That's a lot of shimmering. Could really use some AA, but performance is poor enough already.

Yes, it dips slightly below 60 FPS. Of course it's up to OP if that's good enough.

A plain 6800 should be pretty decent for 1080p60, unless you absolutely must have ultra settings. There are guides on what graphics settings are worth the performance hit, if you follow them you can get nearly identical visuals with a nice bump in FPS.

But I agree as far as the 6750 and 6700 XT, they're already struggling a bit with Starfield, and it's not going to improve going forward.

60 is standard, but there are a handful of companies trying to make 70 the standard.

It's not sudden, it's been garbage for a while.

You don’t need the biggest map ever to make a good game. You do, however, need the biggest map ever to make a good Elder Scrolls game.

No you don't. The evolution of the Elder Scrolls series proves that, as the map size has been massively reduced. The Skyrim map is extremely tiny compared to Daggerfall.

I played around 20 hours of it at launch, and it was bad. Not just in all the hilariously broken things that were memed all over the place back then, but the fundamental concept of the game just didn't quite work.

Yeah, and they've also had more explicit efforts like America's Army. That being said, while it is propaganda, it's not quite as deceptive and pro-warcrimes as what Russia's putting out there.

Baldur's Gate 1 actually did have a tutorial in Candlekeep. Including temporarily giving you a full party to battle some critters in a basement.

I would contribute answers in the life sciences. Hope this can take off. :)

It likely is a bit overblown. Moreover, it's a very good point that it's a bad system when it only delineates what confidence there is that a compound can cause cancer, and not how strong the effect is. Lots of things are technically carcinogenic, but with the effect being so weak it's negligible. Technically we already know formaldehyde is a metabolite of aspartame, and that formaldehyde is carcinogenic, but the amounts involved mean it's going to be a very minor contributor to cancer risk.

I see you're getting downvoted, and I do have to agree that it's a pretty optimistic take. With traffic even a tenth what reddit gets, the costs would be significant.

Now it's true that eg. Wikipedia can handle massive server load on a donation model, but I think the utility from Wikipedia is more obvious and more amenable to attracting donations. I think it's a good idea to think about palatable monetization options early on, so we can avoid ending up in a situation where the experience has to suddenly get degraded by intrusive ads or whatever.