I wonder what came first; the association between red and gold, and hunger, or the prominent use of those colors in food advertising.
This could be tested by running the "which colors are associated with hunger" test on a population who has never been introduced to any marketing that uses those colors, but finding those kinds of people must be pretty difficult at this point.

5 hours to travel the distance.
5 months to retrofit the train to successfully travel 360 km on a *road*.
5 years to fix the potholes it causes in the road after it's passed.

It's a slow as balls, basically invulnerable, 152 mm howitzer, running on treads and dreams.
It was designed to be a a strategic bunker buster, traveling along with a pack of faster KV-1s, but in practice its tectonic speed led to it being quickly decommissioned as the Germans just kept incidentally outmaneuvering them and either capturing them, or destroying them with point blank (in some cases literally) artillery fire.

For the record, at the time, 152mm barrels were normally only seen on naval ships and the occasional "fuck-everything-WAY-over-there" artillery piece.

They have a range of other issues, such as their gun being so heavy it could only actually be rotated while the entire tank was on level ground because the rotor couldn't actually LIFT it up its own bearing, but despite that there's an entire generation of people who crap themselves when they see its iconic profile after being conditioned to fear it from way too many war thunder tank battles.

Technically, it's a quiche, since most don't have edible floors.

And before that, corsets and bustles.

Far from a full list, but (according to wikipedia), 1 war was started during Thatcher's term in office (the Falklands War), and a LOT of wars were started during Queen Victoria's term in office (I counted 46, and I have no idea what most of them are).

Isn't one of the selling points of most navies and some armies "travel the world and experience other cultures"? I swear I've seen that used unironically in ads and by recruiters.

I would assume UPH is measured against the employee average, not by the items themselves. With every employee doing the same job, the time per item, while highly variable, would average out to a certain average that can be used to determine how someone is performing relative to their peers.
Less about figuring out who's slacking off, and more about finding the weakest link. Of course, this leads to a work environment where employees are competing to increase their number to ensure they stay ahead of the curve, lest they be found the weakest link. When an employer does nothing to discourage this (most *encourage* it, perhaps by offering bonuses to the highest performing, to discourage people from only doing what they need to to not be at the bottom), it's a pretty textbook horrible work environment.

Sustenance, so many gods, and ego would like a word.

Another important point is breeding and evolution. People have been breeding livestock to be cheap and easy to raise and breed, docile, bountiful to harvest, and broadly tasty to eat for millenia. Other animals, such as dogs, cats, and horses, are simply not as worthwhile to keep as food sources, and in many cases just don't taste as good, largely by virtue of not being bread for it.
As for why one and not the other from the start, dogs, cats, and horses came wild, difficult to tame, even harder to pen creatures, while most livestock were pretty docile to begin with. Not to mention dogs and cats are carnivores, meaning you would have to put meat in to get meat out, which is far less than ideal when you're a stone age farmer looking for quantity.

yeah

Reminds me of an old image that used to make the rounds:
"Want you house to smell great? Put two caps of vanilla extract in a cup, place it in the oven at 300 for an hour and your house will smell like heaven."
"I did this once and I though it said two CUPS of vanilla extract and my whole house smelled like the pillsburry dough boys butt hole for a month."

beer pong?

The only walls you want to be vehicle proof are those stopping you going over a cliff or something.

A) A wall that gives when your vehicle goes through it is far safer and cheaper. Crumple zones are important on both sides of a crash, and between the cost to reinforce and repair a sturdy wall you may as well replace it from the ground up.
B) If you're driving in a location or way that would put you through one of these walls, given where they are usually located, something's already gone quite wrong.

These walls aren't supposed to be vehicle proof, they're for things like marking property boundaries or pastures. The one brick thick things helps since even though it has a grater overall length, it uses less bricks than a straight double brick wall making it ideal for use where a long, small, wall is required.

It's a fun story though, and explanations do exist for all those points, however unlikely. Cats on warships were actually pretty common so there are lots of kitties that have tales of there time in the war. If you'd like more info, I highly recommend the video "A Short History of Ships Cats - Floating Felines, Maritime Moggies and Kleptomaniac Kittens" by Drachinifel on YouTube.