Puzzles and brain teasers have long been a delightful pastime, especially for those of us who love a good challenge. One of the classic puzzles involves spotting the one thing that’s out of place in a seemingly orderly setup. Here we have a grid of numbers ranging from 1 to 100, but there’s a catch. One number is mysteriously absent. Can your keen eyes detect which number is missing?
The Challenge Awaits
At first look, this number sequence seems perfectly normal, beginning at 1 and proceeding up to 100. Everything appears in order, but as you scan the list, you might notice something amiss — a number has vanished!
This task requires more than just a quick glance. It’s about meticulously examining each detail to uncover the missing piece. It’s a test of your attention span and how well you can notice slight discrepancies in everyday patterns.
How to Spot the Missing Number
To ease into the challenge, here’s a little technique: mentally follow the sequence column by column or row by row. Take your time, there’s no rush!
Have You Figured Out the Answer?
Warning: we’re about to reveal the solution. If you’re still pondering over it, take another look before reading any further.
So, did the missing number jump out at you? The elusive number is 66. Between 65 and 67, it simply slipped away, inviting you to notice the sudden gap!
What Your Findings Say About You
This brain teaser is more than a game; it’s a reflection of your problem-solving skills and how attentive you are to details. If you spotted the absence of 66 quickly, chances are you have a knack for recognizing patterns. This puzzle also highlights just how easily our brains can overlook tiny flaws, especially when they lie within an established sequence.
Through this simple exercise, we’re reminded that sometimes our minds can be deceptive, and it’s the smallest elements that make the largest impact. Were you able to spot the missing number immediately, or did it require some dedicated searching? We’d love to hear about your experience!
Heavily-Tattooed Woman Says It’s “Not Fair” That She Can’t Get A Job
Following a woman’s accusation that TJ Maxx was discriminating against her due to her appearance, a subsequent instance involving a job rejection at the store has generated controversy. 23-year-old Ash Putnam, who goes by @ashxobrien on TikTok, talked about how she was turned down for a part-time job at the store because of her body piercings and tattoos.
Putnam claims that after applying for the job, she got an email a few weeks later rejecting her application. Disappointed by the information, she vented her annoyance on TikTok and sparked a discussion on discrimination in employment.
Putnam’s initial grievance was with the impersonality of getting an email rejection instead of a call. Even though this is standard procedure for big businesses, she thought it was disrespectful considering how hard she worked to apply for the position.
When Putnam went to her neighborhood TJ Maxx to personally find out why she was rejected, a staff member informed her that she didn’t have enough experience for the role. Despite the employee’s insistence to the contrary, she suspected that her tattoos had a big influence on the choice.
Putnam stressed that, despite her unhappiness, she wasn’t necessarily in need of the work and was just looking for extra money to help her pay off debt faster. She thought it was unjust, though, that her tattoos appeared to be a deciding factor in her employability.
Putnam has obvious tattoos of images associated with Satanism, including a Leviathan Cross and a goat that symbolizes the god Baphomet. Thousands of TikTok users commented on her post, implying that her tattoos probably affected the decision, even though it’s unclear whether hiring supervisors noticed them when she applied.
Visible tattoos, according to some reviewers, may be viewed as unprofessional, particularly in jobs where employees interact with customers like those at TJ Maxx. Others brought out the difficulty of finding a job for young folks without any prior work experience if employers value experience over potential.
The event brought up more general concerns about how society views physical alterations and employment procedures. Putnam questioned why having a tattoo should prevent someone from getting a job, given that many tattoo bearers are quite skilled workers.
Putnam’s tattoos may not have had a direct impact on her rejection, but the event brings attention to the ongoing discussion over appearance-based discrimination in the workplace. It’s critical to think about how hiring procedures may be more inclusive and equal for all candidates, regardless of appearance, as the conversation continues.
Leave a Reply