There is a difference in the availability of treatments, but this is difficult to equate to quality. It's just different.

A universal healthcare system should use statistics and costs to find the most effective "package" of treatments to offer to the population. There are plusses and minuses to this. Where it works really well is in screening out dubiously effective treatment and over or unnecessary treatment. For example if someone is old and has cancer, the UK system may steer someone to no treatment:

1. Treatment may be unlikely to actually extend someone's life.

2. Remaining quality of life may be significantly better without chemo.

Where it works less well is sometimes newer treatments take longer to be adopted by the system, and sometimes more customised care is unavailable. It's worth pointing out that private care does exist in the UK if you want it - but most people chose the NHS.

Another restriction in addition to other comments, a lot of companies have rules saying senior executives have to maintain a certain amount of stock to hold their position. This means they often can't sell substantial proportions of their holding or else they lose their position and have to wait until they leave the company.

Let's say they need to hold a million shares and get 100 thousand a year as part of their compensation, yes they can convert those 100k into cash, but the remainder is tied up.

The amount of O2 in the atmosphere has decreased, but it's only a fraction of a percent.

The CO2 weighs more but has the same volume as the O2 it replaced. However you've missed the face we've also burned a bunch of hydrogen since almost everything we burn is a hydrocarbon. This produces water (H2O) which precipitates out of the atmosphere with a net result of depleting the amount of oxygen atoms in the air. (See my longer answer).

I see your logic, and at first glance I was about to defend your statement, however it's not correct because:

1. If you burn pure carbon, you get O2 + C = CO2. That's the same number of gas molecules after burning. 1 gas molecule in the input, 1 gas molecule on the output. A gas's volume is determined by temperature and number of molecules, not the number of atoms(technically an approximation, but a very good one). Yes there are more atoms making up the gas, but once the combustion gas has cooled to ambient, the volume of CO2 is basically the same as the volume of O2 you started with. While the CO2 is heavier, this doesn't equate to more gas, it's just heavier gas. (If I give you a litre of petrol and a litre of water, you've got the same amount, although the water weighs more.)

However this is kind of moot because:

2. All this combustion can actually make he atmosphere weigh less and have a lower volume! Most of the stuff we burn is a hydrocarbon. Hydrocarbons burn to produce CO2 and H2O. The H2O precipitates out of the atmosphere, so there's actually fewer gas molecules in the air because we've removed oxygen and turned it in to water. In addition, the mass of the oxygen precipitated, is greater than the mass of carbon added, so the air is lighter too. Now it really depends what hydrocarbons we've burned. Natural gas (methane) produces twice as many water molecules as CO2 so would have the strongest depleting effect. Liquid fuels like petrol, diesel and oil produce about equal numbers of CO2 and water molecules so more slightly deplete the atmosphere. Coal produces fewer water molecules than CO2 I haven't done the math on whether this is a net mass increase or decrease (I expect it's pretty mass neutral) but it definitely still decreases the air's volume.

They can do both in less graphically demanding games.

To render a single frame of a scene in a video game, a load of calculations have to be done. The nicer the graphics, and the higher the resolution, the more calculations have to be done to render the frame.

At 120Hz the console can dedicate half the computation time per frame than at 60Hz and a quarter of the time that it can dedicate at 30Hz.

So for developers to make games with the best possible graphics, they dial down the frame rate to allow for more computational time per frame.

It's also not just graphics, imagine a game with a lot of characters on screen. The game has to compute what each of those characters are doing, their movement e.t.c every frame. The game might support 50 characters on screen at 120Hz and 100 at 60Hz. The 100 character game may be better gameplay wise, so that's what's chosen.

Unless you're playing competitively, or on the absolute hardest difficulties, then honestly above 60Hz doesn't affect your experience that much (especially with a controller).

Its basically zero developer effort to add in an option to reduce graphics for higher FPS - and that only needs to sell you a handful more copies of the game to have been worth doing.

In any real world plant that operates via evaporation, most of the energy used to boil off the water is re captured via the heat exchangers used to condense the steam back into water. This heats the incoming water. (Most are multi stage running different parts at different temperatures/pressures.) Overall its a pretty efficient process, with reverse osmosis a bit more efficient.

However the amount of water that we use for not drinking purposes, irrigation, washing e.t.c is massive.

Humor is a good test that a language model is able to create subtle and intricate links between words and concepts - but it doesn't directly link to sentience. Something like GPT-3 could probably be adapted to write decent jokes, it's an incredible language model that at first can appear sentient. However it's not sentient because it's just a model where an input maps to a deterministic output. There's no continuous loop of input-learning-adaptation-output that comes with a sentient being. The learning process was a one shot process until the model is updated.

An alternator is something that you spin and out comes electricity. It takes effort/work to spin the alternator directly proportional to the amount of electricity you get out. Let's say some theoretical car where everything in the car was perfectly efficient had a motor and an alternator (electric cars don't actually need an alternator). The motor outputs 10kW of power to keep your car cruising at 50MPH (overcoming wind resistance and rolling resistance of the tyres). You switch on the alternator, it draws 1kW of power from the motor, which you then feed back to the battery. So the motor now draws 11kW and you charge the battery at 1kW. That 1kW hasn't gained you anything, the system is equivalent to running the motor at 10kW. In reality because of inefficiencies, this would waste a load of energy.

Pretty much, the vitamin C gene could have been completely unconnected to the success of this genetic lineage. We don't really know, this is just a theory - it could have also been that there was a forest fire and only one family of apes survived.

I don't believe we think there was a selective pressure to get rid of it. However mutations and differences don't necessarily happen in isolation - it could have been that the ape who had the original mutation might have happened to be exceptionally strong/smart/fertile (or plain "lucky") and therefore it was advantageous for his genes to propagate despite the flaw.