[CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes (A-OK)

Current and recently solved lateral thinking puzzles. Please post new lateral thinking puzzles here.

Moderators: peter365, Balin, kalira, JenBurdoo, Tiger

[CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes (A-OK)

Postby CoffeeBean » Tue Jul 21, 2020 8:47 pm

I have been on vacation...

There is an item that some homes in the USA are required to have. Some people will not go to these homes unless the item is present. A friend of mine, Paul, bought a house without knowing that this item was present. It did not resemble other items with this same name, but certainly qualified as one of them. When he realized that the item was present at the house, he removed it right away.

What's the item, and why did Paul remove his when it is a requirement in many US homes?
Last edited by CoffeeBean on Mon Aug 03, 2020 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby GalFisk » Tue Jul 21, 2020 8:51 pm

Is it electronic? Electric? Did he remove it in order to keep "those" people away form his house? Are the people who won't come to a house without this thing: random people? Friends of the homeowners? Government workers? Utility workers? Salespeople? Workers? Do they come there in their professional capacity? In order to do good? Be nice? Do evil? Be annoying? Sell stuff? Buy stuff?
Is the item inside? Outside? Bolted down? Does it have relevant text? Numbers? Is the item required for some kinds of houses? Houses in some areas? Some homeowners? Rental properties?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby Doriana » Tue Jul 21, 2020 8:52 pm

Is the item a smoke detector? carbon monoxide detector? Some other detector? Something else that's meant to increase the residents' safety?
Is it a water meter? power meter? smart meter?
Doriana
 
Posts: 2099
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:12 pm
Location: Göttingen, Germany

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby Earnest » Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:24 am

that some homes in the USA are required to have --> also nowadays? Is it for safety reasons? For identifying someone? For stopping something? For preventing a crime to happen? Relevant that only "some" houses are required to have it? If so, relevant which kind of houses? Houses made of wood? Apartments? Houses placed in a relevant place (e.g. at the top/bottom of a building?)? Made of a relevant material? Houses with a garden? Houses in a certain state? At the border with another state? Houses hosting people belonging to a minority (e.g. migrants)? with people having pets?

Does the item: measure something? reveal something? signal something? Make a sound/noise? wave? Record? Identify the house (or the owner)? Call the police faster?

Is the item in a relevant part of the house? Kitchen? Un a room? Bedroom? Garden? On the roof?

When he realized that the item was present at the house --> did he realize as soon as he saw it? After having made some research/experiments to qualify it?

Does it happen only in US? Did Paul remove the item and substitute it? Did he remove it manually (i.e. without the need of any other tool)? Privacy violation relevant? Is Paul from US? Relevant?
Earnest
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:52 pm

Is it electronic? Electric? No to both
Did he remove it in order to keep "those" people away form his house? No, N/R
Are the people who won't come to a house without this thing: random people? Yes but all share one thing in common
Friends of the homeowners? Possibly, but not necessary Government workers? Utility workers? Salespeople? Workers? Could be any of these, but...Do they come there in their professional capacity? ...no In order to do good? Be nice? Do evil? Be annoying? Sell stuff? Buy stuff? None of these
Is the item inside? Yes, and...Outside? ...this too (but explore) Bolted down? Not usually
Does it have relevant text? Numbers? No to both Is the item required for some kinds of houses? Yes Houses in some areas? Yes
Some homeowners? Yes (see next answer) Rental properties? Yes, it is required at certain rental properties, and the owner of the property is responsible

Is the item a smoke detector? carbon monoxide detector? Some other detector? Something else that's meant to increase the residents' safety?
Is it a water meter? power meter? smart meter? No to all

that some homes in the USA are required to have --> also nowadays? Yes Is it for safety reasons? No For identifying someone? No For stopping something? No For preventing a crime to happen? No
Relevant that only "some" houses are required to have it? Yes If so, relevant which kind of houses? Yes
Houses made of wood? Many houses with this requirement are made of wood, yes Apartments? Not very often, no
Houses placed in a relevant place YES (e.g. at the top/bottom of a building?)? But not this kind of placement
Made of a relevant material? No Houses with a garden? No, N/R
Houses in a certain state? At the border with another state? Houses hosting people belonging to a minority (e.g. migrants)? with people having pets? No to all

Does the item: measure something? reveal something? signal something? Make a sound/noise? wave? Record? Identify the house (or the owner)? Call the police faster? None of these

Is the item in a relevant part of the house? Yes Kitchen? No, probably never here In a room? Yes
Bedroom? Garden? On the roof? No to these

When he realized that the item was present at the house --> did he realize as soon as he saw it? Yes, and while doing something else
After having made some research/experiments to qualify it? No

Does it happen only in US? It may happen elsewhere Did Paul remove the item Yes...and substitute it?...but no, not this. Good question.
Did he remove it manually (i.e. without the need of any other tool)? He may have needed something to assist with the removal, but mostly it was by hand Privacy violation relevant? No Is Paul from US? Yes Relevant? Likely not
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby GalFisk » Wed Jul 22, 2020 6:59 pm

