having me.

For me it's only been five minutes, so we're all at different points in this black hole, apparently. How is the PhD going? I mean, last time it was like, in terms of timing, this time, like, are you finding what you hope to? Is it still kind of up in the air? I think we're finding what we hope to. The last time I was on this, I think my project was a little bit more uncertain because it turns out that during a global pandemic, you can't have people come in to do science on, because then they might catch the infectious disease that you're all trying to avoid. So now that that's no longer as much of a factor, it's been fun and we're getting lots of interesting data.

Good luck to all three of you. You've already done this once today, so unless you're a goldfish, you know how this works. Let's get on with question one. This question was sent in by Ewan Fanaa. In 1992, an unexpected scientific study of a large conglomeration of ducks, beavers, turtles and frogs improved our understanding of ice masses near the North Pole. How? I'll say that again. In 1992, an unexpected scientific study of a large conglomeration of ducks, beavers, turtles and frogs improved our understanding of ice masses near the North Pole.

How? I think I know the genuine answer to this. Okay, well I don't know it for sure, but I just think that they would track the animals and see how they move in the water to see how the ice moves. Now that I said it out loud, I'm realizing, oh, that wasn't even a good guess. You're close and also not close at the same time with that one. Okay, well I'm honestly glad that I don't know it because then I get to play. Okay, so what threw me off is that there are frogs being tracked as well, and they reveal

things about the ice. Yes. And I just, I don't really, again, I've never been to Antarctica, but I do not think that there are frogs hopping around up there. Maybe there are. Are they... real? I don't mean that in like a non-corporeal sense. up there. Maybe there are. Are they... real? I don't mean that in a non-corporeal sense.

Thank you, because I was about to come back with, well, they're more of a metaphorical concept of animation. Frogs are government drones invented by, I don't know, Raytheon. You're right that it would be weird to find frogs near the North Pole. This is Arctic, not Antarctic, so it's up top. But ducks, beavers, turtles, and frogs. Those are not normally things you find on ice masses. Is it that there were certain animals that previously lived there that were trapped in

the ice that we took out and then we were able to see evolution? Like they were preserved? Not like Godzilla. Oh yeah, sorry. Ducks, be able to see evolution, like they were preserved. Not like Godzilla. Oh yeah, sorry, ducks, beavers, turtles, frogs, and Godzilla. Forgot about Godzilla. That might be the case in the Antarctic, because there's a landmass under there. But the North Pole is just ice. And there's no possibility of a frog being frozen in there?

Possibly. A large conglomeration of them. Less so. Oh, it's a large conglomeration. Iibly. A large conglomeration of them. Less so. Oh, it's a large conglomeration. I just like the word conglomeration. It's in the question. I'm going to try and use it as much as I can in the next few minutes. Is the large conglomeration of dogs, beavers, etc.

They're stuck together? In a large ball? They were at first, yes. I was about to say, is this the giant landfill pile in the middle of the ocean? No. You're starting to get a bit closer there. Did they evolve to live in the trash? Ooh.

No. Like me! Oh! Annie, once you get the answer, you will know just how good of a question that was, and I'm not going to answer it right now. This is one of the notes on my sheet here, they were all together at first. Like a little happy family. Yeah, 29,000 of them. Oh wow. Oh, okay, it can't be what I thought then.

So they're not, wait, did we establish whether these are living creatures? We did not. We absolutely did not. I managed to dodge that question quite well. What did you think it was, Abby? I thought it was that time that a tornado passed over a pond and then it rained frozen frogs. So I think I've correctly surmised that these animals are dead and frozen together and have somehow been moved to the Arctic, but the method by which that has happened has yet to be determined.

I was about to say, why would they be on a ship and then just like, whoops, it fell? 29,000 frogs. What was that just like, whoops, it fell? 29,000 frogs. What was that, Jordan? Whoops, it fell. Out of a ship? I dodged the question on whether these were real. Oh, are they plastic? Yes they are.

