Reretaken Down

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

User avatar
AFRET CMS
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1055
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:48 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by AFRET CMS »

Volante wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 4:25 pm
https://gizmodo.com/researchers-acciden ... 1843481214
Researchers Accidentally Got High on Laughing Gas From Penguin Poop
Okay, they took a little liberty with the headline...
The soil from the site closest to the penguin colony had significantly more nitrous oxide—which can make humans feel relaxed and euphoric—than the other sites.

The penguin poop itself doesn’t contains laughing gas; instead, the nitrogen in the poop enters the ground, where the soil turns it into nitrous oxide, Eberling told the AFP.
I'm really glad the board requires social distancing; otherwise, I'd have to wonder why Opus always makes me chuckle.
I'm not the defending Jeopardy! champion. But I have played one on TV.

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 7108
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by alietr »

5xer (as well as several tournaments) India Cooper has passed away from esophageal cancer. Terrible news.

User avatar
LucarioSnooperVixey
Darling Sillyclaws
Posts: 1478
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:41 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by LucarioSnooperVixey »

On tonight's episode of "The Wall", the first question:

In the PIXAR film "Finding Nemo" the character Dory, voiced by Ellen DeGeneres, sings "Just Keep" doing what?

The brother and sister duo had two options: A. Smiling, B. Swimming

They confidently said smiling. :shock: :?
Douglas Squasoni
QuizUp: 132.1k games
Alpaca Farm: 1508 quizzes

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 7108
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by alietr »

Hey, waitasec ...

Prickly City Form of Question.png
Prickly City Form of Question.png (64.41 KiB) Viewed 1507 times

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 7495
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by opusthepenguin »

I just made up a dad joke. It's probably been made up before, but I don't care. I just made it up. Try it on the kids:

Have you heard the elevator joke? It works on so many levels!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

User avatar
AFRET CMS
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1055
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:48 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by AFRET CMS »

opusthepenguin wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 6:31 pm
I just made up a dad joke. It's probably been made up before, but I don't care. I just made it up. Try it on the kids:

Have you heard the elevator joke? It works on so many levels!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I take back anything nice I ever said about you.
I'm not the defending Jeopardy! champion. But I have played one on TV.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 7495
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by opusthepenguin »

AFRET CMS wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 1:59 pm
opusthepenguin wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 6:31 pm
I just made up a dad joke. It's probably been made up before, but I don't care. I just made it up. Try it on the kids:

Have you heard the elevator joke? It works on so many levels!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I take back anything nice I ever said about you.
That won't help. The only way to deal with this is to pass the pain along. Lean toward your victim and laugh loudly when you get to the punchline. Optionally, you may wish to add a modern spin by saying, "Do you get it, Coral?!!?! So many... LEVELS!!!!!"

User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 7138
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by Volante »

opusthepenguin wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 3:11 pm
AFRET CMS wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 1:59 pm
opusthepenguin wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 6:31 pm
I just made up a dad joke. It's probably been made up before, but I don't care. I just made it up. Try it on the kids:

Have you heard the elevator joke? It works on so many levels!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I take back anything nice I ever said about you.
That won't help. The only way to deal with this is to pass the pain along. Lean toward your victim and laugh loudly when you get to the punchline. Optionally, you may wish to add a modern spin by saying, "Do you get it, Coral?!!?! So many... LEVELS!!!!!"
You know, like that tape from Ringu. Tell the joke to someone else within seven days or you'll die from being pecked by penguins that come out of your computer monitor.

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 7108
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by alietr »

I was watching an old Friends today, and Ross takes Marcel (his pet monkey) to the hospital, where he tries to convince the receptionist that they should treat him since he is a person because "he watches Jeopardy" (among other reasons; the next word is "himself").

Friends Marcel.PNG
Friends Marcel.PNG (484.98 KiB) Viewed 1367 times

User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 7138
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by Volante »

Science confirms what Golf knew all along: we can't make good wagers as a species :D

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05 ... huge-test/
The team tested more than 4,000 participants in 19 countries. All the participants had to answer questions about money and risk, like whether they’d prefer an 80 percent chance of getting $4,000 or a guaranteed $3,000.

The questions were the same as those used in Kahneman and Tversky’s original paper, although the amounts were updated for 2019 and adapted for different countries’ incomes. The original paper found that there were distinct patterns in how people answered these questions—like most people choosing the guaranteed $3,000. The replication found the same tendencies on 16 out of 17 questions.