Is it related to heating? Cooling? Ventilation? Windows? Doors? Is it a lock? Is it mechanical? Do people who won't go to these homes: not go near them? Not go inside? Not stay inside for an extended time? Not sleep inside? Not perform some other action inside? Do they feel that there is danger, when the item is not present? Do they take offense? Do they feel that something is missing? Superstition relevant? Area: geographical? Political? Place with a certain rule? Law? Risk? Problem? Belief? Room: living room? Basement? Attic? Storage room? Closet? Is it something residents actively use? Is it decorative? Can one see from the outside whether a house has thins or not? Would having more than one be useful? Does removing it leave a hole?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:09 pm

Is it related to heating? Cooling? Ventilation? Windows? Doors? Is it a lock? Is it mechanical? No to all
Do people who won't go to these homes: not go near them? Yes, but DYOD of "near" Not go inside? Yes (see previous answer) Not stay inside for an extended time? Yes, and...Not sleep inside?...this.
Not perform some other action inside? Yes Do they feel that there is danger, when the item is not present? No Do they take offense? Not exactly, but OTRT Do they feel that something is missing? Yes Superstition relevant? No Area: geographical? Yes
Political? Place with a certain rule? Law? Risk? Problem? Belief? No to these
Room: living room? Possible, but not common Basement? This is most common, yes Attic? Possible Storage room? Closet? No to these
Is it something residents actively use? Yes Is it decorative? Some would say that it is, but this is not why it is put in the homes Can one see from the outside whether a house has this or not? In many cases yes, but they must do something specific to do this
Would having more than one be useful? No, not practical Does removing it leave a hole? No - good question
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby Earnest » Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:19 am

Houses placed in a relevant place YES --> in US? Houses on mountains? Near water flows? Inside the wood? In areas hit by hurricanes? In desert areas? At the border with Indians? In a specific State?

Would someone notice the presence of the object when inside of the house but not in the basement?

Plants relevant? Furnitures? Paintings? upholstery? jewelry? Technology? dead animals (e.g. deer head?)?
Is there a reason why the item is usually in basement or attic? Is it used with another item placed there? E.g. chimney? Or is it maybe employed for something usually performed in attic or basement? (E.g. storing things or books)

Did Paul remove the item Yes... --> did he change its place? Did he put it somewhere else in the house? Throw it away? Put outside? Used it in another way?
Earnest
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby markobr » Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:21 pm

Is it an object that has to do with water? If so: the storage of water? transport of water?

Protection of the environment relevant? Monument protection?
markobr
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:15 pm
Location: Tübingen, Germany

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Thu Jul 23, 2020 3:49 pm

Houses placed in a relevant place YES --> in US? Houses on mountains? Near water flows? Yes to both of these Inside the wood? Many of them are in these areas, yes In areas hit by hurricanes? Some are, yes In desert areas? At the border with Indians? In a specific State? Any of these are possible, the most likely areas are in mountains and near oceans

Would someone notice the presence of the object when inside of the house but not in the basement? No, unless the object was placed somewhere else besides the basement

Plants relevant? Furnitures? Paintings? upholstery? jewelry? Technology? dead animals (e.g. deer head?)? No to these
Is there a reason why the item is usually in basement or attic? Yes, and basement is more common than "attic", but explore
Is it used with another item placed there? Yes E.g. chimney? Not relevant Or is it maybe employed for something usually performed in attic or basement? (E.g. storing things or books) This isn't the reason for the location of the object

Did Paul remove the item Yes... --> did he change its place? Yes... Did he put it somewhere else in the house? ...no, he...Throw it away? ...did this with it. Put outside? Used it in another way? No, he did not want to use it so he threw it away - lurking FA

Is it an object that has to do with water? If so: the storage of water? transport of water? No to all

Protection of the environment relevant? Monument protection? No to both
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby GalFisk » Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:42 pm

Can the object be used? Is it decorative? Is it useful under special circumstances? Such as an emergency? Is it required no matter who lives in the house? Is it required in empty houses? Is it legal for him to remove it? Were the previous owners required to have it? Were there any previous owners? Does it make a noise? Can it be said that it operates? Is operated? Is it related to fire? Flooding? Wind?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:53 pm

Can the object be used? Which one? Might clear up an FA... Is it decorative? Some of them are
Is it useful under special circumstances? In a way, yes Such as an emergency? No, never for this
Is it required no matter who lives in the house? FA here Is it required in empty houses? No Is it legal for him to remove it? Yes (still FA here though) Were the previous owners required to have it? No (FA here though)
Were there any previous owners? Of Paul's house? Yes.
Does it make a noise? No Can it be said that it operates? No Is operated? Not really this either
Is it related to fire? Flooding? Wind? No to all
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby GalFisk » Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:10 pm

