[GalFisk] Ashes to ashes

[GalFisk]

Less mysticism. More dust.

[WiZ]

Is this describing an event or trend that happened? Is there a direct correlation between the lower level of mysticism and the increase in dust? Did two separate events or phenomena happen that ended up influencing each other?

Does the 'less mysticism' reflect a change in societal attitudes? A change in the approach of religious professionals or teachers? A changed understanding of a process or concept or the increasing influence of science?

Is the type of dust relevant? Is it naturally occuring? Was the dust previously used for some ritual or other purpose, perhaps pertaining to mysticism? Is the dust in any way manufactured? Is it edible?

[Earnest]

Are we talking about an object? An event? A status quo? Culture relevant? Religion? Is the statement about a book? A youtube video?

Dust due to age? To passing of time? To a collapse? Explosions? Wars? Something dirty? Metaphorical dust? Sawdust (e.g. a tree cut)? Cutting waste? Powder burns? More dust on an object/objects? Dust due to negligence? Is "more dust" added artificially? Does less mysticism translate into: less idols? Less statues? Less prayers? More knowledge/awareness about a phenomenon? Less costunes? More dust (i.e. the more dust is a consequence of less mysticism)?

Are we talking about ancient times? Recent past? Modern times? Industrial revolution? Are chimbeys relevant? Smoke? Trains? Coal?

[GalFisk]

Is this describing an event or trend that happened? Yes, I'd call it a trend. Is there a direct correlation between the lower level of mysticism and the increase in dust? Yes. Did two separate events or phenomena happen that ended up influencing each other? No.

Does the 'less mysticism' reflect a change in societal attitudes? A change in the approach of religious professionals or teachers? A changed understanding of a process or concept or the increasing influence of science? No to all.

Is the type of dust relevant? Yes. Is it naturally occuring? No. Was the dust previously used for some ritual or other purpose, perhaps pertaining to mysticism? No. Is the dust in any way manufactured? Yesish.Is it edible? No.


Are we talking about an object? Yes. An event? Yope. A status quo? Not at all. Culture relevant? Noish. Religion? Niosh.Is the statement about a book? A youtube video? No to both.

Dust due to age? To passing of time? To a collapse? Explosions? Wars? Something dirty? Metaphorical dust? Sawdust (e.g. a tree cut)? Cutting waste? Powder burns? No to all. More dust on an object/objects? Potentially, but not importantly.Dust due to negligence? Is "more dust" added artificially? Yes. Does less mysticism translate into: less idols? Less statues? Less prayers? More knowledge/awareness about a phenomenon? Less costunes? More dust (i.e. the more dust is a consequence of less mysticism)? No to all.

Are we talking about ancient times? Recent past? Modern times? This. Industrial revolution? Are chimbeys relevant? Smoke? Trains? Coal? No to all.

[Earnest]

Is "more dust" added artificially? Yes. --> artificially = through technology? With hands? someone added more dust? Can we assume a single person? More people? All in one time? Pictures/drawings relevant?

Relevant where the ash was added? On someone On a river? On water? On the forehead of someone? Was it a colored ash? Was ash put inside something? Does it feed something? Are fires relevant at all? E.g. what is happening in Australia? Are Vulcan eruptions relevant?

Does the ash hide something relevant? Someone relevant?

Is mysticism in the puzzle statement related and affine mostly to: mysterious; occult; orphic; religious; secret? believe to something which is not true? Is ash used in a process? Has ash been added in years? In a second? In days? In. months? Hours?

[GalFisk]

Is "more dust" added artificially? Yes. --> artificially = through technology? Yes. With hands? No. someone added more dust? Yes. Can we assume a single person? More people? This. All in one time? No. Pictures/drawings relevant? No.

Relevant where the ash was added? On someone On a river? On water? On the forehead of someone? Was it a colored ash? Was ash put inside something? Does it feed something? FA to all. Are fires relevant at all? E.g. what is happening in Australia? Are Vulcan eruptions relevant? No to all.

Does the ash hide something relevant? Someone relevant? Same FA.

Is mysticism in the puzzle statement related and affine mostly to: mysterious; occult; This. orphic; religious; secret? believe to something which is not true? Yes. Is ash used in a process? Has ash been added in years? In a second? In days? In. months? Hours? Same FA.