The original paper also found that people made very different choices about losses and gains. For instance, given the choice between an 80 percent chance of losing $4,000 and a guarantee of losing $3,000, the majority of people pick the chance of losing $4,000—the opposite result to the same question about gain. These contrasts between choices also replicated.

User avatar
Linear Gnome
One Miner Gal
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:55 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by Linear Gnome »

Volante wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:32 am
Science confirms what Golf knew all along: we can't make good wagers as a species :D

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05 ... huge-test/
The team tested more than 4,000 participants in 19 countries. All the participants had to answer questions about money and risk, like whether they’d prefer an 80 percent chance of getting $4,000 or a guaranteed $3,000.

The questions were the same as those used in Kahneman and Tversky’s original paper, although the amounts were updated for 2019 and adapted for different countries’ incomes. The original paper found that there were distinct patterns in how people answered these questions—like most people choosing the guaranteed $3,000. The replication found the same tendencies on 16 out of 17 questions.

The original paper also found that people made very different choices about losses and gains. For instance, given the choice between an 80 percent chance of losing $4,000 and a guarantee of losing $3,000, the majority of people pick the chance of losing $4,000—the opposite result to the same question about gain. These contrasts between choices also replicated.
This doesn't make the participants' decisions wrong. It just means that their utility functions are not linear.

User avatar
MarkBarrett
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 10868
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by MarkBarrett »

The 5/21 ep. of To Tell the Truth had me instantly spoiled on two segments.

This was the introduction for the first segment:
Spoiler
Image
Even from a distance I recognized one of the imposters.
Spoiler
Image
Who is it?
Spoiler
That's Will Shortz the editor of the NYT crossword puzzle. By spotting him that told me the woman was the beekeeper as I knew the next segment was going to be the "Before You Go" section where the two imposters stick around, with one of the two having a different distinction than the one they just lied about having.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 7495
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by opusthepenguin »

Linear Gnome wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 9:09 pm
Volante wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:32 am
Science confirms what Golf knew all along: we can't make good wagers as a species :D

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05 ... huge-test/
The team tested more than 4,000 participants in 19 countries. All the participants had to answer questions about money and risk, like whether they’d prefer an 80 percent chance of getting $4,000 or a guaranteed $3,000.

The questions were the same as those used in Kahneman and Tversky’s original paper, although the amounts were updated for 2019 and adapted for different countries’ incomes. The original paper found that there were distinct patterns in how people answered these questions—like most people choosing the guaranteed $3,000. The replication found the same tendencies on 16 out of 17 questions.

The original paper also found that people made very different choices about losses and gains. For instance, given the choice between an 80 percent chance of losing $4,000 and a guarantee of losing $3,000, the majority of people pick the chance of losing $4,000—the opposite result to the same question about gain. These contrasts between choices also replicated.
This doesn't make the participants' decisions wrong. It just means that their utility functions are not linear.
Exactly. Thank you. If they offered people a guaranteed $3,000 or a guaranteed 80 percent of $4,000 and they chose the $3,000, THEN we could draw some conclusions about their level of numeracy.

User avatar
AFRET CMS
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1055
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:48 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by AFRET CMS »

opusthepenguin wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:18 pm
Linear Gnome wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 9:09 pm
Volante wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:32 am
Science confirms what Golf knew all along: we can't make good wagers as a species :D

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05 ... huge-test/
The team tested more than 4,000 participants in 19 countries. All the participants had to answer questions about money and risk, like whether they’d prefer an 80 percent chance of getting $4,000 or a guaranteed $3,000.

The questions were the same as those used in Kahneman and Tversky’s original paper, although the amounts were updated for 2019 and adapted for different countries’ incomes. The original paper found that there were distinct patterns in how people answered these questions—like most people choosing the guaranteed $3,000. The replication found the same tendencies on 16 out of 17 questions.