Is it like rubber ducks and stuff? Aww, that's so cute. 29,000 yellow ducks, red beavers, blue turtles, and green frogs. So what happened? Then it, depending on where they land, it shows you the ocean currents and stuff? Yep. Absolutely right. Ah, we did an ExxonMobil duck spill?

Yes. There were 28,800 bath toys called friendly floaties lost from a shipping container and just dropped in the middle of the ocean. And one of the research results from that is that some of them made it up to the North Pole and they were able to be used as markers to track ocean currents based on where they ended up. How did these 29,000 rubber ducks go overboard? What sound does that make?

It happens quite a lot. I think containers get lost in storms slightly more often than shipping container companies would like us to think. Obviously a lot of them just kind of sink, but if your container bursts open and gets thrown out during a storm, you have a sudden perfect example of... Has anyone seen Twister, the movie? You know when they send those Coke can little things into the tornado? Yeah.

That on a much bigger scale. Yeah, there's a bunch of cars and stuff on the bottom of the sea, just they're full of ships. There is a lovely book about this by Donovan Hahn. The title of this, I have to ask, is kind of a follow-up question. It is a title about a quest on the ocean involving rubber ducks. Does anyone want to take a quick punt at what the title of that book might be? Something about, like, a bill. Like, what was the bill?

I was thinking quack. Moby duck. D'aaah! Ooh. That's good. So, yes, in 1992, the ducks, beavers, turtles and frogs helped science near the North Pole by being plastic floaty toys that they could track currents with.

That's my second favourite story about things being lost at sea and then turning up on shore. My favourite is the Salish Sea human foot discoveries. Yes! Where just detached feet landed on the shore. That was never solved, right? No, we don't know. But I did read, and I don't know if this is true, but I read somewhere that when the body

decomposes in water, it's not uncommon for feet to fall off. So maybe they used to be part of whole bodies. I don't know if that's more or less comforting. So how many feet washed up where? Let me see. At least 20 detached human feet have turned up in British Columbia, Canada and Washington State, USA. All at the same time? No. Starting in 2007. There's a map of all of the feet and each place where they turned

up is a footprint. Oh. Is that a really grisly Cinderella? Oh my god. Each of our guests has brought a question along with them, and we start with Abigail. Yes, so this question is based on an idea sent in by Dylan F. In 1792, what did the famous mathematician Joseph Louis Lagrange create that caused his religious country folk to pray 30% less than before?

In 1792, what did the famous mathematician Joseph Louis Lagrange create that caused his religious country folk to pray 30% less than before? This is my favourite question we've had in so long. That's incredible. I was about to say, I can't imagine it was like Lagrange multipliers for differential equations or something, but... Oh good, our prayers are answered! Finally, finally! We don't need to pray as much because we got this. That's a lovely idea that he gave them what they've been praying for so they pray fast.

He gave them 30% of what they prayed for. He identified the point between the Earth and the Moon where there is equal gravity between them. Because that's what a Lagrange point is known as. And I don't know if that's because of that mathematician, or if it was just named after him, or if it was a completely different mathematician. That's what I know Lagrange from. But I mean, why would people pray less? Yeah, I don't have an answer to that. I just wanted to say that I know one thing about Lagrange. Yeah, when they put satellites up in what they call, like, L1,

I think that's the point between two celestial bodies where the gravity is equal between them. Like, L2, L3, L4, the other points where a satellite can just kind of hang out without really being pulled anywhere. So there's a load of satellites sitting in the various L points around Earth, Moon and the Sun. I suspect that has nothing to do with directing prayers, because I feel like they don't really go to a specific point in space. I can't pray, I don't have reception.

NASA has finally detected the prayer center. Yeah, I was about to say. This is where they land. You can pray really efficiently, so I pray 30% less. But I'm praying 30% harder. If I were a peasant in 1792 France, I'm assuming, Lagrange, I would be praying for my crops to probably have a good harvest, which involves the sun, the moon, which are celestial bodies. So perhaps

it had something to do with that. Or maybe they just really, really badly wanted calculus of variation. You are in France. And certainly, you know, the peasants were expressing some opinions in France in the 1790s. That's true, that's true. Maybe not so much about, you know, the stars, but more earthly concerns? Do you hear the people sing? They are so happy about new math.

