Off the top of my head, some things that I believe can be asked of you include:

1. Financial history

2. Extensive inspections of your home

3. Your medical history

4. Drug use (legitimate or recreational; prescriptions, alcohol, etc.)

5. Marital status

6. Interviews with your loved ones to ascertain your identity and character

7. Pretty much anything that is relevant to the adoption process.

It's understandable why they have to act like this, but it makes the adoption process very arduous. On top of all of that, adoption is "invasive" to your money (i.e. expensive as FUCK) and even after jumping every hoop you can be rejected. They can't legally discriminate against you, but they can certainly make up excuses to reject you (see: the difficulty LGBTQ+ people or people trying to adopt as a single parent face in the adoption process)

Fantastical pyramids like those found in South America, Egypt and Asia are simply impossible to build in Arctic and Antarctic locations with the technology available to the historical habitants of those areas. That's why you can't find anything.

1. Materials and tools. The materials pyramids are constructed from are typically obtained from quarries — open pit mines in the ground. This is... not very possible, to say the least. The grounds of extremely cold places like the Arctic and Antarctic are permafrost: soil whose groundwater is totally frozen. The peoples of the Arctic didn't have tools that would have allowed them to easily get through this permafrost, much less harvest rock for pyramids. Only some groups had access to metals like iron (see: the Cape York meteorite), and none had advanced forging available to them to refine metals for greater use.

2. Work environment. The Arctic environment maintains a very high and consistent level of deadliness that workers would have to work through, which is nigh impossible. In contrast, most if not all pyramids were built in environments that didn't actively kill people.

3. People. There has been no record of any permanent or long-lasting human habitation in Antarctica. As for the people of the Arctic, there's plenty of evidence for habitation but none on the scale of a permanently established city. The pyramids you describe took a ton of time and labour to make, from populations that simply did not exist in the Arctic.

Also, the land itself was often a point of interest for the nukes. Evidently, if nukes were to be practically used, they would certainly be used against land areas. They tested nukes on different types of terrain (desert, hard rock, etc.) to see terrain interactions, or built fake buildings/towns to test bomb effects on residential areas.

The term "best museum" is extremely subjective and highly debatable. It's not a question for which any sort of definitive answer can be provided.

You still haven't narrowed down the range of the question in the slightest.

"Bolas" is a very broad term. What kind of style of bolas are you thinking of? Portugeuse types, Inuit types, or some other sort? How many weights does the bolas have? What kind of materials is it made out of? Nobody can even begin to describe the "average bolas" or a "long-ranged optimized bolas" for you, when such terms drastically change in meaning without specific parameters. The "average bolas" made with modern day materials and technology would significantly differ from the "average bolas" made by a Portugeuse gaucho in the 1800s.

What context is there for the throwing? Would the throw be considered from a person standing level to the ground, or would it be considered from a person riding horseback (which is/was a common context for bolas throwing)?

This is a history subreddit. If none of these considerations matter to you (or if you only care about the modern context), that makes this question unsuitable for this subreddit.

To add about Queen Elizabeth II's love for corgis — "preferred" is an understatement. On her 18th birthday Elizabeth was gifted one of her own, Susan, after a lifetime of admiration for corgis. By the time of her death she had owned over 30 corgis, many of which were descended from Susan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_corgis

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62823074.amp

I'm not surprised. I didn't say that the traditions were completely different and alien to us — just that they were different. I'm aware that some of the makeup practices in the past wrre done for similar if not the exact same reasond as today, but at the same time they also did makeup for other reasons (such as specifically to ward away evil).

No? If you read the article, it describes how the practices back then were different.

I don't think many people today wear eyeshadow to ward off the threat of Satan or other evil entities.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/12/why-are-sweden-and-finland-not-yet-in-nato-and-does-the-alliance-want-them

The Guardian has a decent article on why Finland didn't immediately join NATO after WW2, and also explains Sweden too.

In a nutshell, Finland wanted to avoid possibly provoking the USSR into war. Joining NATO could be possibly interpreted as a threat, because NATO was effectively a force to push back the USSR's expansion during the Cold War. As such, Finland saw it prudent to go with a compromise. They didn't officially join NATO, losing out on some of the benefits of being in NATO (like protection in case of invasion), in exchange for being able to be friendly with NATO and the USSR at the same time. After all, it'd be hard for Finland to claim that they were at peace with the USSD if they were members of what was effectively a "fuck the USSR" club.

This arrangement used to make sense, because back then the USSR was somewhat weary of war. They'd need at least some tangible, somewhat justifiable reason to go to war. A country like Finland, which literally borders the USSR, joining NATO could easily be turned into a reason for war. By not joining NATO, Finland was demonstrating to the USSR that they weren't a threat.