The original paper also found that people made very different choices about losses and gains. For instance, given the choice between an 80 percent chance of losing $4,000 and a guarantee of losing $3,000, the majority of people pick the chance of losing $4,000—the opposite result to the same question about gain. These contrasts between choices also replicated.
This doesn't make the participants' decisions wrong. It just means that their utility functions are not linear.
Exactly. Thank you. If they offered people a guaranteed $3,000 or a guaranteed 80 percent of $4,000 and they chose the $3,000, THEN we could draw some conclusions about their level of numeracy.
I used to teach an MBA/MSOL class in quantitative and qualitative decision making, using a variety of analytical tools. Just as food for thought, here's a short extract of a lecturette I used to deliver after the students worked their way through a classroom scenario about flood mitigation costs versus expected benefits using the probabilities of various levels of water, the expected resulting damage, and the prevention costs, usually coming up with many different recommendations even though the analysis appeared to be straightforward and quantitative. It's spoilerized only to save space.
Spoiler
................................
(two pages of blah blah blah)
...............................
The logic of "probabilistic expected cost or return" makes intuitive sense for many people when we are looking at multiple cases, but seems illogical when we apply the concept to "one of a kind" situations. Our actions today do not influence the probability of a flood next year, and the risk of a 100-year flood is 1% per year – even if we’ve had a 100-year flood three years in a row. In our flood, each individual instance of a possible flood is binary, either zero or one. The 4% or 40% simply lets us determine whether or not we want to risk the possible loss.

Another way to look at it might be to imagine a situation where one party experiences multiple instances while the other party experiences only a single instance. For example, consider a neurosurgeon who does 200 brain surgeries per year for a brain cancer that is fatal 50% of the time. Eight patients each year die during surgery and never wake up. Statistically, four of them would have survived the cancer without the surgery while the other four would have died of the cancer if they had survived the surgery. The other surgical patients are cured of their cancer and would have died without treatment.

From the surgeon's point of view, the no-treatment option has a 50% chance of death while the surgery has a 4% risk of death. He or she will take that into account in deciding whether or not to recommend the surgery for a given patient. The surgeon knows that 192 patients will survive the surgery and be cured of cancer, instead of the 100 who would have survived without surgery. The surgeon therefore probably considers the surgery a successful intervention in that he or she saves 92 lives per year that would be lost without treatment – even though four people die from the surgery who would have survived without it.

From the patient's point of view, however, it's binary -- the patient either survives or dies, period. The 4% risk of death does not mean that every patient dies 4% of the way to total death. Each patient is either 100% alive or 100% dead at the end of the surgery. The surgeon and the patient will evaluate exactly the same odds from extremely different viewpoints.
...................................
(two more pages of yadda yadda yadda)
...............................
Individual risk tolerance almost always comes into play in the uncertainty of applying a long-term probability to an individual instance.

An example that might help -- assume a once-in-a-lifetime sales promotion contest at my local mall. I’m offered the chance to flip a coin once and once only, and I will never be eligible for the contest again. If I flip the coin and it comes up heads, I win $10.00. If it’s tails, I lose $5.00. I’ll accept the offer, gambling a 50/50 chance of winning ten bucks against a 50/50 chance of losing five. The odds are in my favor, and I can afford to risk five dollars. Since it’s a one-time opportunity, the long-term probabilistic calculation never comes into play.

However, the situation is very different if a Las Vega casino offers to flip a coin with me, one time and one time only. If it's heads, the casino pays me $1,000,000. If it's tails, I pay the casino $500,000. Probabilistically, it still might seem to be a good bet -- if we were to flip the coin many times, I'd lose half the time and win half the time for an "average gain" of $250,000 per flip. Since we specified one and only one flip, though, the question becomes "can I afford to lose $500,000?" Even though it's a “good bet probabilistically,” it's a terrible proposition in reality and I would decline the offer. The individual and subjective risk tolerances within our group helped contribute to the different answers given – even a low probability event may be too risky for some because of discomfort with the amount of money involved.
Hope JBoarders like a little pedantry now and then.
I'm not the defending Jeopardy! champion. But I have played one on TV.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 7495
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by opusthepenguin »

AFRET CMS wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 2:33 pm
Spoiler
................................
(two pages of blah blah blah)
...............................
The logic of "probabilistic expected cost or return" makes intuitive sense for many people when we are looking at multiple cases, but seems illogical when we apply the concept to "one of a kind" situations. Our actions today do not influence the probability of a flood next year, and the risk of a 100-year flood is 1% per year – even if we’ve had a 100-year flood three years in a row. In our flood, each individual instance of a possible flood is binary, either zero or one. The 4% or 40% simply lets us determine whether or not we want to risk the possible loss.

Another way to look at it might be to imagine a situation where one party experiences multiple instances while the other party experiences only a single instance. For example, consider a neurosurgeon who does 200 brain surgeries per year for a brain cancer that is fatal 50% of the time. Eight patients each year die during surgery and never wake up. Statistically, four of them would have survived the cancer without the surgery while the other four would have died of the cancer if they had survived the surgery. The other surgical patients are cured of their cancer and would have died without treatment.