Also, expressing some opinions is a hell of a way to describe the French Revolution. Opinions were expressed. Empathically, some opinions. Content was made. Another thing is, I don't know if the French did prayers at certain times of day back then. Probably not. But if they did and he made better time day back then? Probably not. But if they did and he made better timekeeping, then it could be... You're on the right lines with timekeeping.

Oh! Oh! Oh! Is this to do with decimal time? This was a French Revolution invention which never caught on, which was the idea that there should be 10 hours in a day and ten and a hundred minutes in an hour or something like that. The idea was they would think bigger units of time.

Okay. Oh, um, ten months in a year. The idea was ten months in a year? Smaller than that. Oh, come on. In between a day and a month is a week. Yeah. Ten weeks in a month?

Oh, ten day weeks. So they're only going to church once a week is... A week. A week. Yeah. Ten weeks in a month? Oh, ten day weeks. So they're only going to church once a week, which is less. Could I have blundered through any more wrong doors in my series of answers to that question? Yeah, I feel like you pretty much got the answer here. You're so poised and smart all of the time on YouTube that honestly I relish in you missing something. Yeah, so he invented the French Revolutionary Calendar, which a week only lasted 10 days.

And as a consequence, the peasants only got 36 days of rest every year instead of 52 days. So instead of having a rest every Sunday, you only have a rest like, you know, every 10 days, which is 30% less. And therefore they did not pray as much. And then they also followed it by emphatically expressing opinions. They did. They did emphatically express opinions. I was going to say that's a very capitalist happy calendar if they're working more. But again, French Revolution, probably a bit more complicated than that. Well, the French revolutionaries weren't so big on religion because the French government

before them were very, very Catholic and sort of used that as like a, to prop themselves up. So actually Robespierre tried to start a state religion under which, or like religion in quotes, but all the churches were renamed temples of reason. It's a very kind of like, like 2017, like Richard Dawkins-ish, maybe like 2014 Richard Dawkins-ish, maybe 2014 Richard Dawkins-ish move. Which didn't really work because then Joaquin Phoenix came along and he was like, what happened? I was looking at the Wikipedia traffic for various Napoleon-related topics after the movie came out.

And the article on Tri-Burow hats was getting more traffic than ever before. Wow. Thanks to the movie. Thanks to Katie Warning for sending this next question in. After just two weeks of training and no formal medical background, Paloma was able to differentiate malignant and benign mammograms in 80% of cases. Paloma became part of a group that was 99% accurate at this task. How?

I'll say that again. After just two weeks of training and no formal medical background, Paloma was able to differentiate malignant and benign mammograms in 80% of cases. Paloma became part of a group that was 99% accurate at this task. How? I actually know the answer to this because my dad was a breast cancer surgeon. So I'm going to have to sit this one out. Alright. Annie, Jordan, it's over to you.

Was Paloma AI? No. Was it some sort of other clinical trial? The one thing I will immediately rule out to the AI expert on the panel is that Paloma was definitely not artificial intelligence. Okay. Is Paloma a dog that can smell it? No, but you have correctly identified this question's first trick, which is that Paloma

may not be human. Yeah. That was actually going to be what I said. No, I have no idea! Oh, okay! Sorry, Dad. Remember, these are mammograms. So could it be the machine?

Looking at the scan, it's looking at the picture of the scan, it's looking at the picture of the scan. It's looking at the picture of the scan. But it's not artificial intelligence? No. I'm not going to ask you to go through the entire animal kingdom here, but some methods of what a thing might do. The creatures that can see a lot of different wavelengths? I don't know if that would help.

Was it one of those octopuses that predicts the World Cup? It was just blind chance. 80% here, and the group was 99% accurate. Maybe it's something that's used to foraging for something that looks like breast cancer. So they're just really attuned to it. Maybe a truffle hog. Like a truffle hog? Is that what you're saying?

