This does depend on the methodology stated by the institution collating the data. The most recent methodological statement I can find from the FBI's stats reporting indicates it uses locality population estimates derived from the federal census - which in turn aim to count not the people each locality has registered as a resident, but the number of people who usually live and sleep in a locality regardless of documentation status.
Obviously, undocumented migrants may consciously attempt to be undercounted in that divisor but they don't necessarily disappear entirely.

The other angle on this I've seen multiple times is comparisons of crime rate per capita for populations segmented by migrant status like this, where the usual conclusion is "A person is less likely to commit crime, given that they are a migrant". It seems pretty believable to me that this reflects a raised background level of caution around crime caused by migrant status.

The article's 3rd section ("Getting a measure") is explicitly about alternatives to self reported vividness of experience - citing use of ocular rivalry effect, measuring dilation of pupils when imagining a bright light and sweat responses to a scary scenario. I agree that it's a difficult thing to make sure people aren't just experiencing similar things and reporting them differently but there does seem to be effort made to design experiments around differences in how participants form descriptions.

"Sim sala bim" is one you see a bit in the Nordics, popularized by a Danish magician with the stage name Dante. Gibberish definitely does help remove the magic words from what the audience knows a bit.

According to TVTropes (Gratuitous German, AoaB examples page) it looks like they lean less on German names and more on nouns like Angriff (attack) and Leidenschaft (passion). Japan particularly seems to like choosing German as the gratuitous foreign language.

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.

I think this is partly about giving yourself an out for liking childish things as a near- or young-adult. Kids shows commonly do include some Parental Bonus but extending that idea specifically to dark undercurrent plots that you have to read between the lines of the text seems like a way to feel "in the know" about something adult in the work while still consuming something you feel society expects you to have grown out of.
Then with a bit more maturing than that, you can hopefully just embrace childish joys earnestly, because joys are precious.

"Have they no refuge or resource?" cried Scrooge.
"Are there no prisons?" said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. "Are there no workhouses?"

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.

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.

FIDE has two competitive circuits - the open circuit where men and women (cis or trans) can compete, and the women's circuit. Players can (and commonly do) compete in both circuits. Ultimately the goal of the women's circuit is to boost recruitment of female players and make competitive chess less of a boys' club. Opinions are divided on whether it's the most effective method.
The recent decision affects AMAB people who want to play in the women's circuit, but does not bar them from the open circuit.

It's a pretty shit decision as far as I can see, but it's good to make judgments on the facts.

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.