From the surgeon's point of view, the no-treatment option has a 50% chance of death while the surgery has a 4% risk of death. He or she will take that into account in deciding whether or not to recommend the surgery for a given patient. The surgeon knows that 192 patients will survive the surgery and be cured of cancer, instead of the 100 who would have survived without surgery. The surgeon therefore probably considers the surgery a successful intervention in that he or she saves 92 lives per year that would be lost without treatment – even though four people die from the surgery who would have survived without it.

From the patient's point of view, however, it's binary -- the patient either survives or dies, period. The 4% risk of death does not mean that every patient dies 4% of the way to total death. Each patient is either 100% alive or 100% dead at the end of the surgery. The surgeon and the patient will evaluate exactly the same odds from extremely different viewpoints.
...................................
(two more pages of yadda yadda yadda)
...............................
Individual risk tolerance almost always comes into play in the uncertainty of applying a long-term probability to an individual instance.

An example that might help -- assume a once-in-a-lifetime sales promotion contest at my local mall. I’m offered the chance to flip a coin once and once only, and I will never be eligible for the contest again. If I flip the coin and it comes up heads, I win $10.00. If it’s tails, I lose $5.00. I’ll accept the offer, gambling a 50/50 chance of winning ten bucks against a 50/50 chance of losing five. The odds are in my favor, and I can afford to risk five dollars. Since it’s a one-time opportunity, the long-term probabilistic calculation never comes into play.

However, the situation is very different if a Las Vega casino offers to flip a coin with me, one time and one time only. If it's heads, the casino pays me $1,000,000. If it's tails, I pay the casino $500,000. Probabilistically, it still might seem to be a good bet -- if we were to flip the coin many times, I'd lose half the time and win half the time for an "average gain" of $250,000 per flip. Since we specified one and only one flip, though, the question becomes "can I afford to lose $500,000?" Even though it's a “good bet probabilistically,” it's a terrible proposition in reality and I would decline the offer. The individual and subjective risk tolerances within our group helped contribute to the different answers given – even a low probability event may be too risky for some because of discomfort with the amount of money involved.
Hope JBoarders like a little pedantry now and then.
On the other hand if there have only been two crocodile attacks in the river in the last hundred years, but one of them happened yesterday... today might be a good day to find somewhere else to swim.

User avatar
AFRET CMS
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1055
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:48 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by AFRET CMS »

opusthepenguin wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 3:14 pm
AFRET CMS wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 2:33 pm
Spoiler
................................
(two pages of blah blah blah)
...............................
The logic of "probabilistic expected cost or return" makes intuitive sense for many people when we are looking at multiple cases, but seems illogical when we apply the concept to "one of a kind" situations. Our actions today do not influence the probability of a flood next year, and the risk of a 100-year flood is 1% per year – even if we’ve had a 100-year flood three years in a row. In our flood, each individual instance of a possible flood is binary, either zero or one. The 4% or 40% simply lets us determine whether or not we want to risk the possible loss.

Another way to look at it might be to imagine a situation where one party experiences multiple instances while the other party experiences only a single instance. For example, consider a neurosurgeon who does 200 brain surgeries per year for a brain cancer that is fatal 50% of the time. Eight patients each year die during surgery and never wake up. Statistically, four of them would have survived the cancer without the surgery while the other four would have died of the cancer if they had survived the surgery. The other surgical patients are cured of their cancer and would have died without treatment.

From the surgeon's point of view, the no-treatment option has a 50% chance of death while the surgery has a 4% risk of death. He or she will take that into account in deciding whether or not to recommend the surgery for a given patient. The surgeon knows that 192 patients will survive the surgery and be cured of cancer, instead of the 100 who would have survived without surgery. The surgeon therefore probably considers the surgery a successful intervention in that he or she saves 92 lives per year that would be lost without treatment – even though four people die from the surgery who would have survived without it.

From the patient's point of view, however, it's binary -- the patient either survives or dies, period. The 4% risk of death does not mean that every patient dies 4% of the way to total death. Each patient is either 100% alive or 100% dead at the end of the surgery. The surgeon and the patient will evaluate exactly the same odds from extremely different viewpoints.
...................................
(two more pages of yadda yadda yadda)
...............................
Individual risk tolerance almost always comes into play in the uncertainty of applying a long-term probability to an individual instance.