I feel slightly alarmed if I went in from a mammogram. Just brought in a hog. Again, again. Oh my god. Paloma is only looking at the scans. Paloma is also a bit of a clue there. Paloma wool. Sheep.

Why would a sheep be good at doing that? Looking at mammocrats. Paloma is also a great cocktail. Maybe it's just a random drunk person from a bar. No one here knows they're Spanish. My guess was going to be some kind of bird. Or it's a clever hands situation. It was a very talented horse.

Abi, you just said clever hands. Let's talk about that for a minute. What was clever hands situation. It was a very talented horse. Abi, you just said clever hands. Let's talk about that for a minute. What was clever hands? Clever hands was a horse in the year who could allegedly count. And it was later discovered that actually the horse could not count, but the horse's owner was, without even realizing he was doing it, giving it like subtle signals when it had arrived at the correct answer. So he would sort of, he would bend over when the horse was supposed to keep clopping its hoof to count the answer to a maths question. And then when the correct answer had been arrived at, he stood up and the horse stopped. So the horse had learned to read his reactions, but it didn't actually do maths.

Clever hands, the cold reading horse. You said bird, Abby. Any reason for that? I just happen to know that birds can be quite clever. Like, corvids can be very clever, can't they? Crows? Birds are always doing math? Magbites, too. The bird of my home city. They're like shiny things and patterns.

So did a bird learn how to look at a mammogram and figure out which one had cancer? Yeah. Paloma is a pigeon. We don't know if that's the actual name. The clue is that paloma is the Spanish for pigeon. This was a trained flock of pigeons who were trained to look at mammograms and somehow through training we're able to identify 80% of the time and then through the wisdom of crowds, like wisdom of flocks,

could get a 99% accuracy by pecking a button for a food reward and then looking at new versions. So not artificial intelligence, but at the same time, that's kind of how it works. Birds can do the Monty Hall problem better than humans. Really? I read that somewhere. That's the one with the three doors, right? You get to swap or not. What Monty Hall was that BBC presenter who went to live in Scotland and grew all his own food?

That was Monty Don, wasn't it? Too many Monties. The Monty Hall problem? Well, it takes kind of a while to explain, but basically it's a game show. There are three doors, and you choose a door. And then they reveal, and let's imagine that they reveal one that's not the prize. Then you're asked, do you want to switch? Intuitively, for a lot of humans, you think, no, I want to keep mine, my guess was pretty good.

But you're better off switching. Yeah, it's one of those mathematical, weird things that just the information that you have picked a door, opened it, and that's wrong, then affects how you should treat the next part of the puzzle. Even though it looks like it's 50-50 shot, whether to swap or not, you should swap, and you'll be right two-thirds of the time. And of course, swallows are very good at the Monty Python problem. Hey! I'm just imagining that you go to see your oncologist,

and they're like, yeah, we're going to bring in the radiologist to look at your x-rays, and then just a bird in Alaska... A flock of pigeons! Just a pigeon flies in. No, I'm imagining that other kinds of animals could detect other diseases. Like randomly jellyfish are really good at diagnosing meningitis.

Like, oh my God. What would elephants be good at? I don't know. So stuff with ears, deafness. If you can't tell the elephant is here, you could have been hearing. You can't see the elephant in the room. Hey!

Jordan, over to you for the next question. This question has been sent in by Dylan F. Thank you, Dylan. Leggietti's poem Symphonique requires 100 identical musical instruments. Although the 10 performers leave shortly after the piece begins, the intrigued audience looks on for several more minutes. What are the instruments? I'll read it again. Ligeti's Poem Symphonique requires 100 identical musical instruments.

