I don't know the precise answer, but I do know this:

1. Often the kind of measures that are about something vast and complex (like population for example) are really good approximations, not completely exact numbers. So maybe doesn't matter because the number itself is not trying to be 100% accurate.
2. As far as I know those measures are made from the top down view, like with airplanes or satellites, so no it would not include inclines. To include inclines in a precise way it would have to be measured each one on the spot, which is not the way that is done. There are almost no field surveyors these days, again, as far as I know. And to include inclines in an approximate way takes us to point 1 again so it wouldn't matter much if there were a small difference.
3. Why would we do that? Almost everything we use land for requires it to be horizontally flat, so we flatten it. For example, an irregular coastline doesn't matter because we can use the crevices and irregularities to fit in more boats or ports or beaches, since the sea is horizontally flat and that is what really matter to us. But if there's a hill with a greater area because of the steepness of it we cannot fit more houses or warehouses of streets. We have to flatten it first so we gain noting from it being inclined.

So form my point of view it would be almost as if we tried to include the sides of a ravine or gorge in the measure just because technically it is area space.

Sorry if I cannot give you an exact answer, but I wanted to comment because you raised an interesting point that made me think.

Cheers.

official 'very cool post'

so much interesting stuff in here

one of the first things I do after every install is switch to inter, this will save me a minute every couple of years so I agree

Hey thanks, no apology needed. In fact, I think you are making me think about giving the original another go now that I know about those mods.

btw i didn't know that it was based on Roadside Picnic, haven't read it, but I have in my reading list since I saw it mentioned in HyperNormalisation. Thanks.

Nah, you are trying to salvage this situation by changing everything you meant. Suddenly you are trying to sanitize every reference you made to political ideology and try to dress up this as concern. Now you accuse everybody else of conspiracies and extrapolation when you used 'suspicious' (which has a very clear connotation about a malign or hidden background https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspicious) instead of 'indicative', 'concerning', 'worrisome', 'troubling'. People can read, and they read 'suspicious' which along with your references to political ideology really says who is the one thinking about conspiracies.

People who turn conservative or less progressive don't get into car accidents so if he did that's unusual?

I hope it's somewhat like the metro games, those are some of my all time favorites and absolutely would love more of something with that atmosphere and immersion.

for a fraction of a second I thought they were doing a wall-e sequel. we are still ok, for now.

Thank you so much, to you and all the generous and amazing people that makes this possible!

If Lana Wachowski is executive producer how does that fit with the hypothesis of the last one being bad on purpose to kill the franchise out of desire to not make matrix movies anymore?

Also that guy Goddard has a okay-ish resume, idk. If they leave the existing plot alone and create new stuff within the universe, it may be not terrible?

But also fuck warner and zaslav, who even believes or trust them on anything anymore? First thing that comes to mind is that this must be a ploy to bundle up resurrection as an ongoing loss and claim a bigger tax break.

They can say whatever the fuck they want and it even would be funny af. But most of the people there and a significant chunk of voting people here in the west are going to believe it.

just recently read how much those cost and damn, you really got a treat today