chicken

I couldn't find a comparison between the two (though the first sentence of what you quoted seems to acknowledge it), but I did find this article which makes an argument that the meaningful ecological impact of cats is context dependent:

There is general agreement that free-roaming cats can pose a significant risk to wildlife populations; however, the credible evidence is quite clear that this risk is limited to very specific contexts (e.g., small islands) and even then is likely only one part of a larger story. Sweeping claims that lack necessary context (e.g., conflating island and mainland environments) confuse the issue and impede productive conversation about how best to manage free-roaming cat populations.

Published research and mainstream media accounts often focus on areas where free-roaming cats come into conflict with protected native wildlife species [46–49]. Although this attention is understandable, it’s important to recognize that such situations attract attention precisely because they are exceptional.

This seems consistent with what you linked, which also emphasizes islands and protected species. Maybe it makes sense to restrict outdoor cats specifically on islands.

The vast majority of the problem for wildlife is feral cat populations rather than people letting pets outdoors. Just make sure they are sterilized and vaccinated and it's minimal impact.

The researchers found that while inequality did often increase with population growth and more hierarchical governments, this trend was far from universal. In some cases, human communities developed systems that curbed the concentration of wealth, using governance and cooperative institutions as “leveling mechanisms.”

What makes an effective leveling mechanism?

Edit: decided to look at the study, seems like they were looking at whether governance was "collective" vs "autocratic":

For apical sites in this sample that are the central place (generally cities) in hierarchical polities of three or more levels, governance clearly matters for the degree of inequality. Only two of the 29 apex sites in hierarchical polities of three or more levels (Xochicalco and Tenochtitlan) that had collective forms of governance also had Gini coefficients larger than (above the) the regression line for autocratic sites at the apices of polities of the same ranks

(apparently higher Gini coefficient means more inequality)

Also they're saying herd animals and metal play a role:

We must be careful about causality here. We are not proposing that herd animals, metal, or the control of trade routes directly caused the concentration of power and wealth, but rather that when governance institutions and practices were in place that did not check, or even fostered, the consolidation of power, those external resources facilitated the accumulation, monopolization, and personalization of wealth.

I had to do that a while back, though fortunately it was because I was installing new flooring in the bathroom which needed to go under the toilet, rather than because of a leak. At least the seals are inexpensive.

It's not the best writing, but how is that conclusively LLM? Is there anything in the article that is definitively made up?

Since it seems to be the sort of game you play with a group of friends, it seems like it might be easier to actually make that happen with a $0 price point since you can ask someone to play without asking them to spend money.

That's amazing, simultaneously cute and terrifying

I feel like water based lubricant wouldn't go so well with hinges

Morrowind already had a great design for this; many enemy spawns scale with your level, but they do it by adjusting which area-appropriate enemies have a chance of spawning, and it only makes a difference to a point. Like if you go to daedric ruins in the early game they're going to be populated with scamps which are the weakest daedra, but those are still strong enough to steamroll you. If you run into a cliffracer in the lategame it will probably be the plague-enhanced stronger variant, but you will still be able to oneshot it. This system increases the number of circumstances where you're going to run into challenging fights you have a chance of winning, in a way that doesn't do much to nullify your power progression or break immersion.

They should have just done the same thing in Oblivion but they had some procedural obsessed design philosophy and wanted to avoid manual level design work I guess.

Convenient indexed search was the only real improvement Windows made since XP and now they've ruined it. Windows XP is once again superior.

Maybe they think Cyberpunk refers to Cyberpunk 2077 rather than the genre as a whole

I think maybe the confusion has to do with how that list at the bottom is meant to be another quote rather than a summary, but since it is a code block that looks different from the other quotes that might imply that it isn't a quote. Now that I'm looking at things more, in hindsight I should have done it like this:

• list1
• list2

I just didn't realize it mattered much and figured it cluttered the page less the first way