Although the 10 performers leave shortly after the piece begins, the intrigued audience looks on for several more minutes. What are the instruments? Was that poem or palm? Poem. Poem. Okay. 100 instruments and only 10 musicians? Yeah. Well, I will say that I was recently in Boston and I realized while I was there that there is such thing as the Boston Typewriter Orchestra and it's a bunch of guys that do percussion on typewriters and their performances are, to my surprise, rather beautiful. So when I hear a poem, I think perhaps it's typewriters, but they wouldn't keep playing on their own, so I don't know. I've got to sit out. I've just realized I've seen this. I haven't seen it in person. I've

seen something like it. I've got to sit out of this one. So it's a hundred instruments, but only ten musicians. So I'm guessing the instruments must be quite small. The world's smallest pile in a hundred times. And the instruments just keep playing, even though the people leave. Or maybe not. And people only stay for a few minutes, so maybe the music isn't very good. Maybe they're like smoke alarms or something.

Or dominoes? You like knock over a hundred dominoes? And it makes like a shhh. No. Well, an instrument is an interesting word because it could be a musical instrument, but what about like Texas instruments? Like what if it's protractors or something? Surgical instruments with pigeons again. Oh my gosh. TI-84s? Maybe they program them and they make a noise. I'm

feeling a little bit stumped. So people leave after a few minutes. The Intrigued audience looks on for several more minutes. Is it karaoke machines? No. Oh, the audience, the instruments? No. I don't know. I need a clue. The performance gets gradually quieter. Gradually quieter? So something like getting knocked over like dominoes, like it runs out of, they must set something in motion that is then runs out of steam. Oh, or what if everyone in the audience sucks in the helium from a balloon, and then as it wears off, they'd be quiet. It's not that, but somebody needs to do that.

They must set some kind of like physical process, kind of like Rude Goldberg machine. Close. Closer. I just can't, I can't get past dominoes. Is the audience part of the instrument? No. Jordan, I'm going to try and confirm a thing here, because it's going to be embarrassing if I'm wrong. Okay.

This is, it could be a proper performance, but this could also be like maybe a demo at a science museum, something like that. This could be done. I guess you could. Maybe a demo at a science museum, something like that? This could be done. I guess you could. Like I could see this happening at the Museum of Science. I think I'd have to think a little bit about what that exhibit would look like

in terms of like the scientific utility of it. But- Are they wine glasses? No. Oh man, I already thought I had it there. No notes are heard or played. It's dominoes! It's dominoes! It's gotta be dominoes! It's not dominoes.

It's a hundred drums in a line, they kick them over, they kick them down the stairs. I mean, it's not that far away, if this is what I think it is. It's pigeons, it's pigeons again, it's a hundred pigeons. I think we must be somehow close, we've gathered that there's like... This is something musical, right? It's not like an instrument, but it's something musicians would use. It is something musicians would use, yes. Okay. And they've set up a hundred of them, started them going, left, and a thing is gonna

happen. Metronomes? Yes. Abby. Metronome. I got it from you moving your finger, Annie. That's what I was thinking of, metronomes. Because they probably line up in interesting ways. And if you put them all on a slightly wobbly table,

they will sync up naturally, right? Over time? I don't think that's technically what happens in this, but... Okay, that's a science demonstration. Like, that's what I've seen. Like, you put a load of metronomes on a table, and you just allow a little bit of wobble and sway in that table. And over the course of a few minutes, all those ten or a hundred or even a thousand metronomes will steadily move into sync with each other.

Who discovered that? I don't know if that's what's happening for this performance, but if I was in the audience and that was starting to happen, that's what I'd sort of stick around and mutter about. I'm going to call that as close enough. So the answer is metronomes, that's what the instrument is. From our context, the 100 musical devices are metronomes. The piece requires the performers to wind them all up and set them to different beats. On the conductor's command, each performer sets their ten metronomes going and then leaves the stage.

Initially, the whole thing sounds like a racket. Gradually, they keep playing until they have naturally wound themselves down, until only one can be heard on its own for the last few beats. It's not about the wobble. I was wrong. It's not about the wobble. That's why when you said science, I was like... That would be a better piece.

I prefer that piece. Well, apparently, the first performance prompted enough negative reaction that Dutch television cancelled a planned broadcast segment. People did not enjoy the performance for the next several minutes, but they experienced one. Just let the table wobble. Just let the table wobble. They titled it the Symphonique.

