Fun fact, snakes' adaptations to their feeding style are actually not about the way the jaw hinges. Instead, their lower jaw is two separately moving bones held together with stretchy ligament tissue so that each side of the mouth can be "walked along" the prey item separately.
So the chef could eat the burger... but would follow along its longest dimension to do it, laying it down sideways.

Really appreciate her work - the educational stuff is good at putting things into a context and giving laypeople some mental coathooks to hang things off of, and I like how she emphasizes the video explainer format is a provider of jumping off points more than a source of real understanding.
Her discussion of media and news is maybe not as relevant here but still pretty on point in my experience.

No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
US Constitution section 9 clause 8.

I'd say that's pretty clear an official act to the giver's benefit is not a necessary element of the prohibited conduct. If something is offered, both houses of congress must vote to allow it or the gift must be declined.

Some computing problems are "easy"* to solve. We call these P.
Some problems let us easily check a proposed solution if we're given one. We call these NP.
All problems in P are also in NP, since checking a solution proposal works is never harder than solving the problem starting from nothing.
We suspect but can't prove that some problems in NP are not in P.

It turns out that it's possible to translate any problem in NP into the boolean satisfiability problem (SAT) using an easy algorithm, so this problem effectively is an upper bound on how hard it could be to solve problems in NP - we could always translate them into SAT and solve that instead if that sequence is easier.
We call SAT, and any problem that it can be translated into easily in the same way, the problem class NP-hard.
NP-complete is just those NP-hard problems which are also in NP, which is many but not all of them.

*: require asymptotically polynomial running time

The use of "alumni" in the singular. A person is an alumnus or an alumna, the alumni are always a group. Seems to be a very American usage, and I don't know why it feels aggravating where other Americanisms like positive anymore don't.

This is pretty much the underpinning question of the entire field of evolutionary developmental biology, so naturally any answer is going to be a bit surface level, and I get out of my depth fairly rapidly to be honest. Still, it is quite interesting.

One of the central ideas is that as an embryo grows, its cells go from being all equivalent multipotent stem cells into being different from each other - at first more specialized types of stem cell that can only turn into certain tissues and gradually specializing more and more. Since these cells are differentiated and expressing different genes from one another, they can then start to co-ordinate with each other using chemical markers and gradients of concentration of those markers across space to regulate what types of cells should be growing/dividing, where in the embryo they should be doing it and at what time they should be doing it.

That signaling is in turn controlled by some often complicated networks of regulatory genes - ones which when they are expressed make proteins that selectively attach to other bits of the DNA in that cell and make the genes there more or less likely to be expressed themselves. A lot of evolutionary variation is actually focused on these regulatory systems rather than on the genes which they are switching on and off.

So to my knowledge, something like nose shape likely comes down to some of those regulatory genes controlling where the cells that will eventually be forming the cartilage get placed relative to the skull etc.

Or sometimes fold them over trees of objects!

It's the typical phrasing of social pressures to not stand out in Scandinavia, drawing from a book where the author phrases the "rules" somewhat as a legal code. Tall poppy syndrome is an overlapping idea that might be more familiar to English speakers.

Nobody ever considers Eve's side.

That phrasing refers to a very broad set of movements and individuals. The usual core beliefs are:

• Legislation in their jurisdiction and the government's authority to enforce it is in some way defective.
• People in their jurisdiction can opt out of laws and government, and live only under "natural law".
• People have to perform a set of legal procedures (spells, effectively) in order to achieve that.

Exactly why and how law/government authority is defective, how they understand natural law, what the spells are that they have to cast - all of these are extremely variable both between jurisdictions and between individuals.
Primarily it's a set of grifters charging money for courses and materials to learn about these beliefs from whoever they can convince. Sometimes, as in Germany, it's a group of neo-Nazis plotting to reinstate the Kaiser.

You might enjoy münecat's longer form explanation.

It becomes inherently difficult to make datasets actually anonymous the more data points they have about a given individual - it doesn't much matter whether names and such are listed data points if they can be inferred from the rest. This investigation by Svea Eckert and Andreas Dewes, for instance, managed to identify a named German member of parliament (Valerie Wilms) and other public functionaries within a data set on web browsing habits they received from data brokers.

Most countries do have data privacy legislation and relevant regulatory/enforcement agencies, but the data brokerage business is big and intensely international so the picture on audits is kind of unavoidably complicated.

I'd say the key insight with quantum computing is that its algorithms are about choreographing interference patterns among qubits such that wrong answers cancel each other out but right answers reinforce one another. It's not just a matter of trying possibilities in parallel or "running different probabilities simultaneously" - the qubits' states are complex combinations of 0 and 1 states, and they interact with and change one another. Simulating those interactions on a classical computer requires exponentially growing amounts of memory space and time as the quantum computation gets bigger. Trying to divide-and-conquer this simulation over multiple classical computers runs into the need for different parts of the circuit to know about each others' state, limiting how much work can be sectioned off to be done by each computer in the group.