[Earnest]

dust = acronym? slang? free microscopic particles of solid material? particles in the air?

Is there reverse causality? I mean: less mysticism implies more dust and more dust implies less mysticism? Just the first implication (less mysticism --> more dust)? Would less dust lead to more mysticism? Would more mysticism lead to less dust necessarily? To be sure: are we talking about tons of dust (I mean in total)? Grams? Was dust already artificially produced? Is dust added on a mass scale? is dust added in corners of houses? on shelves? Inside buildings? In Earth? On another planet? (e.g. space missions or shuttles producing dust when landing on a planet)
Dust like the one produced by pinning pencils? Glitter powder? Stardust? "normal dust" as the one found on shelves or on books? Is landing safely relevant (e.g. more dust soften the fall)? Is such dust tangible by the people having added it? As soon as it is added? Is the more the use of a technology the more the dust? Directly? Indirectly?
Is the material of the dust relevant? Is the dust made of a metal? of waste? bacteria? plant pollen, human and animal hairs, textile fibers, paper fibers, minerals from outdoor soil, human skin cells, burnt meteorite particles? Something that can be found in the local environment? Fine dust/ particulate matters relevant? Dust as more granularity?

More people? This --> anyone? Anyone having a certain technology? A certain device? Anyone belonging to a minority? To a certain group? people believing in something which is not true?

artificially = through technology? Yes --> is dust a row material in this case? A production waste? A final product? "added through technology" = technology "produces" the dust? technology attracts more dust? technology
Technology = devices? Means of transport? Electronic? Internet? screens? health related? An appliance? Vacuum cleaner relevant?

FA to all --> ups maybe I said ash instead of dust. Is this the FA? If so may I repeat the same questions as above but with "dust" instead of "ash", please? was the dust "added"? was it added somewhere? does it gather somewhere relevantly? Is dust here considered as a waste? Something to be cleaned?

occult; This. --> is the truth occulted/hidden by someone (e.g. Govern? Private industries? Firms? Lobbies?)? Like a receipt not revealed? Health consequences in using certain technology?

believe to something which is not true? Yes --> something related to science? A phenomenon? Aliens? Something which was believed to be supernatural? Did someone believe in something which was not true? The majority of humans? Relevant the reason why it was believed so? Was the belief supported by science? By rational suppositions? By faith?
Was it believed something about the dust? E.g. that since the technology added more dust it was detrimental for the health? For the environment? Or maybe it was inexplicable from where the dust came?


WAG --> is it referred to data and privacy? E.g. less mysticism about data sharing implies more dust in the sense of more granularity of the data given? Or viceversa: awareness on data importance and lack of privacy lead to more dust in the sense of more censoring on data?

[GalFisk]

dust = acronym? slang? No to both. free microscopic particles of solid material? Yes. particles in the air? They can be airborne.

Is there reverse causality? I mean: less mysticism implies more dust and more dust implies less mysticism? There was both more mysticism and less dust in the situation before the change. Just the first implication (less mysticism --> more dust)? Would less dust lead to more mysticism? Would more mysticism lead to less dust necessarily? They don't lead to eachother - correlation is not causation. To be sure: are we talking about tons of dust (I mean in total)? In the world, yes. Grams? In the puzzle location, this. Was dust already artificially produced? Yes. Is dust added on a mass scale? What do you mean? Dust is added on a massive scale, but dust is not weighed on a scale. is dust added in corners of houses? on shelves? Inside buildings? No to all. In Earth? On Earth. On another planet? (e.g. space missions or shuttles producing dust when landing on a planet) No.
Dust like the one produced by pinning pencils? Glitter powder? Stardust? "normal dust" as the one found on shelves or on books? Is landing safely relevant (e.g. more dust soften the fall)? No to all. Is such dust tangible by the people having added it? It exists, but they don't often notice it. As soon as it is added? Normally not. Is the more the use of a technology the more the dust? Yes. Directly? Indirectly? Hard to say.
Is the material of the dust relevant? Yes. Is the dust made of a metal? Partially. of waste? bacteria? plant pollen, human and animal hairs, textile fibers, paper fibers, minerals from outdoor soil, human skin cells, burnt meteorite particles? No to the rest. Something that can be found in the local environment? No. Fine dust/ particulate matters relevant? Yes. Dust as more granularity? No.