People were expecting, like, Brahms. Yeah. Mm-hmm. And they got cacophony. Next question was sent in by Peter Scandret. Thank you, Peter. Delina is walking around a large television studio. She notices that four things have been taped on the floor in the corners of the studio. And she asks the director, what does 35, MN, M5, and 3N mean? Can you work it out? I'll say that again. Delina is walking around a large television studio. She notices that four things have been taped on the floor

in the corners of the studio. She asks the director, what does 35, MN, M5 and 3N mean? Can you work it out? My first guess is it's something to do with lenses. Like if you're in this spot, then you will use this lens. There was a video I saw that I think BBC Archive had uploaded of their old 1970s training tapes for the big pedestal studio camera operators.

And they used to just use, like, chalk or temporary marker pens to just draw around them on the ground so they knew they could land the exact position as they moved them around. So yeah, stuff gets taped to studio floors, written on studio floors, all the time. That was my guess, yeah. What were the four things again? 35, M, N? 35, M, N, so Mike November, M5, so Mike Five. And 3N, 3 November.

Hearing 35, M, N is horrible for me because my brain is just saying over and over, man-o-neaters, man-o-neaters. The units of manliness, man-o-neaters, yeah. Ah yes, the man-o-oneaters. Okay, 35 of them. And minutes north? Is it like some kind of like, not longitude and latitude, but something like that? That is a lot closer than you might think. Okay, location.

And they're in four corners? Yep. Cardinal directions. Why would you need to know the cardinal directions in a TV show? Ah, yes. North, Mouth, ECOS. 35... Is it any TV studio or just a particular one? This is actually a personal anecdote that Peter sent in. This is a genuine question that was asked.

So not every TV studio, but just this particular one? This particular one. And you're right that they are location-finding things. You've basically said all the elements. There's one little thing that you've not quite figured out. Is one of them meant to point towards Mecca, in case, like, Muslim staff need to know that? Not for this one, no. Okay.

And in that, you just presumably mark East, rather than... Yeah, that's what I presumably mark East. Rather than... Yeah, that's what I was... Yeah. Rather than... I didn't know where in the world this particular TV studio is. Does the TV studio itself rotate? Oh, no. No.

And in fact, if it did, this wouldn't work. Abi, you were very close earlier. We've sort of drifted away from it. Cardinal directions? Cardinal directions. North, south, east and west, but why would you need to know that in a TV studio? I mean, you need some kind of location tracking in a big, open space. You need to be able to refer to areas.

Especially if you're the weather person and you're like, hey, you guys that way. Maybe that way. I mean, how big is this TV studio? Are we talking like an indoor studio, or is it like outdoors in a field? It's indoor but it's big. The symbols on the floor have been misinterpreted a little. I'm just telling you what Delina's question here is. The question is, what does 35MN, M5 and 3N mean?

Is she actually looking at like S, E? And then W? Or UW? Yep. Think it through. You've got 35, MN, M5, 3N. So what are you going with? M5 would actually be SW, Southwest.

Yep. She's reading them upside down. She's reading them upside down. Yes. They are the four carnal directions in the corners of the compass, that is southeast, northwest, southwest, and northeast in that order. They have been taped on the ground by stagehands. So yeah, if you look at them the wrong way up, they still look like valid letters and

numbers. And she just hadn't made the connection. Oh, fun. Very early on, Abby, you said north, and you said cardinal directions, like, yes! Sort of! But they're upside down. But they're upside down, yes. Yay.

How do we get there? But we are assured by Peter that that wasn't actual questions someone asked. I would also ask that. Yeah, the compass points are not for the actors, they are for contractors. They're loading large bits of equipment into the studio. So it'll be like, this needs to go to southwest corner, or you need to go to this door or something like that. Okay. Which is why they're also visible from the outside the right way up,

rather than for the person who's in the studio looking out. Oh. Ah. Load out all the metronomes. We're not doing this broadcast anymore. Exactly. Who brought all these pigeons in here? I mean, what? we're not doing this broadcast anymore. Exactly. Who brought all these pigeons in here? Annie, over to you for the next question. This question has been sent in by Aaron Z. Best.