An example that might help -- assume a once-in-a-lifetime sales promotion contest at my local mall. I’m offered the chance to flip a coin once and once only, and I will never be eligible for the contest again. If I flip the coin and it comes up heads, I win $10.00. If it’s tails, I lose $5.00. I’ll accept the offer, gambling a 50/50 chance of winning ten bucks against a 50/50 chance of losing five. The odds are in my favor, and I can afford to risk five dollars. Since it’s a one-time opportunity, the long-term probabilistic calculation never comes into play.

However, the situation is very different if a Las Vega casino offers to flip a coin with me, one time and one time only. If it's heads, the casino pays me $1,000,000. If it's tails, I pay the casino $500,000. Probabilistically, it still might seem to be a good bet -- if we were to flip the coin many times, I'd lose half the time and win half the time for an "average gain" of $250,000 per flip. Since we specified one and only one flip, though, the question becomes "can I afford to lose $500,000?" Even though it's a “good bet probabilistically,” it's a terrible proposition in reality and I would decline the offer. The individual and subjective risk tolerances within our group helped contribute to the different answers given – even a low probability event may be too risky for some because of discomfort with the amount of money involved.
Hope JBoarders like a little pedantry now and then.
On the other hand if there have only been two crocodile attacks in the river in the last hundred years, but one of them happened yesterday... today might be a good day to find somewhere else to swim.
Only if we assume he's still hungry. If his victim made a for big meal, we might be OK. Of course, if it was a clown, he spit it right back out. They taste funny.

I think it may have been Henny Youngman who said that he read that 80% of car accidents happen within 10 miles of home...so he and his wife moved 11 miles.
I'm not the defending Jeopardy! champion. But I have played one on TV.

User avatar
Linear Gnome
One Miner Gal
Posts: 1828
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:55 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by Linear Gnome »

AFRET CMS wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 3:18 pm
opusthepenguin wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 3:14 pm
On the other hand if there have only been two crocodile attacks in the river in the last hundred years, but one of them happened yesterday... today might be a good day to find somewhere else to swim.
Only if we assume he's still hungry. If his victim made a for big meal, we might be OK. Of course, if it was a clown, he spit it right back out. They taste funny.

I think it may have been Henny Youngman who said that he read that 80% of car accidents happen within 10 miles of home...so he and his wife moved 11 miles.
Reminds me of the old joke about the statistician who always carried a bomb when he traveled on a plane. Surely, the probability that the plane has two bombs is very remote.

Two more statistician jokes, a little more technical in nature:

Two statisticians, a frequentist and a Bayesian, were pulled over for speeding. The Bayesian was arrested, but the frequentist was released because he didn't have any priors.

The priest was puzzled when the two married statisticians had only one of their twin sons baptized. They explained that the other was the control.

User avatar
Volante
Harbinger of the Doomed Lemur
Posts: 7138
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by Volante »

Looks like they're trying to bring normal back. Brewery is now open open, though at about 20% seating capacity.

User avatar
MarkBarrett
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 10868
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by MarkBarrett »

With this thread on page 2 I found a reason to bump it. For crossword puzzle solvers check out Rex Parker's comment after you finish the Saturday 6/6 puzzle:
Spoiler
The biggest issue / downer for me, though, was 1A: Capital of Chad (N'DJAMENA). At 1-Across, that is such a f***-you kind of answer. People who have been on "Jeopardy" and trivia nerds who memorize world capitals will know it, and everyone else won't (I was a "won't"), which is it breaks hard into two very very very different camps: Absolute Gimme or Absolutely No Idea. And what's more, if you have no idea, it's not a city you have any chance of spelling in any kind of inferential way. All random letters if you don't know the answer.
I put a comment on his site as I could not let his "Jeopardy" without the exclamation point abide.

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 7108
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Reretaken Down

Post by alietr »

MarkBarrett wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 1:20 am
With this thread on page 2 I found a reason to bump it. For crossword puzzle solvers check out Rex Parker's comment after you finish the Saturday 6/6 puzzle:
Spoiler
The biggest issue / downer for me, though, was 1A: Capital of Chad (N'DJAMENA). At 1-Across, that is such a f***-you kind of answer. People who have been on "Jeopardy" and trivia nerds who memorize world capitals will know it, and everyone else won't (I was a "won't"), which is it breaks hard into two very very very different camps: Absolute Gimme or Absolutely No Idea. And what's more, if you have no idea, it's not a city you have any chance of spelling in any kind of inferential way. All random letters if you don't know the answer.
I put a comment on his site as I could not let his "Jeopardy" without the exclamation point abide.
I belonged in the first camp and had the spelling right. And if you do crosswords, you gotta know stuff.

Post Reply