I don't know whether it's an issue with the website, but currently I can't see much else besides some text which sounds like an abstract. This makes it currently difficult to see this as a good source or estimate the quality of the work. Judging on this abstract alone, although it mentions that the time particles are detectable is about 10 minutes longer with the lid down, it also reports a 30 to 50 % decreased amount of particles. It also states a lack of research regarding smaller particles.
As far as I can see we could safely say, that this issue, whether it's better to keep the lid up or down, is still debated and a final verdict is still out:
In another, newer, paper (again, not the toilet kind of paper) I just found, researchers basically used lasers to see and analyze the spread of aerosol plumes after flushing:
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24686-5
A perfect system would be able to deal with this. Of course, that's a purely ideological goal which probably wouldn't be reached in practise. But I think we could gain a lot on the road there.
Imperfect political and economic systems like our current version of capitalism and democracy. (Both could be better, or even replaced by something different which is better.)
I'm using Firefox basically since it came into existence and my life is depressing and sucks. But at least I can browse the web without being tracked so hard by Google and others while trusting on an open source project whose first priorities are its users and not profit.
Raytracing produces realistic visual effects without requiring tricks like ambient occlusion, screen-space reflections, shadow resolution and so on, since those emerge as a result of raytracing anyway and are much more realistic. I'm currently rendering a Donut in Blender where the effects are clearly visible in comparison.
However, due to the high amount of optimization in visually impressive realtime rendering engines like game engines, I agree with you that I don't see many benefits comparing ray tracing in games with contemporary alternative techniques.
Nevertheless I think that's the future. In the long run, there's nothing better, i.e. more accurate, than simulating the behavior of light when it comes to visual realism.
Filter bubbles are one thing, which I find is a huge disadvantage to personalization. You'll never learn about new stuff, because it will never be presented to you, since someone assumes that you blong to a specific box.
Another is that I value my privacy. It's no one's business what I do, when, where, with whom and how. Apart from that, there is no guarantee that this information is not being misused.
For example, I'm thinking about political campaigns, which target specific user groups on the one hand, or spread misinformation and distrust to others. I see such forms of information steering as detrimental to democratic societies. Free and unbiased information is crucial for critical thinking.
I don't mind ads, I understand that websites need to finance themselves to cover their costs (and maybe build up some capital to expand). But I do mind tracking, user profiling, personalization / user targeting, trading this data with dubious companies worldwide, and obnoxious ads, for example pop-ups or auto-play videos with a 1 micron sized close button, or a forced timed ad which is hiding the content.
It's like having a bunch of people following you around, taking note of everything you do, evaluating that data, making statistics, dicsussing it with other people you don't know, etc.. Then, when you want to make yourself a sandwich, step in between you and your sandwich, taking up a megaphone and scream into your face : "OH, WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE MAKING A SANDWICH. CAN WE INTERST YOU IN NEW FANCY BUTTER KNIVES FOR ONLY 59,99 €?" [Then going on about it for 3 minutes before they are stepping out of your way].
There are laws against that in real life, and in the digital realm this is missing. Considering how much time a lot of people spend online this is something which needs to be taken seriously.
It's really scary sometimes. There was a time when I was stupid enough to use facebook, just to stay in touch with friends. Once I talked with a friend about allergies and asthma, and I told them I have a pollen allergy. A short time later an ad showed up on my facebook feed, advertising some nasal spray for allergies. Wtf?! And that's just the surface. "Harmless" ads. Who knows what else happens with that data?
I don't want to step on your toes, so hopefully this doesn't come across that way:
You mentioned Myth Busters and an article from 2019 on microbiologyresearch.com in another comment .
Let's just say without further elaboration, that Myth Busters are not a solid scientific source.
I couldn't really find a paper from the article you linked in another comment. Just this: https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.fis2019.po0192
I don't know whether it's an issue with the website, but currently I can't see much else besides some text which sounds like an abstract. This makes it currently difficult to see this as a good source or estimate the quality of the work. Judging on this abstract alone, although it mentions that the time particles are detectable is about 10 minutes longer with the lid down, it also reports a 30 to 50 % decreased amount of particles. It also states a lack of research regarding smaller particles.
As far as I can see we could safely say, that this issue, whether it's better to keep the lid up or down, is still debated and a final verdict is still out:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2011.08.010
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0040310
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0013318
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24686-5
However, to me it seems that there are indications that a combination of proper ventilation and closing the lid might be better than an open lid.
Disclaimer: Not my field of expertise. Feel free to correct, where necessary.