Great name. If it's a fake name, great fake name. Aaron Z. Best. The New York Public Library has over 90 branches containing all kinds of reference materials. One branch has a peculiar rule. An individual may check out an item once only, review it on site once only, and can never check that item ever again. Why? I'm going to read this again. The New York Public Library has over 90 branches containing all kinds of reference materials.

One branch has a peculiar rule. An individual may check out an item once only, review it on-site once only, and can never check out that item ever again. Why? My first thought is crosswords. And that's because I've confused the New York Public Library and the New York Times. Ah. And... but that makes no sense, because they wouldn't let you check out, complete the crossword, and then hand it back.

And they wouldn't have a rule against it. Like, if you were ridiculous enough to want to check out a crossword twice, I guess you could. I don't know why you'd have an actual rule against that. I was going to say it's a book of powerful dark magic and you they can't trust people to say that Those those do exist in New York Public Library. I saw that documentary in the in the 80s with Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd I've taken stuff out of the the British Library and the National Archives and the British Library I mean they you can't take them out like they have to stay on site whatever it is

But the British Library has some stuff that is just, this is very special, one of a kind. You have to be in a room, not just like the regular reading rooms, but you have to be in a segregated off room. There is someone watching you and the few people in that room all the time. Like I've once had to refer to a book like that and it felt like some kind of dark magic thing. The National Archives. Like they do take care, like you have to do a small training course before you go in there as part of the sign, but then

you request the archive, and the archive is just given to you in a box. And I'm just rifling through these pages, actual notes written in the Second World War that have been classified, it's just there. I feel like if they had a book of dark magic and it was in the British Library, it would work like this. The National Archives would probably just hand it out to you and go, please don't break the spine. I think I've got the answer to this. What do you think?

They are Mary Curie's notebooks and they are still radioactive. No. That is not correct. That's lovely. But that is such a good guess. I wanted to be that. I mean, hopefully they've digitized all those anyway, but that's... That is not correct. That's lovely. But that is such a good guess. I wanted to be that.

Hopefully they've digitized all those anyway, but that's lovely. They've digitized them, there's just a lot of bright spots on the digitization film. They just can't work out why it keeps. Let's get some pigeons in to figure that out. Do they contain secrets? They do contain information. The information is not necessarily secret. Okay, so it's not like a classified material or anything? It's not spells or anything.

Was I on the right track with radiation? Like is there something about the pages that are toxic, like lead or poison or something? They're not toxic. You said it was one branch. Does this branch have something special about it? Like it's the underwater New York Public Library. It's the aerial New York Public Library. It's the... Yes, it has all the 29,000 ducks.

It's the driving around New York Public Library, but you have to flag down in the street and hop on board. There's something weird about this branch. Something about this branch is special. It's on a military base, and they won't let you in more than once. There's something weird about this branch. Something about this branch is special. It's on a military base, and they won't let you in more than once. It's... Nooo. Somehow the book is destroyed when you read it, like a book.

Like spells. It's on the top of the Empire State Building, and you have to parachute off to return. I... Yes, you got it. No. No. How did you know? It's somewhere you can only go once a day and you can't take anything. These are not books.

Photographic film? Something that like degrades if you take it out so you can only take it out once. It's my phone number. That's all you can get. You have to give it back. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You may send me one text. That's how you can get a video from the library. You have to give it back. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You may send me one text. That's it. Like a clue for a puzzle or something like that that you have to... you have to memorize.

A library card? No. It stores various forms of multimedia. Giant laserdisc! You can't take it out because it's so big. DVDs. Videos. Tapes. Yeah. Giant laserdisc. You can't check it out because it's so big. DVDs, videos, tapes. Yes, tapes.

I like tapes. Tapes? What matters is what's on the tapes. And think about why it's fine for random people to check this out once, but you don't want people to obsessively check out tons of these. If you have one person that's checking out all of these all the time, there might be something fishy going on. Is it like personal information?