More people? This --> anyone? No. Anyone having a certain technology? A certain device? Yes to both. Anyone belonging to a minority? No. To a certain group? They're sometimes grouped. people believing in something which is not true? The beliefs of the people adding the dust are irrelevant. The people believing in the mysticism believe in something that is not true.

artificially = through technology? Yes --> is dust a row material in this case? A production waste? A final product? No to all. "added through technology" = technology "produces" the dust? This. technology attracts more dust? technology
Technology = devices? Means of transport? This. Electronic? Internet? screens? health related? An appliance? Vacuum cleaner relevant? No.

FA to all --> ups maybe I said ash instead of dust. Is this the FA? Yes. If so may I repeat the same questions as above but with "dust" instead of "ash", please? Yes.

Relevant where the dust was added? Yes, broadly. On someone? On a river? On water? On the forehead of someone? No to all. Was it a colored dust? Was dust put inside something? Does it feed something? No to all.

Does the ash hide something relevant? Someone relevant? No to both.

Is dust used in a process? No, but it's caused by one. Has dust been added in years? In a second? In days? In. months? Hours? Each addition happens in seconds, bu combined, they happen in years.

was the dust "added"? DOYD of "added". It was deposited. was it added somewhere? Yes. does it gather somewhere relevantly? It's deposited in relevant places. Is dust here considered as a waste? Yes. Something to be cleaned? Sometimes.

occult; This. --> is the truth occulted/hidden by someone (e.g. Govern? Private industries? Firms? Lobbies?)? Like a receipt not revealed? Health consequences in using certain technology? No to all.

believe to something which is not true? Yes --> something related to science? A phenomenon? This. Aliens? Something which was believed to be supernatural? Yes. Did someone believe in something which was not true? Yes. The majority of humans? No. Relevant the reason why it was believed so? Yes. Was the belief supported by science? No. By rational suppositions? No. By faith? Yope - not by any religion AFAIK, but by a belief system.
Was it believed something about the dust? No. E.g. that since the technology added more dust it was detrimental for the health? For the environment? No to both. Or maybe it was inexplicable from where the dust came? No.


WAG --> is it referred to data and privacy? E.g. less mysticism about data sharing implies more dust in the sense of more granularity of the data given? Or viceversa: awareness on data importance and lack of privacy lead to more dust in the sense of more censoring on data? Nice guess, but no.

[Earnest]

car emissions relevant? Electricity? ozone hole?
means of transport: airplane? boats? trains? cars? undergrounds? others?

A phenomenon? This --> death of people? An environmental phenomenon? a phenomenon that could be explained thanks to the relevant mean of transport? A phenomenon which is normally seen every day? A natural phenomenon? related to gravity? earth rotation? flying? usage of a certain technology? usage of a certain mean of transportation?

Something which was believed to be supernatural? Yes. --> related to changing in temperatures? In changing of weather conditions? To noises? related to quick transportation of people? to effect of such mean of transport on people? was "It" believed to be supernatural before the mean of transport was introduced/revealed (e.g. the end of the world? The belief that certain heights could not be reached by humans? That someone was a God?)? Could the mean of transport relevantly half the times of transportation? dispel a myth? transport many people at the same time? Wars relevant? Can it make relevantly long journeys? traveling day and night? Are Safari relevant?

Flat earth society relevant?

[GalFisk]

car emissions relevant? It's sometimes counted as emmissions, but engine exhaust is not relevant. Electricity? Yes. ozone hole? No.
means of transport: airplane? boats? trains? cars? This. undergrounds? others?

A phenomenon? This --> death of people? An environmental phenomenon? a phenomenon that could be explained thanks to the relevant mean of transport? A phenomenon which is normally seen every day? A natural phenomenon? related to gravity? earth rotation? flying? No to all. usage of a certain technology? Yope. usage of a certain mean of transportation? No.