Are there two objects? Three? More? If there's more than one, are they identical? Similar? Related? Would anyone living in this house ever be required by law to have such an object?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:19 pm

Are there two objects? Three? More? There are thousands of relevant objects, but only two that matter with regards to the puzzle
If there's more than one, are they identical? They are all identical except for Paul's. The key to solving the puzzle is determining why his could be considered like all of the others but was actually not the same
Similar? They are all basically the same, but Paul's has a significant difference (this is the FA)
Related? There's only one thing that Paul's object has in common with all the rest of them
Would anyone living in this house ever be required by law to have such an object? No - good q
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby GalFisk » Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:07 pm

Is Paul's a copy? A fake? Something used to make it look like the building is fulfilling a requirement to have this, while it actually doesn't? Does his leave no hole upon removal, while others would?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:14 pm

Is Paul's a copy? A fake? No to both
Something used to make it look like the building is fulfilling a requirement to have this, Paul's building isn't required to have it while it actually doesn't? So no, this rule does not apply to Paul's house
Does his leave no hole upon removal, while others would? N/R
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby GalFisk » Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:19 pm

Is Paul's homemade? Relevant why it was present? Paul only has one, correct? In places where this thing is required, would someone inspect buildings to see if it was present? Relevant? Would someone hot having this where it was required be fined? Forced to get one? Jailed? Reprimanded? Flags relevant? Wildlife? Would there be any point to having this thing when not required by law?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:26 pm

Is Paul's homemade? No Relevant why it was present? Not "why", no Paul only has one, correct? Yes
In places where this thing is required, would someone inspect buildings to see if it was present? Not an official inspection, as in the kind where safety and compliance to laws or codes are concerned Relevant? Someone would verify the presence or absence of the items at some point, yes
Would someone not having this where it was required be fined? No Forced to get one? Yes, but it likely would never reach this point due to something that hasn't yet been discovered Jailed? No Reprimanded? Yes, if at any time this item was missing from certain houses, but that is not likely to be the case
Flags relevant? Wildlife? No to both
Would there be any point to having this thing when not required by law? It isn't required by "law" so to speak, but there is a requirement in regards to these objects (but not for Paul's). These objects are present in numerous houses even though it's not required to be there by anyone.
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby biograd » Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:21 am

I'm confused--so certain homes are required to have these objects (taken directly from the puzzle statement), but they (the objects) are not required to be there by anyone (taken from your last answer)? Are they required in a physical sense for the house to be built or to stand up structurally in the first place? like for example stilts supporting a house raised off the ground (which are common near the ocean and on hillsides)?

Does Paul's one of these objects fulfill the same purpose as the ones that are required in certain homes? or merely share a non-function-related property?
biograd
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby Earnest » Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:07 am

there is a requirement in regards to these objects (but not for Paul's). --> so would anyone complain because he removed it? (I guess no right?) Did Paul build a new one? Buy a new one?
Did Paul have neighbors? Or maybe he did not relevantly? Is internet connection relevant? Phone coverage? Signal?

Had an host came into Paul house, would he/she have required if the item was present? Could the item offer him/her a service (e.g. without a fridge you cannot serve cold drinks if he/she asked for them)? Does the item take an advantage to the owner? If so, does it classify the owner as being part of a group? Is the item necessary/supposed to be in the house also if the house is not inhabited? Can the item be turned off and on? If so, is it turned off when people is not present? When people is present? Is it a room? A door? Is it part of the house building? Can someone bring the item from home?

Were such items present also before 1900 in such houses? Could they have been present? Are the items made of wood? Plastic? Iron? Steel? food? Others? Relevant? Are they bigger than a basket ball? Than a fridge? than a ring?

Is there a reason why the item is usually in basement or attic? Yes, and basement is more common than "attic", but explore --> to be sure: are we talking about common houses? are steps relevant? carpets? water?

Any of these are possible, the most likely areas are in mountains and near oceans --> Is the presence of water flows crucial? water inside house relevant? Humidity? (e.g. lots of salt) Or maybe isolation? i.e. the fact of being "isolated" from others? means of communication relevant?

Is it used with another item placed there? Yes --> something placed in the basement? a similar object?

Are any of these relevant: lights? communication? whistling? cleaning? erosion? weapon? an ax? books? Papers? gas? gas leaks? electricity? hot water? Environmental issues? Pollution? Recycling? storing objects? shelves? blankets?

Is religion relevant? Culture? If so, did Paul "trust" it?

It isn't required by "law" so to speak, but there is a requirement in regards to these objects (but not for Paul's). --> was Paul's object with respect to the other ones: expired? Dangerous? Old? Made of a different material? Evaporated? dirty? dead? not functioning? differently encoded? with other writings on it?
Earnest
 
Posts: 3091
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:43 pm

I'm confused--so certain homes are required to have these objects (taken directly from the puzzle statement), but they (the objects) are not required to be there by anyone (taken from your last answer)? The presence of the objects are not required "by law", but there are regulations that require certain people to have these objects in certain homes. The object Paul found in his home was not required to be there by either law or the regulation, and it shares only two relevant aspect with all of the other objects (see below).