So like the voter records or the details of people in New York? So you can look up yourself or you can look up one or two things, but you can't look up the whole population? It is the library's CCTV footage. You were allowed to request a copy, but you can't keep doing it. No and no, but I like that you're thinking about security. The last hint is the restrictions, the once a day, one time. The restrictions are to prevent wrongdoing. It's your password reminder. If you forget your password, I'll tell you only once per day.

It's the security footage from cameras. It's the... And it's a tape that has to do with something that is associated with New York. The name of this thing is a street in New York. Oh, I'm going to kick myself. I should... Oh! Broadway?

Broadway. It's the recordings of Broadway acts and musical things, and so you're not pirating them. Yes, there was a bunch of copyright theft. So the answer is to stop copyright theft of theatrical productions. The Theatre on Film and Tape Archive is a collection of recordings of Broadway, Off-Broadway, and regional productions going back decades. A director who produced the musical, Love! Valor! Compassion! Was sued! Claiming his version stole the staging, set design, direction, etc. from the Broadway production. It was found that he had watched one of the archives' filmed copies many times. Restrictions were put in place to prevent further copying of the difficult to copyright

aspects of productions. The rules say, quote, Video recordings may be viewed only on-site at the library, one time only. Okay. So he's pirated the staging, the stage directions, all the creative work from the earlier version, by just watching it over and over again from the archive. Because it's not out on... it's not licensed to be out on DVD or anything like that, because that's enormously expensive. According to question submitter Aaron Z. Best, yes.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Which leaves us with one last order of business. Why does John Wainwright have a Seattle building named after him, after buying a book for $27.95 in 1995? I ask that of the audience at the start of the show before I give the answer. Any guesses from our players here? He accidentally found a very rare book in a yard sale or something. Oh, and it turned out to be worth billions and he named the building after himself.

Yeah, he found the Bible. And they were like, wow, you did it! Wow, thanks, we were looking for that. Like, now we never should have to use it. Somehow it ended up over here. This is autographed by God! It was in Seattle! That was around, well, I know that early 90s is when Sleepless in Seattle was filmed,

so maybe he was an extra in the movie. But they wouldn't name a building after him, I don't know. It was a very big moment, not for him, but for who was selling the book. It was like the first copy of, what year was it? 1995 in Seattle. Seattle. Microsoft? Like, was Bill Gates selling his journal?

Is that when Harry Potter came out? Jeff Bezos? Jeff Bezos! Oh, Amazon? Amazon. He bought, like, the first book on Amazon? This was the very first sale on Amazon, the very first person who dared to put their credit card details in and was surprised when it worked. And he was delivered a book.

And years later, Amazon named the Wainwright building after their first customer. Ah, he's got a lot to answer for. Yeah, he does. Wow. But it feels bad now. Thank you very much to all our players. We'll start with Annie. Where can people find you?

What's going on in your world? You can find me on the internet. What's going on in my world? I am writing a book about Wikipedia, and you can find me online, Macedon, Instagram, Twitter, depths of Wikipedia, or Annie Rowarder. Jordan? You can find me by Googling Jordan Herrod, and otherwise you can't find me because I will be holing up and doing my PhD.

And Abigail? You can catch all of my educational content on Philosophy Tube, on YouTube. If you would like to see me playing a sexy vampire wearing fangs, then you can catch me in the film Dracula's Ex-Girlfriend, which if it's not already out will be out very soon on Nebula. And you can also find me on HBO and Disney Plus in some things that I can't talk about that time of recording, but when you listen to this, maybe public. We'll find out! Thank you very much to all our players. If you want to find out more about this show,

you can do that at LateralCast.com. We are at LateralCast pretty much everywhere, and there are regular video highlights at YouTube.com slash LateralCast. Thank you very much to our players, Abigail Thorne! Woo! Jordan Harrod! Thank you for having me. And Annie Rowder! Hooray! I've been Tomrod, and Annie Rowder. Hooray!

I've been Tom Scott, and that's been Lateral.