Something which was believed to be supernatural? Yes. --> related to changing in temperatures? In changing of weather conditions? To noises? related to quick transportation of people? to effect of such mean of transport on people? No to all. was "It" believed to be supernatural before the mean of transport was introduced/revealed (e.g. the end of the world? The belief that certain heights could not be reached by humans? That someone was a God?)?No to all, but the basics of the belief are old, but the specifics related to the puzzle came after the automobile, but that's semi-coincidental. Could the mean of transport relevantly half the times of transportation? dispel a myth? transport many people at the same time? Wars relevant? Can it make relevantly long journeys? traveling day and night? Are Safari relevant? No or irr to all (cars can do some of these things, but it's not relevant).

Flat earth society relevant? No.

[Hobbsicle]

Is there an actual physical change between the mysticism and the dust? If so, a change in technology? In manufacturing process? Or is the change mental? Like, at first they thought it was mysticism, then they realized it was dust?

Is the mysticism related to ghosts? Perhaps more specifically, poltergeists? Is an electrical phenomenon relevant? If so, related to lights? Indicators? Sounds? The radio? AC? Starter? Alternator? Is metallic dust closing a circuit?

[Earnest]

So electric cars relevant? Watts? Engines? Tesla cars?

Mysticism = about cars? About car's emissions? About new technologies concerning cars? About the dust? About gps/localization? Cars driving their own without pilot? Cars connecting on the internet? About the possibility of going with cars somewhere (e.g. on water)? someone thinking that car producers take advantage of people somehow? Believe in something that was not true and was revealed to be false with the advent of cars? With the advent of electric cars? With the advent of a certain technology? Was the false thought of people about: oil? Fuel? Something happening while the car was moving? The noise made by cars? Dust obscuring the sun? Eclipses relevant?


Anyone having a certain technology? A certain device? Yes to both. --> PC? Phone? A car related device? Something they had inside their cars? If so, were their cars old models relevantly? Something measuring something else (e.g. car emissions?)? Something starting and stopping the car? Something signaling something about the car (e.g. fuel level? Electricity spared? Fuel spared? Velocity? Others?)

[GalFisk]

Hobbsicle:

Is there an actual physical change between the mysticism and the dust? If so, a change in technology? Yes to both. In manufacturing process? Or is the change mental? Like, at first they thought it was mysticism, then they realized it was dust? No to the rest.

Is the mysticism related to ghosts? No. Perhaps more specifically, poltergeists? No, but somewhat OTRT. Is an electrical phenomenon relevant? If so, related to lights? Yes to both.Indicators? Sounds? The radio? AC? Starter? Alternator? Is metallic dust closing a circuit? No to all.


Earnest

So electric cars relevant? Watts? Engines? Tesla cars? No to all (niosh to Watts).

Mysticism = about cars? About car's emissions? About new technologies concerning cars? About the dust? About gps/localization? Cars driving their own without pilot? Cars connecting on the internet? About the possibility of going with cars somewhere (e.g. on water)? someone thinking that car producers take advantage of people somehow? Believe in something that was not true and was revealed to be false with the advent of cars? With the advent of electric cars? With the advent of a certain technology? Was the false thought of people about: oil? Fuel? Something happening while the car was moving? The noise made by cars? Dust obscuring the sun? Eclipses relevant? No to all.


Anyone having a certain technology? A certain device? Yes to both. --> PC? Phone? A car related device? Something they had inside their cars? If so, were their cars old models relevantly? Something measuring something else (e.g. car emissions?)? Something starting and stopping the car? Something signaling something about the car (e.g. fuel level? Electricity spared? Fuel spared? Velocity? Others?) Anyone having a car.

[Earnest]

Flashing lights? Led? Cars driven when there is no sunlight? Batteries relevant? Dynamo?

[GalFisk]

Flashing lights? Yope, explore. Led? This is relevant. Cars driven when there is no sunlight? Yes. Batteries relevant? Dynamo? No to both.

[Hobbsicle]

Is this related to headlights? Taillights? Interior lights? (deja vu...your list was more thorough, though) Are they flickering? Under certain conditions? Or just generally? Is it an unintentional problem related to the manufacturing of the bulb or wiring?

Is the belief related to: aliens? Spirits? Psychic energy or somesuch?