Are they required in a physical sense for the house to be built or to stand up structurally in the first place? No - good q
like for example stilts supporting a house raised off the ground (which are common near the ocean and on hillsides)? The structure is not affected by the absence or presence of the object

Does Paul's one of these objects fulfill the same purpose as the ones that are required in certain homes? No
or merely share a non-function-related property? Yes, this. The thing that Paul's object has in common with all of the others is not related to the function.

there is a requirement in regards to these objects (but not for Paul's). --> so would anyone complain because he removed it? (I guess no right?) No, Paul and just a few other people are the only ones who knew it was even there
Did Paul build a new one? Buy a new one? No
Did Paul have neighbors? Or maybe he did not relevantly? It's not relevant Is internet connection relevant? Phone coverage? Signal? No to these

Had an host came into Paul house, would he/she have required if the item was present? Good q - no, the requirement did not apply to Paul's house Could the item offer him/her a service (e.g. without a fridge you cannot serve cold drinks if he/she asked for them)? Yes - not a service like a fridge, but it does offer something to the home's occupant Does the item take an advantage to the owner? Not as much to the owner as to other people (recall what kind of homes are relevant) If so, does it classify the owner as being part of a group? Yes, in a very relevant way
Is the item necessary/supposed to be in the house also if the house is not inhabited? No, the reason the object is required is because it is known that the house will be occupied Can the item be turned off and on? No If so, is it turned off when people is not present? No, because it can't be turned on or off, but there's a relevant part of this to explore When people is present? See last answer
Is it a room? A door? Is it part of the house building? No to all Can someone bring the item from home? It's possible but rarely ever happens

Were such items present also before 1900 in such houses? The items have existed since the 1800's, but "such houses" have not been around that long Could they have been present? The items have been present in homes for many years, but there has not always been the regulation that certain homes must have them Are the items made of wood? Plastic? Iron? Steel? Likely all of these materials
food? No Others? One other very important material Relevant? Yes Are they bigger than a basket ball? Than a fridge? than a ring? The items are larger than refrigerators

Is there a reason why the item is usually in basement or attic? Yes, it's related to the type of homes they are in Yes, and basement is more common than "attic", but explore --> to be sure: are we talking about common houses? Yes, with one very important aspect that makes them different from Paul's house are steps relevant? carpets? water? None of these

Any of these are possible, the most likely areas are in mountains and near oceans --> Is the presence of water flows crucial? water inside house relevant? Humidity? (e.g. lots of salt) Or maybe isolation? i.e. the fact of being "isolated" from others? means of communication relevant? No to these

Is it used with another item placed there? Yes --> something placed in the basement? a similar object? None of the objects used with it are similar to the object itself, but they are all similar to each other

Are any of these relevant: lights? communication? whistling? cleaning? erosion? weapon? an ax? books? Papers? gas? gas leaks? electricity? hot water? Environmental issues? Pollution? Recycling? storing objects? shelves? blankets? No to these

Is religion relevant? Culture? If so, did Paul "trust" it? Not related

It isn't required by "law" so to speak, but there is a requirement in regards to these objects (but not for Paul's). --> was Paul's object with respect to the other ones: expired? Dangerous? Old? Made of a different material? THIS, and another important thing about it
Evaporated? dirty? dead? not functioning? It was not "functioning" as one typically would, which is related to the other important thing about it differently encoded? with other writings on it? No to these
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby GalFisk » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:55 pm

Was it a prop? A model? Much smaller than the regular object? A fake? A copy? A decoration? A depiction?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:59 pm

Was it a prop? A model? Much smaller than the regular object? A fake? A copy? A decoration? A depiction? None of these
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby biograd » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:06 am

I think there is a semantic quibble going on about "by law" vs. "there exist regulations". We have known from the very beginning that only certain homes are required to have these objects, i.e. that the requirement doesn't apply to everyone, and maybe you think of a "law" as something that applies to everyone, vs. a "regulation" applying just to some people in a certain situation?

How I think of it, if the requirement comes from someone in a position of some kind of authority (whether a legislature, planning commission, etc. but NOT the resident(s) of the home themselves) saying that it is required, then it's effectively "by law" or "by regulation", I would say those are basically the same thing. This is a very different kind of "required" than to be required by the "laws" of physics or usability. For example, a car requires seat belts in the law/regulation sense, but (unless electric) "requires" gas in the tank in a completely different sense--it won't operate otherwise.
biograd
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby GalFisk » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:39 am

Other important material: another metal? Glass? Rubber? Cork? Ceramic? Leather/skin/fur? Bone/teeth? Wool/hair? Fabric? Paper/cardboard? String/rope? Stone? Gemstone? Plaster? Concrete? Ice? Liquid? Gas? Does the thing have wheels? Is it furniture? Is it hollow? Can a human be inside? Is it meant to have human(s) inside? Or on top? Or underneath? Did he have to dismantle it in order to remove it? Is it some kind of room?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby wolfier » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:52 am

So, people don't want to sleep inside if they find the item not there for some houses, and a very probable place for this item is to be in the basement or attic, but not so much in the living room.

