2:16 AM
-1

This question is strongly related to this one: Rearranging the square You are given a square piece of paper. You can cut it into pieces and rearrange them to form new shapes. You are allowed to rotate and flip pieces, provided that they are all used. Can you cut the square into pieces such that t...

1 hour later…
3:31 AM
@Jafe if i may clarify, what does "for" do in the clue? :0

4:09 AM
connecting word
it's "[def] for [wp]"

ahh thx
ooh, two days ago this chat turned seven years old, very epic

4:32 AM
CCCC: Topographic feature that's taken by erosion, perhaps (5)

9 hours later…
2:00 PM
0

Hello! This is my first question here :) So, I was taking a test online on Raven's Progressive Matrices and came across this problem that I just couldn't solve. I've tried overlapping the first two images in the row and then removing the overlapping lines. This applied for the first row only, no...

3 hours later…
4:50 PM
0

My whole is a path to finding a solution, Yet part of me leads to my own recognition. Herring has forever been one of my top tools, I've always loved using it, especially against fools. What can one do when they have one of me, But struggle until they fail or succeed? What am I? (This is a 1-wor...

1 hour later…
6:03 PM
2

This puzzle is based on the "connecting wall" from the British tv show "Only Connect". The goal is to group the 16 words into 4 groups of 4 words that all share a property. Here are the words: MIX LASER RACECAR EMPTY SONAR SCUBA NOON VIM MOSSY KAYAK LIVID BOOST CIVIL ROTATOR CAP...

@Sphinx two extremely obvious groups and then I'm stuck. Oh well

6:42 PM
gs

3 hours later…
9:58 PM
'parently people don't want to deal with moderation stuff on the weekend :) I still have three requests above, but this is the last time I'll mention them.

10:53 PM
@bobble It's from 2015. It already has an accepted answer. What exactly would be gained by closing it?
@bobble Seems to me that the puzzle is "find a way to do it", which I'm pretty sure (though I never actually attempted it) is quite non-trivial. I don't think the fact that the poster -- before there was any sort of policy against optimization-type questions with possibly-unknowable best answers -- also asked for as long an advance period as possible is grounds for closing the question.
(Also, there surely is in fact a maximum achievable lead-time, and surely someone sufficiently clever could prove that it's maximal. Maybe that's too difficult for human minds -- again, I haven't tried it so I don't have much feeling for how likely that is -- but I really don't see what the problem is here.
)
As a more general point, I don't see much value in digging up old questions from years ago that are now (arguably) marginally off-topic and trying to close them. What's the point? How does it improve anyone's experience on PSE?
(I am less sympathetic to this project than at least one other moderator because I personally think the anti-open-ended-questions policy as it now stands is needlessly strict. But I lost that vote and am not going to try to change it :-).)

@GarethMcCaughan that was the point of my question, asking if the open-ended tag actually applied there
@GarethMcCaughan I can't deal with this argument today. Going to leave SE 'til at least tomorrow.

OK. (If I'm meant to infer that something I said was unreasonable, offensive, needlessly aggressive, or something, then (1) sorry, (2) that wasn't my intention, and (3) if you'd like to explain what then I promise to listen but of course you are under no obligation to do so.)

11:22 PM
@bobble ah, I see. I think I agree: it isn't [open-ended]. I replaced that tag with [optimization] (though slightly uncertainly, because I think the optimization isn't really the main point of the puzzle).