[GalFisk]

Is this related to headlights? Headlights are relevant, but another light is more relevant, and has undergone the relevant change. Taillights? Interior lights? (deja vu...your list was more thorough, though) No to all. Are they flickering? Not flickering, but... Under certain conditions? Yes. Or just generally? No. Is it an unintentional problem related to the manufacturing of the bulb or wiring? It's unavoidable, but not intentional as such.

Is the belief related to: aliens? Spirits? Psychic energy or somesuch? This.

[Hobbsicle]

Turn signals?

Are the lights coming on relevant? Turning off? Do they do so without the usual required input? I

Do the lights appear to respond to thoughts/intentions? Predict the future?

[GalFisk]

Turn signals? No.

Are the lights coming on relevant? Turning off? Do they do so without the usual required input? Yes to all, before the change.

Do the lights appear to respond to thoughts/intentions? Yes, to believers in such things. Predict the future? No

[Hobbsicle]

Lights on the front? High beams? Low beams? Parking lights? Fog lamps?

So before the change, they would come on and off on their own? Were they supposed to do this? Was it an automatic feature based on some sensor? Amount of light?

After the change, do they come on and off on their own? Only with driver input?

[GalFisk]

Lights on the front? High beams? Low beams? Parking lights? Fog lamps? Low beams are relevant, but the lights that come off and on are not car lights.

So before the change, they would come on and off on their own? Yes, sometimes. Were they supposed to do this? No. Was it an automatic feature based on some sensor? Amount of light? No to both.

After the change, do they come on and off on their own? Yes, but... Only with driver input? No.

[Balin]

Are they streetlights?

[GalFisk]

Are they streetlights? Yes.

[Balin]

Didn't realize this wasn't solved yet... can you provide a quick recap?

[GalFisk]

RECAP: LED streetlights (which don't turn on and off unintentionally like the old types, explore) cause less belief in telekinesis (explore), but more vehicle-caused dust outside (explore). Car headlights are relevant.

[Hobbsicle]

The old types reacted to external light levels? Did they turn off when headlights struck them?

[GalFisk]

The old types reacted to external light levels? Did they turn off when headlights struck them? No to both.

[Hobbsicle]

Do the old street lights turn on as the driver approaches? Turn off? Flicker? To be clear, the dust comes from the cars? From the headlights? Or does the dust come from the street lights?

[GalFisk]

Do the old street lights turn on as the driver approaches? Turn off? Flicker? They might do either, but unrelated to drivers approaching. The superstitios believe otherwise, though. To be clear, the dust comes from the cars? This.From the headlights? Or does the dust come from the street lights?

[Hobbsicle]

Is the relevant change only in the LED streetlights? Or also in something on the automobile? Is it headlights going LED?

[GalFisk]

Is the relevant change only in the LED streetlights? See next. Or also in something on the automobile? Is it headlights going LED? Yes to all.

[Hobbsicle]

Ok, so bulbs moving to LED. Is the "less mysticism" because street lights went LED? And the "more dust" because headlights went LED? Or are they interrelated?

Is the fact that LED bulbs run cooler relevant?

[GalFisk]

Ok, so bulbs moving to LED. Correct.Is the "less mysticism" because street lights went LED? Yes. And the "more dust" because headlights went LED? Both streetlights and headlights, and it'd happen to some degree if it was only the streetlights. Or are they interrelated? Yes. The mysticism is unrelated to car headlights though.

Is the fact that LED bulbs run cooler relevant? No.

[Hobbsicle]

Is the "more dust" for all cars at all times? All cars manufactured a particular way? Only at night? Only while the streetlights and/or headlights are on? Is it actually more dust, or just more dust that is perceived?

Do the superstitious believe that the lights coming on and off are related purely to their thoughts? Or tied to some action they make? Would they be likely to "will" the lights on or off before they perceived it? Or is it simply the fact that they see the lights turn on and off that make them think it was their own mental energy?

[GalFisk]

Is the "more dust" for all cars Yes. at all times? No. All cars manufactured a particular way? Only at night? This and... Only while the streetlights and/or headlights are on? This. Is it actually more dust, Yes. or just more dust that is perceived? So no.