Question: If a house is supposed to have this in the basement and does not, does it make people not wanting to sleep in the basement, or does it make people not wanting to sleep in the rest of the house, as well?
wolfier
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:00 pm

I think there is a semantic quibble going on about "by law" vs. "there exist regulations". Yes, and nobody has really explore this idea yet
We have known from the very beginning that only certain homes are required to have these objects, i.e. that the requirement doesn't apply to everyone, and maybe you think of a "law" as something that applies to everyone, vs. a "regulation" applying just to some people in a certain situation?
That's not the key difference between a "law" and a "regulation" in this case. One would not use the word "law" for this situation, and even the word "regulation" is a bit strong for it.

How I think of it, if the requirement comes from someone in a position of some kind of authority (whether a legislature, planning commission, etc. but NOT the resident(s) of the home themselves) saying that it is required, then it's effectively "by law" or "by regulation", I would say those are basically the same thing. You are correct in stating that this "regulation" does come from an authority.
This is a very different kind of "required" than to be required by the "laws" of physics or usability. For example, a car requires seat belts in the law/regulation sense, but (unless electric) "requires" gas in the tank in a completely different sense--it won't operate otherwise "Laws" of nature, physics, etc. are not relevant here. And the example of a seatbelt law/regulation is not apples-to-apples with the relevant situation.

Other important material: another metal? Glass? Rubber? Cork? Ceramic? Leather/skin/fur? Bone/teeth? Wool/hair? Fabric? ThisPaper/cardboard? String/rope? Stone? Gemstone? Plaster? Concrete? Ice? Liquid? Gas?
Does the thing have wheels? No Is it furniture? Yes, but partial FA here Is it hollow? Partly (but same FA) Can a human be inside? No Is it meant to have human(s) inside? No Or on top? No Or underneath? No
Did he have to dismantle it in order to remove it? No Is it some kind of room? No

So, people don't want to sleep inside if they find the item not there for some houses, Not exactly, think in a more broad sense than just not wanting to sleep in a place (see below) and a very probable place for this item is to be in the basement or attic, but not so much in the living room. Basement, yes. "Attic" may be slightly misleading until something else is found out about the objects.

Question: If a house is supposed to have this in the basement and does not, does it make people not wanting to sleep in the basement, or does it make people not wanting to sleep in the rest of the house, as well? Good q - the absence of these objects really has no effect on a person's desire to sleep or not sleep in a certain house, but affects their overall feeling about the house itself.
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:12 pm

RECAP - There is a kind of object that is required to be in certain rental homes. In most cases these homes are located in mountainous areas or places near the ocean. This requirement is certainly not considered a "law", and most people wouldn't even call it a "regulation". The absence or presence of these objects in homes affects the way people feel about the home overall. The people who feel a certain way about these homes are all different types of people but they share one thing in common. The objects in these homes are all basically identical, they are larger than a refrigerator, made of metal, plastic and fabric. They have nothing to do with safety, water, or electricity. People do not fear lack of safety when the objects are not present, but it could be said that some people may take offense if the object isn't present. The house that Paul bought was not required to have one of these objects in it. When he found the one that was at his house he removed it and threw it away. This object that Paul found at his house isn't like any of the other relevant objects except for one thing that it has in common with them. The object Paul found was not made of all of the same materials as the other relevant objects.
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby gregoryuconn » Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:51 pm

Is it required by the traditions of a certain religion (like a cross or mezuzah at the entrance)? And Paul does not belong to that religion but the previous owner did and left it there? Or similar question but for people of a certain ethnicity? Sex/gender? National origin? Race? The customs of some other group to which Paul does not belong? But the previous owner did? Is it a flag of some sort?
gregoryuconn
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Northern Virginia, USA

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:56 pm

Is it required by the traditions of a certain religion (like a cross or mezuzah at the entrance)? No
And Paul does not belong to that religion but the previous owner did and left it there? Not relevant
Or similar question but for people of a certain ethnicity? Sex/gender? National origin? Race? No to all - an aspect of the houses that has been discovered reveals much about what the people all have in common
The customs of some other group to which Paul does not belong? But the previous owner did? No - keep in mind that the object Paul found at his house has almost nothing in common with all of the other objects which are all very similar if not identical to each other
Is it a flag of some sort? No
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby gregoryuconn » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:32 am

Do you use it on the mountains/water? Skis/waterskis?
gregoryuconn
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Northern Virginia, USA

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby biograd » Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:30 am

So if I get the last round of answers correct, the item is "required" only by the people who rent the homes (I mean they are the only ones who will complain about/object to its absence, not that they are the ones who are required to put the object in the home)?

