Thanks! Design decisions in terms of backend architecture or the code or frontend design? One big one would be to offload many of the functions from the server to the client. I think validating game validity would still be possible but allow optimistically performing actions without latency
“What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.” - Herbert Simon
111TWh is well beyond a typical hydroelectric dam output (most are an order of magnitude lower storage and generation). As an example, the very sizable Australian Snowy Hydro 2.0 upon completion is estimated to have storage for 350GWh (the Australian national energy market is ~190TWh). The original Snowy Hydro (9 stations) has annual energy production of ~5GWh.
There are two out-of-field books that I always recommend to policy analysts, economists, and regulatory drafters: The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman, and Algorithms To Live By by Brian Christian and Thomas Griffiths. Both are high signal-to-noise primers on topics that are relevant in decision making and policy, but are rarely covered in an economics or public policy curriculum.
Equally "The Art of Doing Science and Engineering" by Hamming is one of the best books around on the philosophy of problem solving, and an excellent primer on core concepts in signals processing, information theory, and computing.
You might be interested in this 1 page paper by John Nash, which proves the existence of equilibria for finite N-player games (an extremely powerful result). In essence it uses a set theory result (Kakutani's fixed point theorem), and simply notes that his description of a N-player game meets the required conditions for that result to hold. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/chwe/austen/nash1...
Braess Paradox is one of the nicest results in network science and traffic engineering. It's possible to find examples of its application in any situation that can be modelled as a network, from graph neural network architecture (removing connections and inducing sparsity can lead to better generalisation and efficiency under conditions); economics (introducing new trade connections can reduce wellbeing and efficiency under conditions); organisational theory (introducing firewalls between teams can reduce the prevalence of groupthink); and many more.
There's an analogous concept to Nash equilibria in transport engineering known as Wardrop's First Principle. In essence, at equilibrium no user has an incentive to change their behaviour by choosing an alternative route. A 'central routing algorithm' that optimises over the system is in essence Wardrop's Second Principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glen_Wardrop
As a related Adelaide fact - the center of town is ringed by a "moat" of parklands, each ostensibly the width of a cannonball and designed as a defensive structure (an invading force would need to run through a cannon's worth of artillary). On a map the green square is extremely distinctive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_Park_Lands#/media/Fil...
Not the width of cannonball, but perhaps made wide enough such that you could not fire a cannonball from a cannon at the city without having to move across open land.
I'm not sure if that's an urban legend though. I can't find any references to that line of reasoning in historic recounts of Colonel Light's initial plans for Adelaide.
It's just not true. A myth that doesn't make any sense if you consider it. If you think artillery/cannon's couldn't shoot a mile, I'll sell you the Torrens Footbridge.
That website made me feel sad; seems they’re embattled, and really have a fight on their hands to stop the parkland turning into suburban parking and retail
They have got something worth protecting though. It’s A really liveable city and the parks are a part of that. Adelaide city centre is plenty big enough for retail, business and entertainment already and it’s still a walkable size rather than too sprawling. The parkland nearby the city centre gives a really nice vibe to the city and it suits it. As you’re flying into Adelaide in there’s a strong sense of flying into somewhere rural - it’s more than the article’s point about the lights scattered through residential areas. The geography is quite flat, the buildings very low but mostly it’s the vast openness beyond Adelaide.
If it's anything like the London greenbelt then it's counterproductive. It just pushes the urban sprawl to the far side, and meanwhile housing gets ever more expensive while a bunch of prime land is tied up in barely-used golf courses and parks.
I've moved to Tokyo which takes the opposite approach - indefinite sprawl, barely regulated at first - and the result is actually a city that's much more pleasant and walkable. Small parks mixed among the housing, where they can actually be used, are much better than a big ring of parkland that only the rich can even take the time to visit.
London still has large amounts of "brownfield" low-value industrial land as well as low-quality, low-density suburban housing that is often close to existing, under-used infrastructure. We are much better off making better use of that existing land to build walkable/cycle-able neighbourhoods that are well served by public transport.
Expanding into the greenbelt is just lazy development that would increase London's existing problems (car traffic, air quality, sprawl).
... and there are plenty of small neighbourhood parks in London! I can't imagine that you're ever more than 5-10 minutes walk from one.
> London still has large amounts of "brownfield" low-value industrial land as well as low-quality, low-density suburban housing that is often close to existing, under-used infrastructure. We are much better off making better use of that existing land to build walkable/cycle-able neighbourhoods that are well served by public transport.
It's not either/or. At the level of housing demand that London has, we need to build everywhere.
> Expanding into the greenbelt is just lazy development that would increase London's existing problems (car traffic, air quality, sprawl).
There's no reason building in the greenbelt would be worse for car traffic or air quality - indeed there are quite a few places where there's already a railway or underground station, but no houses get built because it's greenbelt.
> ... and there are plenty of small neighbourhood parks in London! I can't imagine that you're ever more than 5-10 minutes walk from one.
Clearly you've never been to Tottenham. (There was a "green" on paper, but it's just a square of grass next to a main road. The marshes are lovely if you can get out to them, but they weren't somewhere you could stop off on the way home from work).
Housing is more expensive because more people want to live there then the supply provides for.
There's a simple solution. It's not sprawling suburbia, it's to build London at an appropriate density for a global city.
Westminster (with plenty of green space including Hyde and Regents Parks) has a population of 123 per hectare.
If London matched that throughout its area there would be room to double London's population with another 10 million people. If Inner London alone was increased to Manhattan density, that alone would house 5 million more people.
It’s a radically different scenario. Imagine a square that had one corner in St Pauls and the diagonally opposite corner in Blackfriars in London. Now imagine that surrounded with a parkland belt about the width of the thames at Blackfriars.
It’s not a perfect square belt, in the north it’s quite a bit thicker but there’s the Zoo and University campus etc.
It’s really pleasant and the most expensive real estate lies outside the borders of the parklands.
I spent a lot of time having lunch by the banks of the Torrens, and rowing 4s and 8s on the river. Would be sad to see the banks overrun by buildings (ala hawaii beaches), public access or not.
As an aside it's worth noting that RSA itself is partially-homomorphic (ciphertext multiplications are preserved in the decrypted plaintext).
The idea of 'homomorphic encryption' was even introduced by another Rivest and Adleman paper, almost immediately after the famous 1977 RSA algorithm ("On Data Banks and Privacy Homomorphisms" by Rivest, Adleman, and Dertouzos 1978).