The reason why Finland now wants to join NATO is because this arrangement no longer works. Putin has shown that he's willing to invade countries and start wars for next to no justifiable reason, as seen with Crimea and now Ukraine. The only thing between Finland and being invaded are mere whims. If they're going to get threatened, might as well get the protection.

Disease prevalence was mentioned already, so I'll mention location.

While it has been extensively documented that Vikings had many settlements on modern day Greenland, the same cannot be said of modern day Canada. The only undisputed settlement on Canada is L'Anse Aux Meadows, located at the northern-most tip of the island of Newfoundland. It should be noted that this site is believed to have been rather short-term and small in scale — it was used for several decades, upwards of perhaps a century, and was significantly less populated than settlements in Greenland. This is because the site lacked features that are typically associated with permanent, constantly-populated settlements (animal pens, agriculture, burial sites, etc.).

Part of why the Europeans devastated the Native Americans with disease was because they established permanent, populated settlements on continental North America. The permanence of these settlements meant that by extension there was always a permanent source of disease to infect the Native Americans. Also, because the settlements were on continental North America, that made it a lot easier for trade and travel to occur, thereby spreading the disease. Much easier than if your settlement is located on a island, which would either limit you to trading just on that island or demand you having to get on a boat and go elsewhere to trade then boat back to the settlement.

Everyone pitched in. Many people themselves suffered property destruction, or at the very least had friends or family that did. Governments planned initiatives to clean up war debris, but on a smaller scale locals would've also done their fair bit of cleaning for themselves or those around them in order to rebuild their homes and livelihoods.

In fact, people to this day are STILL cleaning up from WWI and WWII. There are many areas on the Eastern and Western fronts (of both World War I and World War II) where the Iron Harvesr happens — the1 recollection of unexploded war munitions. Every year European farmers plough the ground and unearth new ones.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_harvest

Prescriptions aren't only for addressing medical abuse of patients — they're also for addressing the medical abuse of practitioners.

Imagine if I were some Dr. Oz quack. If I really wanted to, I could make a PTSD app right now and release it on the app market. Doesn't matter if it actually works. I'd have to avoid representing myself or my product as a legally qualified medical practitioner, but I could use one of the many non-legally protected "medical" titles and trick people into thinking I'm a doctor and purchasing my app.

An prescription app with FDA approval is significantly different from the quackery above. FDA approval/prescription status gives an app legitimacy. In order to get FDA approval, the app needs to undergo rigorous testing and analysis to prove that it is safe and effective when used as instructed for its intended use. Having it locked behind prescriptions also lends it legitimacy, because it means that only licensed medical professionals are allowed to distribute it. Another point is that doctors can better instruct patients on effective usage of the app as well as adjust patient medical care with this app in mind, as prescription-level things tend to come with a lot of accompanying medical literature useful for understanding them.

Those are the two good reasons: apps being granted prescription-status/FDA approval separates them from BS apps, and having the apps prescribed by doctors allows doctors to instruct patients and tweak it to better fit patient care.

Of course, there's also the third bad reason... capitalism. Getting anything FDA approval takes a ton of time and money, and at bare minimum companies need to recoup the cost. Beyond that, companies also wanna make a shit ton of money and bleed the populace dry. The market for prescription apps is in its growing stage right now, there's little to no competition, and no government-mandated price regulation. These are the perfect conditions for companies to form monopolies and mark up their prescription apps exorbitantly, forcing people to buy their products because no alternatives exist.

Nah FUCK those bitches, unless they're zapping me with improve mental health juice instead of itchy juice I want them all dead.

No, they're making a joke reference to Ea Nasir. He was a Mesopotamia merchant who was notoriously the recipient of the oldest known complaint letter in history — a customer sent him a clay cuneiform tablet complaining that Ea Nasir had sold him shitty copper.

Just wanted to point out that the premise of your question is slightly off.

The tone of your question implies that a person in power (currently ruling) would kill one of their heirs. This was unnecessary, given that they could change the heir if they wanted or could adjust the rules regarding succession. After all, the ruler is ruling, so unless they were just puppet rulers, they had power to adjust things to their desires. For the most part, something like "King Bob killed his eldest son just because he wants his second son to rule" wasn't really a thing. He could figure out a way to make it so without killing people.

One quite recent example of this is currently reigning Salman of Saudi Arabia. Upon rising to the throne, the Crown Prince title (heir to Saudi Arabia's throne) was transferred to Salman's half brother Muqrin. Soon thereafter, Salman transfered the title to one of his nephews, Muhammad. After Muhammad was arrested and charged with treason, the title was then transfered to Salman's son Mohammad.

Instead, the deaths of heirs for heritage-related reasons (like adjusting who would inherit the throne) were mostly done by those who weren't ruling. People who couldn't change the rules and appoint the ruler they wanted. See the above list posted by someone else for a ton of instances for when, why, and how these deaths happened.

Just like the BCCDC recommended during COVID.