Is the relevance of mountains and the ocean that these are common vacation destinations? that people engage in outdoor recreation/exercise there? that there are scenic views?
biograd
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby wolfier » Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:12 am

If you can broadly group "people who take offence" vs "people who don't mind" the absence of this object, do these 2 groups generally differ in age? sex? weight? height? language? religion? ethnicity? intelligence? physical fitness? culture? diet? political spectrum? pet-ownership?

can someone from one group today suddenly jump to another group tomorrow (say, depending on weather)?

is this item commonly regarded as an amenity?

does the fabric part get dirty? if so, is it commonly washed?
wolfier
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby GalFisk » Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:39 am

Are homes where this is required typically rented by someone for: days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? Vacationing? Commuting? Is his object made from metal? Wood? Fabric? If his object was in a home where this was required, would it fulfill the requirement? Would people believe it did? Is the (common) object related to other stuff one might find in a basement? Does the object make a relevant action possible? Or impossible? Or help it? Hinder it? When a home is built in a location, can the home undergo some change that changes whether the object is required or not? Is the climate relevant? Anything outside the house? Could this thing be required in a home without any basement?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:02 pm

Do you use it on the mountains/water? Skis/waterskis? No to both

So if I get the last round of answers correct, the item is "required" only by the people who rent the homes (I mean they are the only ones who will complain about/object to its absence, not that they are the ones who are required to put the object in the home)? This is true, but the relevant "law/regulation" does not apply to those who rent the homes, it applies to the owners of the homes

Is the relevance of mountains and the ocean that these are common vacation destinations? YES (and see below)
that people engage in outdoor recreation/exercise there? Not outdoor, no that there are scenic views? This isn't relevant

If you can broadly group "people who take offence" vs "people who don't mind" the absence of this object, do these 2 groups generally differ in age? sex? weight? height? language? religion? ethnicity? intelligence? physical fitness? culture? diet? political spectrum? pet-ownership? None of these factors are really relevant. It is a fair statement to say that one main factor (which has to do with where the homes are located and the reason why people go to them) puts all of the above groups into one group, then there are two main sub-groups, which are those who want or demand that this object be present in the home and those who do not mind or don't care if the object is not present in the home.

can someone from one group today suddenly jump to another group tomorrow (say, depending on weather)? Yes, there may be a few reasons for this to happen. HINT: If a person who had never been in a home that had one of these, and they went to one, they may say upon departure, "I will always make sure to have a _________ in whatever home I rent in the future" (and see next answer)

is this item commonly regarded as an amenity?YES, very much so (but not Paul's)

does the fabric part get dirty? Sometimes if so, is it commonly washed? I'm not sure about this, but it's a safe assumption that if the fabric did get dirty it would be quickly cleaned

Are homes where this is required typically rented by someone for: days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? In most cases they are rented for a few days up to a week Vacationing? YES Commuting? No
Is his object made from metal? Wood? Fabric? Paul's object is made only of wood (good question)
If his object was in a home where this was required, would it fulfill the requirement? No, it wouldn't (also a good q)
Would people believe it did? No Is the (common) object related to other stuff one might find in a basement? Not necessarily, but wherever these objects are, there are always other related objects in the same room and usually very close to the object
Does the object make a relevant action possible? Yes Or impossible? Or help it? Hinder it?
When a home is built in a location, can the home undergo some change that changes whether the object is required or not? Yes. Not a physical change to the home, but the owner can decide to change the "regulations" that apply to the house.
Is the climate relevant? No Anything outside the house? YES (and WHICH HOUSE are you asking about?)
Could this thing be required in a home without any basement? Yes, it is required in many homes that do not have basements. While the basements of vacation rental homes are common locations for these objects, they can be placed in other parts of the homes. As mentioned above, I don't think this object would ever be placed in a kitchen. Consider 1) the size of the objects (not Paul's) and 2) the fact that these objects are placed in rental homes in areas where people come for vacation.
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby wolfier » Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:56 pm

Would Paul still have thrown the item away *if* it were made with the same material as the "normal" ones?
wolfier
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:18 pm

Would Paul still have thrown the item away *if* it were made with the same material as the "normal" ones?
Ah, great question - I can't speak for Paul, but I can say that some exploration needs to be done to determine why we could consider Paul's object to be both the same AND at the same time different from all of the others. Take into consideration...

1. Paul discarded the object that he found at his house
2. Paul's house was not a rental property at a popular vacation place
3. The objects at vacation rental homes are usually located in basements, attics (not really, but nobody has explore this further) or other rooms in the house
4. While all of the other objects are made of wood, metal and plastic, Paul's was made only of wood
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby Doriana » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:38 pm

Do people who rent homes that have the relevant object use the object while they are there? If so, do they use it in the basement? Or do they take it out of the basement?

Would owners ever use the presence of the object to advertise their rental home?

