I'm not familiar with the game or how it should look like but it is quite old and was considered quite intensive at the time which may explain some of the effects present here.
I can give some general observations and tips though:
I'd google for LOD issues in AC:Unity.
Organic maps as a map works quite well. Its routing leaves much to be desired for cycling though.
https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/issues/1518 would help with that.
Could I pitch it as a money save vs building the parking?
Given how much underground parking costs to construct, that's the argument with the most leverage I think.
I somehow doubt that a few shuttle buses a day are more expensive than underground construction amortised over a decades or two. Especially not if that company intends to grow. (Go ask them how much growth they want to see in the company and how many more underground parking garages they plan to build to match.)
Or that you’d open up opportunities for more worker applications?
They'd likely not care. There's likely a "If you don't want to earn it, you don't deserve it." mindset at the decision level here; if you don't want to drive your car 2h every day to get here, you don't deserve to work here.
Or that it would help traffic jams?
Given you said that they don't GAF about the health of the community, I doubt they'd care about the community's traffic jams.
Yes but I don't see how that's related to Wayland as nouveau (mesa OGL) is also capable of driving apps inside a modern desktop.
I don’t see what’s wrong with quoting the introduction.
Because the motivation is mostly a formality, not the actual contents of the paper.
literature reviews are more reliable than a single study, and the introduction is a mini literature review.
I'd generally agree but not if the paper they're citing adds new information that (at least partially) invalidates/updates the literature.
If I wrote a paper that said in its introduction "It is generally believed that x is the cause for y. So and so have found weak evidence in [42] and someone else similarly weak evidence in [69]. Someone else still theorised the effect could be greater than assumed in [1337]." and then found out in the paper that x does not cause y at all.
Don't you think it'd be disingenuous to quote the introduction and leave out all of the conclusions when talking about the effects of x?
To me, that'd be an obvious lie by omission.
In this case, it's not quite as bad as the paper does not conclude the literal opposite of what was quoted but its conclusion is quite a bit more differentiated than the "TWP bad" of its motivation.
"Microplastics are of increasing concern in the environment [1, 2]. Tire wear is estimated to be one of the largest sources of microplastics entering the aquatic environment [3,4,5,6,7]. The mechanical abrasion of car tires by the road surface forms tire wear particles (TWP) [8] and/or tire and road wear particles (TRWP), consisting of a complex mixture of rubber, with both embedded asphalt and minerals from the pavement [9]."
https://microplastics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43591-021-00008-w
You quoted the introduction, not even their conclusions. That's not how scientific papers work.
Your post amounts to mostly baseless fear mongering while ignoring the real data you actually link to:
(TWP = tire wear microplastic particles)
Results indicate that TWP occur in relatively high concentrations compared to microplastics in general and that the corresponding risk of TWP is above threshold levels. Because TWP exists both as anthropogenic particulates and as a source of a suite of chemicals, providing a risk assessment is challenging. This study provides a first risk assessment posed by particle effects (TWPMP) as well as risks posed by chemical effects (organic micropollutants). Additional research is required to further address the risks of TWP, e.g. toxicity testing for environmentally realistic TWP material and aligning exposure and effect data.
I interpret that as there are clear signs of it being an issue but further research is required to actually find out how big the issue actually is.
I tried to read the paper for more details but I'm not very well versed in risk assessment of substances, so I barely understood it.
Thanks for letting us know. Blocking you now since replying to you in a public forum would be a waste of time if you're going to delete it immediately after.
Have you tried regular Proton? Just to make sure GE's patches don't interfere here.
Paperless for keeping track of text written on the dead trees which companies keep sending me instead of email.
Actualbudget for keeping track where the money goes.
That's for Jerboa to fix. It's valid markdown.
will prevent shady recruiters from editing it
Well, it won't prevent it but it will set a low technological bar that most muggles can't seem to get past.
They probably confused it; 4k 240 and 5k 120 are about the same balpark according to handy dandy chart.