Do the superstitious believe that the lights coming on and off are related purely to their thoughts? Or tied to some action they make? Would they be likely to "will" the lights on or off before they perceived it? Or is it simply the fact that they see the lights turn on and off that make them think it was their own mental energy? Pretty much. A worn sodium or mercury high pressure lamp will turn off when it gets hot, and reignite when cold, in a cycle of a few minutes. Believers in telekinesis thought that a lamp going off or on as they passed by it was caused by them, not by the lamp just doing its thing. I saw this on a forum many years ago, and was reminded of it when a lamp on my way from work started to behave like that.
LED lamps fail by dimming, turning off forever or flickering constantly, which is less likely to reinforce such beliefs.

Half the puzzle is solved, well done. The dust part remains.

[Hobbsicle]

Is the dust likely to be perceived by the driver while in motion? Perceived at some other point? Is it in the cab somewhere? Under the hood (or otherwise under the car)?

So am I understanding that the car would produce this dust even if it had non-LED headlights, as long as the streetlights were LED?

[GalFisk]

Is the dust likely to be perceived by the driver while in motion? Perceived at some other point? No to both. Is it in the cab somewhere? Under the hood (or otherwise under the car)? Otherwise under the car.

So am I understanding that the car would produce this dust even if it had non-LED headlights, as long as the streetlights were LED? Yes (slight FA).

[Hobbsicle]

Is it brake dust? Related to wheels? Axles? Transmission? Exhaust? Does the car only produce this dust while LED lights are on? Or produce more of this dust?

[GalFisk]

Is it brake dust? Yes. Related to wheels? Axles? Transmission? Exhaust? No to the rest.Does the car only produce this dust while LED lights are on? Or produce more of this dust? This.

[Hobbsicle]

Ok, so more brake dust is produced...does that mean they are braking more often? Harder? Does it relate to how well people can see under LED light?

[GalFisk]

Ok, so more brake dust is produced...does that mean they are braking more often? Harder? I'd say both. Does it relate to how well people can see under LED light? Yesish, OTRT.

[Hobbsicle]

LED lights technically flicker most of the time, yes? Relevant? Does it affect how people see movement? Read signs? Double images?

[GalFisk]

LED lights technically flicker most of the time, yes? Some do, the best don't. Relevant? No. Does it affect how people see movement? Yope, explore. Read signs? Double images? No to both.

[Hobbsicle]

Are animals/insects relevant? Are there legitimate reasons for braking? Or is it playing something of a trick on the eyes? Do LED's relevantly fall more in the blue spectrum than incandescent?

[GalFisk]

Are animals/insects relevant? No. Are there legitimate reasons for braking? Yesish. Or is it playing something of a trick on the eyes? Noish, but explore. Do LED's relevantly fall more in the blue spectrum than incandescent? It's relevant that they look different, but blue light specifically isn't important.

[Doriana]

Do people relevantly mistake the LEDs for something else?

[GalFisk]

Do people relevantly mistake the LEDs for something else? No.

[Hobbsicle]

Do the lights cause more glare on the windshields? Are they brighter? Dimmer? If they were riding a motorcycle would it be the same problem?

[GalFisk]

Do the lights cause more glare on the windshields? Are they brighter? Dimmer? No/irr to all. If they were riding a motorcycle would it be the same problem? Yes.

[Doriana]

Could we get a hint here, please?

[GalFisk]

Could we get a hint here, please?
Sure. Earlier, street lights were high presure sodium, now they're LED. Car lights were incandescent, but now they're LED too. Something visual causes more and/or harder braking (which releses more brake dust). How come?

[Doriana]

Do street lights and car lights look more similar to each other now that they're both LED? Relevant?

[GalFisk]

Do street lights and car lights look more similar to each other now that they're both LED? Relevant? Yes, that's it.

***SPOILER***
New LED streetlights won't cycle in a way that can fuel a belief in telekinesis, but they'll also make it more difficult to see if cars with LED headlights are approaching around corners. Seeing them earlier means you're more likely to brake gently or even roll to a stop.
Thanks for playing!

[Hobbsicle]

Ah, that's a good one, didn't think of that. Good solve, Doriana.