Does the object serve recreational purposes?
Doriana
 
Posts: 2099
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:12 pm
Location: Göttingen, Germany

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:45 pm

Do people who rent homes that have the relevant object use the object while they are there? Yes
If so, do they use it in the basement? Or do they take it out of the basement? These objects are always used at the location where they are placed initially, it is highly doubtful that anyone takes time or effort to move them. So if the object is located in the basement, it is used in the basement.

Would owners ever use the presence of the object to advertise their rental home? Yes, of course! And it's commonly done!

Does the object serve recreational purposes? Yes
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby Doriana » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:46 pm

Hot tubs relevant? Saunas?
Doriana
 
Posts: 2099
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:12 pm
Location: Göttingen, Germany

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:49 pm

Hot tubs relevant? Saunas? Not these but you're OTRT
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby Balin » Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:09 pm

Pools?
Balin
 
Posts: 8060
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:19 pm

Pools? No, but pools are VERY RELEVANT to the solution!
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby Doriana » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:37 pm

Do the homes that have this object usually also have a pool? Is the object commonly used before using the pool? after using the pool?
Doriana
 
Posts: 2099
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:12 pm
Location: Göttingen, Germany

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:22 pm

Do the homes that have this object usually also have a pool? Swimming pools are not relevant to those houses...
Is the object commonly used before using the pool? after using the pool? What kind of pool are you asking about?
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby wolfier » Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:48 pm

is it usually considered as a "fixture" of the vacation home?

would homeowners using the place not for rental but to live in it themselves find the object useful?

in case of a vacation rental, does it need regular maintenance by the property owner?
wolfier
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:51 pm

is it usually considered as a "fixture" of the vacation home? No, "amenity" is the best word for it

would homeowners using the place not for rental but to live in it themselves find the object useful? Some would, some would not

in case of a vacation rental, does it need regular maintenance by the property owner? Not likely
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby irishelk » Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:27 pm

Is this an item commonly found in homes that have pools? Is it more likely to be in a home that doesn't have a pool? Is it used in the same way whether the home is near water or in the mountains?

Does Paul have a pool? Does he get rid of the item because he has/doesn't have a pool?

Is the item as heavy as a refrigerator? Is it bigger on one dimension than a refrigerator, but smaller in other dimensions (e.g., a tarp)? Is it inflatable?
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:30 pm

Is this an item commonly found in homes that have pools? Not relevant, the presence of a swimming pool is only relevant for one certain home (see below) Is it more likely to be in a home that doesn't have a pool? Not necessarily (see below)
Is it used in the same way whether the home is near water or in the mountains? Yes

Does Paul have a pool? YES! Does he get rid of the item because he has/doesn't have a pool? He gets rid of the item because there is a pool at his house, yes (this is relevant)

Is the item as heavy as a refrigerator? Yes, at least that heavy and maybe more heavy Is it bigger on one dimension than a refrigerator, but smaller in other dimensions (e.g., a tarp)? It's actually about the same size (rectangle) as a refrigerator, only with larger width and length Is it inflatable? No
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby Doriana » Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:47 pm

Does Paul think having a pool makes having the item unnecessary?
Doriana
 
Posts: 2099
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:12 pm
Location: Göttingen, Germany

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:10 pm

Does Paul think having a pool makes having the item unnecessary? In an indirect way, yes, but it's not just the fact that the house has a pool that makes Paul think this
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby GalFisk » Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:51 pm

Regarding pools: does it matter whether the pool is in-ground or above-ground? Full size or kiddie? Is using the pool relevant? Filling? Draining? Upkeep? Cost of pools relevant? Community pools?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:53 pm

Regarding pools: does it matter whether the pool is in-ground or above-ground? Yes, the relevant pool in this situation is in-ground Full size or kiddie? The relevant pool is full size, a kiddie pool would not lead to the situation
Is using the pool relevant? Yes Filling? Draining? This is, yes Upkeep? Yes
Cost of pools relevant? Community pools? Not these
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby GalFisk » Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:09 pm

So a house with a full size in-ground pool doesn't need the object Paul has, correct? And neither the object many people have? Is a human activity relevant? If so: swimming? Showering? Changing? If someone gets this object for their home, is it delivered in its final form? Delivered with assembly required? Built in place from parts or raw materials? Could the object fulfil its purpose if it was placed in a shed? When a pool is built, is a different object relevantly installed? Such as a drain? Pump? Heating system? Water treatment system?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Thu Jul 30, 2020 7:18 pm

So a house with a full size in-ground pool doesn't need the object Paul has, correct? Well yes but this is misleading and some FA's are present
And neither the object many people have? The absence or presence of the objects is coincidental
Is a human activity relevant? Yes If so: swimming? Showering? Changing? None of these
If someone gets this object for their home, is it delivered in its final form? Which object? The thousands of objects that are all nearly identical could either be delivered in final form (this is usually the case) or with some assembly needed. The object that Paul found is almost always delivered in final form. Delivered with assembly required? The objects in rental homes may require assembly, but the object at Paul's house rarely do.
Built in place from parts or raw materials? No Could the object fulfill its purpose if it was placed in a shed? No, neither the objects found in rental homes or the object that Paul found
When a pool is built, is a different object relevantly installed? Such as a drain? Pump? Heating system? Water treatment system? None of this is relevant
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby biograd » Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:10 pm

Do the items found in the rental homes have anything whatsoever to do with swimming pools? or only the "somehow similar" item that Paul found?

