Once upon a time, GoodReads was great at tracking down reviews from individuals(typically other authors) that provided very high quality reviews. Finding one of these high quality reviews was always nice when investigating a new book. They made engaging with GoodReads worth it.
With all of the low quality reviews out there these days, even the idea of finding a quality review can’t get me back on the site.
I'm in the same boat right now. Not sure if it's organic demand, or if the Bots were set free to start registering domains now that the early access fee is gone.
Having done a lot of research into this for a project in the US, the issue is not that they aren’t available but that each county distributed their GIS data in a different format. Some have online portals with the GIs data, some have only paper records, and some counties are missing information all together. There are companies here that work to consolidate that information but it hey charge exorbitant fees to access the data.
This is generally seen as the main flaw with the games core design. Most other currently successful trading card game (mainly Hearthstone) with mana resources have gone the route of providing a consistent source of resources per turn. This approach does significantly reduce the variance match to match and leads to a lot less of the "feel bad" moments of getting flooded or screwed.
That being said I personally find the variance that Magic has when it comes to mana resources to be more interesting than the alternatives as most of the newer card games have abandoned the idea of having mana resources(lands) in your deck all together. I think the lands are one of the main things that makes Magic an interesting card game.
One interesting alternative to lands was from the World of Warcraft Card game (spiritual successor to Hearthstone) which allowed you to play any card from your hand face down as a mana resource. Although they completely did away with this in Hearthstone so they could limit the deck size and the reduce the number of duplicate cards that were needed in each deck.
Actually that quote is in the article for the opposite reason. He is referencing that because historically Fibonochi hashing was coupled with a hashing function and that is why it’s overlooked as a mapping function. His article is specifically advocating using the Fibonacci method only for mapping.
He is writing from the context of writing a hash table library where the user is expected to provide their own hashing function.
When someone else pointed out that you need another hash function on the front:
Author: "Why [would] Fibonacci hashing not work as a hash function alone? It should, unless you have a use case that results in lots of Fibonacci numbers being inserted. You can use the identity function as the hash when you use Fibonacci hashing to assign a hash to an index."
With all of the low quality reviews out there these days, even the idea of finding a quality review can’t get me back on the site.