Improved Gameplay for Codenames

I really like the board game Codenames. Especially good for 6-10 players. But as is usually the case, I have ideas for improving the rules.

There aren't enough lead changes. It usually comes down to whichever team misses one opportunity loses. Here is how I would like it to work:

• A 6x6 grid instead of 5x5. Increases the intensity, and the opportunity for multi-matches.
• (2) Spy cards. In playing ~30 games, I have never seen the Spy decide the game. That is mostly good, but I would like to make it a bit edgier. 

• No 1-card clues--2-card minimum. Makes it much more challenging, especially with the above adaptation. (One mitigating strategy, if desperate, would be to include a neutral card in the clue.)

(Obviously, the pre-filled 5x5 maps the game comes with won't work. But it would not be hard to create your own 6x6 grids in Excel and print them out.)

Anti-Pattern: Part 1 of Series Does not Part 2

Often when using the web for technical research, I will come on Part 1 in a series of articles. If Part 1 is useful, the next thing I typically want to do is read Part 2. Wouldn't a link be helpful, to let me click on through to Part 2??

I understand there is a design--challenge: often Part 2 doesn't exist when Part 1 is create. The obvious solution: when creating Part 2, take the extra time to go back edit Part 1 to add the link. The even better solution (not always possible) is to have a structure so that you know in advance where Part 2 will be posted. In that case, the editor can add a note "When available, Part 2 will be posted here".

(The article that pushed me over the edge, providing the impetus for this post, was this otherwise excellent article at O'Reilly, who really out to know better.

The NORAD-Santa Thing Sounds Like an Urban Legend

I've known of the Norad Tracks Santa thing for decades, probably before I ever heard the term urban legend. But if I were hearing of it today for the first time, I am pretty sure I would conclude "must be a UL". So, mark that down in my UL-detection record as a (fairly rare) false positive.

Of course, even true stories that become legends morph. Per Wikipedia:

Over the following years, the legend of how the annual event originated began to change. By 1961, Shoup's version of the story was that he had not been gruff with the child, but instead had identified himself as Santa Claus when he spoke to the child on the phone. Shoup and his family later modified the story further, adding that the child had dialed the "red telephone"—an impossibility, because the hotline was connected with the Strategic Air Command by an enclosed cable, and no one could dial into from the outside—rather than the regular phone on Shoup's desk, that it was a misprint in an advertisement that led the child to call him rather than the child misdialing the number, and that a flood of calls had come in from children on Christmas Eve 1955 rather than from just one child on November 30.

What if Everyone Had the Risk Tolerance to Invest in Equities?

I invest 100% in equities. I have no plans to change this, even in retirement (still years away). Both theory and empirical evidence indicates that, over a reasonably long time horizon, equities provide a much better rate of return than bonds or, heaven forbid, CDs. So my question is, what would happen to the economy if all savers had a risk tolerance for equities? Set aside the transition effects, obviously it would be disruptive if it happened overnight. But assume over the course of a generation, everyone wises up and develops the risk tolerance for equities. What would happen?

1. Would return on equities go down, since more capital is available?
2. Would economies become more productive, since middlemen are being cut out, and risk capital is available?
3. Something else entirely?