If those others don't, then maybe they have to do with the word "pool" in another sense (I've noticed that "what kind of pool" has been asked for clarification a few times)? Maybe in the sense of the game with a cue and balls (though I don't see what that has to do with mountains or the ocean)? Such as maybe the rental homes have "pool tables" in the usual sense in a game room, whereas Paul's home had a dining table that is used on the patio by a swimming pool (or even a floating one to be used IN a pool)?
biograd
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby wolfier » Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:59 am

Is a tarp or some kind of covering relevant? Filters?
wolfier
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby irishelk » Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:16 pm

Good thought biograd!
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:23 pm

Is a tarp or some kind of covering relevant? Filters? No to both

Do the items found in the rental homes have anything whatsoever to do with swimming pools? Only one aspect of them do (see below) or only the "somehow similar" item that Paul found? Only one aspect...

If those others don't, then maybe they have to do with the word "pool" YES! in another sense (I've noticed that "what kind of pool" has been asked for clarification a few times)? I was hoping someone would catch this
Maybe in the sense of the game with a cue and balls (though I don't see what that has to do with mountains or the ocean)? Yes Such as maybe the rental homes have "pool tables" in the usual sense in a game room, whereas Paul's home had a dining table that is used on the patio by a swimming pool (or even a floating one to be used IN a pool)?
Yes, except the table that Paul found wasn't meant to be used on a patio or anywhere else outdoors. The object that Paul found has only one connection to all of the others, even though it is a completely different object. The vacation rental homes are required by the rental companies to have a pool table in them, Paul's house had no such requirement, so why can it be said that the object at his house would qualify as being the same as all of the others?
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby Balin » Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:41 pm

Was the one in Paul's house being used for some other purpose? Being used as a dining or other type of table? Did it have pockets?
Balin
 
Posts: 8060
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 11:12 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:44 pm

Was the one in Paul's house being used for some other purpose? No, certainly not
Being used No, it wasn't being used...as a dining or other type of table? ...but keep in mind which word is very relevant about the table.
Did it have pockets? No
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby irishelk » Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:37 pm

Was Paul's table a table in the sense that we're thinking, a flat surface with legs that go to the floor? Was it a chart with several columns? A stone block inscribed with writing?
Would one call it a "pool table" if one saw it? Is it somehow used instead of a pool?
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Mon Aug 03, 2020 2:49 pm

Was Paul's table a table in the sense that we're thinking, a flat surface with legs that go to the floor? Yes
Was it a chart with several columns? A stone block inscribed with writing? So no to these
Would one call it a "pool table" if one saw it? YES, at least someone who had a slightly creative or humorous mind...
Is it somehow used instead of a pool? No, but the table and the pool at Paul's house have a very direct connection
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby GalFisk » Mon Aug 03, 2020 3:04 pm

Is it a table for use in a pool? A table that floats?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 9920
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Mon Aug 03, 2020 3:19 pm

Is it a table for use in a pool? No, it's not supposed to be used there...
A table that floats? NO, quite the opposite!
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby Doriana » Mon Aug 03, 2020 3:22 pm

Was the table in the pool? Had it sunk to the bottom of the pool?
Doriana
 
Posts: 2099
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:12 pm
Location: Göttingen, Germany

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes

Postby CoffeeBean » Mon Aug 03, 2020 3:34 pm

Was the table in the pool? Had it sunk to the bottom of the pool? YES to both! So Paul had a "POOL TABLE"

**** SPOILER ****

There is an item that some homes in the USA are required to have. Some people will not go to these homes unless the item is present. The item is a pool table (as in the billiards-style game). Many rental homes in vacation areas such as the mountains and beaches are required to have these if they are under contracts with certain realty companies.

A friend of mine, Paul, bought a house without knowing that this item was present. Paul's house had a pool filled with murky green water, and at the bottom of the pool was a dining table that the prior owner had thrown into the pool

It did not resemble other items with this same name, but certainly qualified as one of them. Because they all qualify as "pool tables"

When he realized that the item was present at the house, he removed it right away. Paul discovered the table while he was draining the pool and disposed of it


Great job by all!
CoffeeBean
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: [CoffeeBean] The Trouble With Updated Building Codes (A-

Postby irishelk » Tue Aug 04, 2020 3:52 pm

Ahh, nice one!

I would have wanted to be there when the decision was made to put a dining table in a pool. Maybe watching from a safe distance.
User avatar
irishelk
 
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am
Location: Washington DC-ish


Return to Active Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest