"Shall" and "will" mean basically the same thing -- they are referring to the future. The traditional grammar rule is that "shall" is only used with the first person ("I" or "we"), and "will" is used in all other cases -- but nobody actually follows this "rule" with any consistency. Effectively, "shall" and "will" are interchangeable, except "shall" sounds a little more formal.
(Here's a Wikipedia page about "shall" vs. "will".)
"What do we do now" is in the present tense, and is the most correct of the three options, since the speaker is talking about actions in the present. "Will" and "shall" are future tense -- so "will" is correct if you are asking, "What will we do after the movie?"
I agree with Robert Wells that language is not static, but always changing. However, I would disagree with both the answers by Robert Wells and by LawrenceC that "raised" should be preferred to "reared" in describing the process of bringing up, educating, and socializing human children. I particularly disagree with the comment by Lambie that "reared" is "positively Victorian". I aslo disagree with LawrenceC that "rear" implies any greater notion of duty than "raise" does.
While I have rarely heard people say 'I was reared in {place}", I have often heard people say "I reared my children by {method}". Moreover, I have often read accounts of "child rearing" and discussions of the best methods for "child rearing", rather more often I think, than of "child raising".
I would say that "rear" emphasizes the active efforts of parents or guardians to instruct and socialize children more than "raise" does, but aside from this nuance their meanings are the same, and either may be used. "Rear" is perhaps a bit more formal in US usage. I think it is more common and not particularly formal in UK usage.
Both are derived from an Old English word meaning "to lift up" ("rǣran" to raise; cognate with Gothic -"raisjan", Old Norse "reisa"), and their denotations are certainly exactly the same.
As for dictionary cites for "rear" as a verb:
- Oxford learner's gives "to care for young children or animals until they are fully grown" as sense 1, and lists "raise" as a synonym.
- Cambridge gives "to care for young children or animals until they are able to care for themselves".
- Merriam-Webster gives "to bring to maturity or self-sufficiency usually through nurturing care" as sense 3 a (2)
- Dictionary.com gives "to take care of and support up to maturity" as sense 1 (when used with an object).
- vocabulary.com gives "bring up".
- Longman gives " to look after a person or animal until they are fully grown" as sense 1
- Collins gives "If you rear children, you take care of them until they are old enough to take care of themselves." as sense 4.
- Lexico gives "Bring up and care for (a child) until they are fully grown." as sense 1, and lists bring up, care for, look after, nurture, and parent as synonyms.
None of these give any usage note or any indication of obsolescence for this sense of "rear"
This google Ngram shows that "raise children" is more common than "rear children", but the crossover in frequency (in the google books corpus) was around 1940, a bit more recent than "Victorian" times, but longer ago than I would have guessed. however this alternate Ngram shows that "child rearing" has been more common in the same corpus than "child raising" since the 1920s, and far more common since the 1960s.
Best Answer
The word via is used for through, which can also be an abbreviated form of through the medium of.
So "talking via Skype" is used to indicate that the conversation was done through the medium of Skype.
I can use the words by and via when talking about a place. For example:
These now have two different meanings. Going via Birmingham still means to go through Birmingham. The route goes right into Birmingham and out again. Conversely, when going by Birmingham it just indicates the route came adjacent to the city and does not enter it.
So they can be used in similar circumstances, but have similar but different meanings.