TL;DR: most accidents that result from snow actually occur on pavements and cycle paths (not necessarily "rural" roads), which are disproportionately used by women.

I think they meant that the Romans introduced their versions of these things to those areas which would better integrate them into the Empire as a whole, whereas Egypt already had institutions and infrastructure that the Romans could use without issue.

Edit: re-reading it, I'm pretty sure that's what they meant. They said "the Egyptians already had [list of stuff] that worked" so I assume they meant the stuff worked for the Romans.

That's interesting, I would have thought it would be the reverse, since stone is so much harder to work (especially before they even had reliable iron working), the Egyptians only used it because clay was not as readily available. Obviously this has the same end result either way.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you're a native English speaker, because even today, there are an awful lot of multilingual people in the world, with probably over half knowing at least 2 languages. The dominance of the English language worldwide has led to a lot of anglophones not only not learning a second language, but resultantly not developing the skills for picking up languages. It's pretty well known that picking up new languages gets easier the more languages you already know, which actually means that ancient diplomats probably had it easier. You see, nowadays we generally have this idea that languages are independent and relatively rigid things, but before modern communications technology local dialects sprang up quite easily, and they could vary a huge amount even within the same language. This means that anyone who travelled around in the pre-modern world would essentially have to be able to integrate different languages into their knowledge base much more regularly than someone would have to today. The nature of dialects also means that languages in contact would often develop pidgins that could be used as a way to learn the other language by people who knew one. The standardization of languages really put an end to that.

Ah, I see why you were hesitant to elaborate.

I have no idea what you're referring to, can you elaborate?

It literally says it applies to ancient Egyptian mummies, not "all mummies everywhere"

The problem with challenging a supposed theory is you have to have alternatives to back it up, or else there's no value to it. Challenging a narrative just for the sake of challenging it isn't productive and wastes time that could be spent challenging areas that are actually up for debate.

What else would it be used for? There are plenty of indications it was at least meant to be a tomb, even if it ended up not housing any bodies, so what is there to counter this? You literally cannot progress the field of history, or indeed most fields, if you require 100% certainty on everything, because we just don't have that, especially for something as far back as the pyramids of Giza. So unless you have an actual alternative theory of what the Giza pyramids were for we have to work on the most likely assumption, that they're tombs.