diverging

Not according to the IAU.

According to the IAU, "planets and dwarf planets are two distinct classes of objects" – in other words, "dwarf planets" are not planets.

Ceres was considered a planet in the first half of the 1800's, along with a bunch of things in the asteroid belt. There was a point where there were 64 planets.

In the present state of knowledge astronomers give us the following list:
Sixty-four "primary planets" revolving round the Sun as our Earth does.
Twenty satellites, including our Moon.
Of the sixty-four primary planets fifty-six are asteroids, comparatively small bodies, all of which were discovered in this century, and fifty-two since the year 1844.]

I haven't had it, but there is a description in the link.

Balut is a renowned dish due to its different developmental stages; some people prefer it when the duck embryo is still largely liquid, while others prefer it when it is more mature and has a chewier texture. A combination of savory, gamey, and rich characteristics can be found in the flavor, which makes it an acquired taste that many Filipinos treasure as a culinary treat and a part of their culture.

And some people eat it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut_(food)

The anno domini (AD) dating system started in 525. The concept of zero did not make it to Europe until the 11th century.

No. I copied and pasted that. The definition says 'the Sun'. There was a proposal to classify 'exoplanets' but the IAU never accepted it, and so those large masses orbiting other stars remain undefined.

Exoplanets are addressed in a 2003 position statement issued by a now-defunct IAU Working Group on Extrasolar Planets. However, this position statement was never proposed as an official IAU resolution and was never voted on by IAU members.

The stupidest consequence of the definition is not the classification of Pluto, but that there are only eight planets in the entire universe.

a planet is a celestial body that:

1. is in orbit around the Sun

I doubt that. The woman isn't giving the oil to herself, but to Jesus. My guess is that it Jesus represents the church and the woman represents Christians, and the parable is meant to justify their growing need for money when Matthew was written.

Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very expensive perfume, and she poured it on His head as He was reclining at the table. But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, “Why this waste? For this perfume could have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.” But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why are you bothering the woman? For she has done a good deed for Me. For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me. For when she poured this perfume on My body, she did it to prepare Me for burial. Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told in memory of her.”

--Matthew 26:6-13

I think Jesus would have been fine spending it on himself.

... refuse to return escaped slaves? No, that's not it.

Leap year creator

That's Julius Caesar. Sort of...

11 million in Canada. 72 million in DR Congo. It's not even close.