I believe hcbirker is merely indicating that the answer to the meta puzzle is given/shown on the Monday puzzle, using only a short explanation, as there is only so much room to explain the meta there. Long, complex explanations just don't fit.
"We'll Have Waters All Around" - March 26, 2021
- HunterX
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:17 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- hunkra
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:35 pm
- Location: Hudson Valley, NY
I agree 100% with your second point here about phrasing. “Smaller numbers” implies comparison to me, so I spent days trying to determine which clue numbers needed to be added to what. It never occurred to me to add up all the numbers, because 1 and 73 don’t seem to be comparable. Overthinking it as usual, I suppose.Billy M wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:06 am A few notes/observations on this one:
Like many other muggles, I struggled with the idea of simply appending the word "dressing" to solve the meta. I wanted it to be revealed in the grid. But I also remembered that this is not the first time that the answer was not explicitly spelled out with the grid (and as others have noted "the rules are ARE THERE ARE NO RULES"). Most recently, TRIAL JUDGE from last month, was entirely derived via the rhyming of theme answers.
That being said, and this was in the back of my mind for most of the weekend, 1A could've been worded slightly differently to suggest that a third word would be found by adding. As written the clue readsAn alternate wording could have been something like thisPut smaller numbers together to get a larger number, as you'll do with 23 answers hereIt would have implied that you were looking for 23 answers that had something in common and that you would be adding 23 times. In adding 23 integers, you'd perform the operation of addition 22 times, the 23rd time would be "adding" the word dressing. That being said, not my puzzle, and plenty of people still made their way to the shore. And somebody (once again not me) will be receiving a mug in the mail in the near future.Combine that which is smaller to get that which is larger, as you'll do 23 times with 23 answers here
Channeling Molly Weasley on a good day.
- Billy M
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2020 5:23 pm
- Location: Virginia
I spent a few hours doing that with both the island clues and combinations of the three, four, and five letter clues. But to play devil's advocate to my own point, 73 is smaller than 1000.hunkra wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:56 amI agree 100% with your second point here about phrasing. “Smaller numbers” implies comparison to me, so I spent days trying to determine which clue numbers needed to be added to what. It never occurred to me to add up all the numbers, because 1 and 73 don’t seem to be comparable. Overthinking it as usual, I suppose.Billy M wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:06 am A few notes/observations on this one:
Like many other muggles, I struggled with the idea of simply appending the word "dressing" to solve the meta. I wanted it to be revealed in the grid. But I also remembered that this is not the first time that the answer was not explicitly spelled out with the grid (and as others have noted "the rules are ARE THERE ARE NO RULES"). Most recently, TRIAL JUDGE from last month, was entirely derived via the rhyming of theme answers.
That being said, and this was in the back of my mind for most of the weekend, 1A could've been worded slightly differently to suggest that a third word would be found by adding. As written the clue readsAn alternate wording could have been something like thisPut smaller numbers together to get a larger number, as you'll do with 23 answers hereIt would have implied that you were looking for 23 answers that had something in common and that you would be adding 23 times. In adding 23 integers, you'd perform the operation of addition 22 times, the 23rd time would be "adding" the word dressing. That being said, not my puzzle, and plenty of people still made their way to the shore. And somebody (once again not me) will be receiving a mug in the mail in the near future.Combine that which is smaller to get that which is larger, as you'll do 23 times with 23 answers here
- BarbaraK
- Posts: 2620
- Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:37 pm
- Location: Virginia
Ya know, there's just nothing as heartbreakingly sad as the sight of a beautiful, elegant, lovingly crafted theory being brutally torn to pieces by one cold heartless fact.
- hcbirker
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:24 pm
- Location: Studio City, CA
-
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:26 pm
I haven't looked at a Monday puzzle since I started doing these, so I didn't realize the contest puzzle answer would be there. Thanks!HunterX wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:08 amI believe hcbirker is merely indicating that the answer to the meta puzzle is given/shown on the Monday puzzle, using only a short explanation, as there is only so much room to explain the meta there. Long, complex explanations just don't fit.
- Richard
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:06 pm
I did not get the meta.
I will blame my love of college basketball. Went down some rabbit holes of combining islands etc and even got a nudge but really spent more time watching games than on the puzzle.
I wish I had seen the addition to 1000. Would hope that I could have seen 1000 island.
I guess that I would have added "dressing."
Nice meta.
I will blame my love of college basketball. Went down some rabbit holes of combining islands etc and even got a nudge but really spent more time watching games than on the puzzle.
I wish I had seen the addition to 1000. Would hope that I could have seen 1000 island.
I guess that I would have added "dressing."
Nice meta.
- CPJohnson
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:38 pm
- Location: Kingsport, TN
I did not get the meta. My fault was in interpreting "smaller numbers." I assumed smaller meant numbers less than 10, not 2-digit (mostly) numbers that added up to a much larger number. Had 1A read, "Put numbers together....", I would have thought to add up the clue numbers immediately. I did add the digits in each clue number, plus the number of words in the clue, plus the number of letters in each grid answer, and several other things, but never came up with anything but gibberish.
Cynthia
- Al Sisti
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:28 pm
- Location: Whitesboro NY
- Al Sisti
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:28 pm
- Location: Whitesboro NY
Hey, all wrong answers are the right answer to a different question. I remember I was briefing a General (George Harrison; can't imagine why that would've stuck in my head) on our Modeling and Simulation work. Anyway, he asked me a question about how we found a balance between detailed modeling of, say, an aircraft flying undetected to a target, and getting answers as quickly as possible; i.e., accuracy vs timeliness. I gave him a long theoretical answer about the research we were doing in mixed-resolution modeling, and when I was done, I -- proudly -- asked him "So, does that answer your question?" He paused and said "Well, not exactly, but that was a good answer." Did I cow? Did I shrink? Nope. I said "Well let me know when you ask *that* question." Laughs all around, including from Gen George Harrison.
- Powers2020
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:05 pm
- Location: Charlotte, NC
Did anyone else spend a ton of time trying to add up all the I's, V's, X's, L's, C's, D's, and M's? Wasted a ton of time on that rabbit hole before Occam's Razor kicked in!