3 ms·
This reminds me of an old game theory exercise I worked that showed how adding a new "shortcut" road to a simple road map slowed traffic down for everyone, and
by tunesmith 9y ago
This reminds me of an old game theory exercise I worked that showed how adding a new "shortcut" road to a simple road map slowed traffic down for everyone, and removing it sped everything up.
Thinking about it, I remember a bit more. Imagine two parallel roads, each with two segments. Both are southbound going from index 0 to index 1. A0-A1 is fast, A1-A2 is slow. B0-B1 is slow, B1-B2 is fast.
Introduce a bridge (two-way I believe) going between A1 and B1. There were certain parameter assumptions (traffic levels) that meant it hurt more than it helped.
- damnfine 9y agoSo what are the conditions where it hurts more? You set up the problem and then left us hanging...
- tunesmith 9y agoPart of the traffic is a function of the fraction of people taking the road, so I can't describe it without using diagrams. However, I remember that it's called Braess' Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox And actually, the example I remember is stated in the mathematical example on that page if you scroll down. Applied to Musk, the answer isn't necessarily to go back to communicating through managers, but probably just to be more deliberate about designing traffic (communication) patterns when you see gluts happening.