If you want a general overview try finding a book called “Fundamentals of Fame Design” by Ernest Adams. It is a sensible intro, after that - just dive into thematic communities and do your own things.
I know nothing about formal game design education sorry.
Also, because the keys "F" and "G" are adjacent in the keyboard layout, I believe you made a typo in the book title where you wrote Fame instead of Game.
What you are referring to is called "white flight" and the causes were more complex than crime or immigration.
The casual link between immigration and crime is generally agreed to be false. So whatever you read that claimed immigration caused crime to go up seems incorrect.
I've been thinking about the natural handicaps certain sports teams have. Things like weather, elevation, travel distance in a season, etc.
I think it's interesting to think about how much something like that might affect the career of an athlete, especially early in their career or someone who is on the margin of getting into professional sports. Would choosing to play at a university that has a lot of natural handicaps be the difference between making it into pro sports? I wonder.
Anyway, I ended up making a page showing how much baseball teams in MLB have to travel this season: https://calcubest.com/sports/mlb2025 which I think does an OK job of highlighting how much less time athletes playing on central division teams have to travel.
A large part of that is that there aren't a lot of astronauts, and those who were selected for a substantial part of the space program had external forces selecting for men.
A big requirement was someone who was an experienced pilot, likely from the military, with a proven track record of unusual planes. Women were explicitly prevented from that on-ramp. It wasn't until the 80s, 20+ years into the program, that the first truly civilian (no military experience) astronaut was selected.
Maybe women are predisposed to qualities that make them less likely to be selected as astronauts? I don't think that's true, but even if it was... the selection size of astronauts to inspect from is simply too small to come to any good conclusion.
Sure, there may well be various structural factors which may explain some or all of the disparity - but it's worth noting that whenever there's an attempt to fix this, we hear endless complaints along the lines of "it's wrong to change selection procedures, there just aren't enough women or minority candidates applying, it's a pipeline problem".
Well, these comic books are an attempt to fix the pipeline problem.
In reality, there are likely multiple factors in play. But if you believe that, after removing "anything specifically targetting women" from their communications, NASA are going to alter downstream selection criteria in order to compensate then I suspect you are going to be disappointed.
You mean like: women are smaller and therefore require less life-support reservoirs? An all-female astronaut corps was investigated in the Mercury days for just that reason.
Oh wait, no, that's the opposite of what you are looking for.
> Social Justice has yet to put a man on the moon.
Here's another way to look at it: For most of history a significant portion -- probably the vast majority -- of the human population has been relegated to economically low-level labor for numerous reasons. Unfortunately, this has disproportionately affected specific groups of people, often through some form of social oppression, and has continued even as social norms have changed and global productivity and wealth have exploded.
One upshot is that this has kept those people from contributing to global economic and scientific progress unless they could break out of the social strata they were born into. Hence, beyond fairness, "social justice" is also a way to increase the pool of people who can contribute.
I have a couple friends who were big outdoor types who became software engineers and then after making some money for a few years went and found more outdoorsy jobs (think forest service jobs).
The point is not that an outdoorsy job is great for you, but that you may want to consider what kind of things make you happy and see if you can find a job doing something like that. These folks loved being outdoors before become engineers and were happy to go back to being outdoors for work.
This is great advice for job satisfaction, but given current events this sort of move is unlikely to result in an increase in job security or ease in finding a new job.
You're not the only one. I recently took up running and didn't particularly like any of the existing running pace calculators, so I made my own: https://calcubest.com/health/runningpace
And then kinda realized that there were others I wanted to have, and a few I thought others might want, so I added more.
A calculator is simple enough that it's fun to work on one when I need a break from something more complex but want to be able to do something other than doom scrolling. So now every couple of weeks I add another one.
I can second this. That's the program I started with. I'm now training for a half marathon using https://www.baa.org/races/baa-half-marathon/train/leveltwo and I've shaved like a minute off my mile pace while increasing my milage from 6 mile runs to 12 mile runs.
There's lots of programs for running and most of them seem good for improving performance.
No strength training in this?? I have been training legs for years along with runs (treadmill runs/uphill runs etc)... only problem my timing for the half marathon has gone down from 2h35 to 2h38 and then I had an accident last year which made me unable to run most of the second half of last year which has made things a lot tougher for me to train :(
It is. It’s one reason why the job market for experienced developers may be hot while juior developers are unable to find work. A company has little incentive to train someone who will likely quit.
There are many such organizations that are active at a city or county level (eg https://sfbike.org/) and there are others at state level and even one or two at national level (https://www.bikeleague.org/). In my experience the most resources and most effective advocacy happen on the local level. I’d love to see national or state level organizations get more resources though.
This seems to assume that the 10 strangers are not someone else’s children.
My understanding of utilitarianism is that other factors than keeping someone alive should be considered. Is it utilitarian to save 10 elderly people over the life of a child? It might not be, depending on how long the elderly are expected to live, and if the remainder of their lives is as valuable as those of a child (eg, will their remaining years be unproductive and sickly due to age, while the child’s life may be full of productivity and health).
