Yep. This is especially observable in archery, since arrows drop off over such a shorter distance than bullets. With a simple bow and arrow, if you can hit something at 20 yards by aiming straight at it, then at 30 yards you'll have to aim quite a bit higher, and at 40 yards you'll have to aim much higher. The principle carries true to firearms, albeit over longer distances since the projectiles are traveling faster and thus travel further while under the same pull of gravity.

Scopes intended for long ranges will typically have multiple markers for multiple ranges. I.e., along one long vertical line, you have a specific horizontal line for 100 yards, and another one for 200 yards, and another one for 300 yards, etc.

These account for basic bullet drop, but then you will have to do some on-the-fly adjustment for things like wind. This is one of the reasons why, in the military, someone in a "sniper" role often has a "spotter"... the recoil action of the rifle might throw the sniper's viewing window way off and require him to have to re-aim all over again the for next shot, but the spotter has an unaffected view of where the last shot landed to help the sniper recalculate the next shot.

That, and outright bizarro hospital / private insurance markups. In your everyday life, you can go to any pharmacy and get basic cough lozenges at like $10 for a pack of 20 or more. But under hospital billing, those exact same lozenges can be $10 apiece.

It gets interesting at the level of nonessential care and procedures.

I too am a Canadian citizen. If I suffer a serious trauma like a gunshot wound or severely broken bone or severed appendage, I'm well taken care of on taxpayers' money. But it's not so nice for illnesses like Cancer or for less-than-urgent needs like eye care and dental care. There, I could be on a waiting list for an MRI or CAT scan for months or years, or left to pay mostly out-of-pocket for things like eyeglasses and dental surgery.

Case in point, in the Canadian system, if you don't have private insurance to cover dental care and you have gum disease, you're left to pay tens of thousands of dollars to keep your teeth from falling out of your head. If you need vision correction for poor eyesight, too bad, if you don't have private insurance for that, you're paying out of pocket for glasses/contacts/LASIK just like any American schlub. I say case in point because that's all me.

If you have a gas under pressure and you release the pressure, the gas cools down as it expands. So the refrigerator has a setup whereby it compresses a bunch of gas in a part of the system outside of the fridge, and depressurizes that gas in a part of the system inside the fridge. So, heat is released outside of the fridge and the inside of the fridge is allowed to get very cold. The fridge will have a thermostat that determines when to run or when to stay idle, so that things don't get too cold.

Modern cell service is digital, for starters.

Right? Let's say we recruit a "small person" (a clinical dwarf... even someone on the lower end of clinical dwarfism) onto a football team. Let's say that that's 65 pounds of man plus a few more pounds of helmet, shoulder pads, etc.. Well, even the very strongest of men isn't going to fling that other man very far.

I mean, it depends on how much you're exerting yourself and how much you want to use perfumes and antimicrobials to mask or subdue any odor.

I used to do strenuous work indoors, so I'd change my exterior shirt and pants every 1-2 days, while changing my underwear every day. Now I do more sedentary work mixed outdoors and indoors, and I find that I can stretch the same exterior shirt and pants for a few days straight.

It sounds a bit grody, but what am I supposed to do? Mortgage and condo fees are already expensive, let alone laundry. And my time is at a premium. I'll be damned if I'm going to waste a lot of my personal time in the morning or evening doing laundry because my employer only provides me 2 uniforms, if I can stretch things slightly so that I only do laundry on the weekend....

It comes down to tactics.

One simple one was to have the archers at the back of your ranks. When the enemy was at a distance, the archers could fire volleys in a high arc over the heads of your soldiers to rain down on the enemy soldiers. Then, when the armies got close enough for hand-to-hand combat the archers would be taking pot shots here and there.

Another one was to put your archers on high ground like a hilltop or castle tower. That way they could fire over the heads of your soldiers and into enemy ranks even at closer ranges.

Archers were also considered "efficient" in terms of speed, for a little while. In Europe, from the 14th to 16th century, crossbows became the ranged weapon of choice in some armies, because soldiers could fire a crossbow more accurately with less training. However, that particular "efficiency" of the crossbow came at the expense of speed and quantity. In the time it took a crossbowman to fire a shot, reload, aim and fire a second shot, a bowman could fire 4 or 5 shots. And, provided you had a good supply of the right kind of wood, you could build a lot of bows for cheaper than crossbows. Meaning, you would have more men firing more arrows.

And yes, it was typical for an army to have hundreds or even thousands of arrows made in advance, with each archer typically carrying about 2 dozen at a time. And at the end of a battle they could retrieve shot arrows from the battlefield.

I'm an amateur historian and archer. You're right, 200 was not all that common. 100-150 was typical.