4 ms·

Can you link the source for these claims? Considering he didn’t have any embassy bureaucracy beyond a few staff helping him, and that any reply from washingto

Can you link the source for these claims? Considering he didn’t have any embassy bureaucracy beyond a few staff helping him, and that any reply from washington would be many weeks away… it seems extremely unlikely he would have had much free time at all in Paris.

lazide 1y ago
which part? your timelines seem pretty off if you think ‘weeks’ was a remotely possible timeline at the time either. There was no electronic communication of any sort (electricity was barely understood at the time), and best case transit time was around 6 weeks each way, often 8-12 if possible at all. It was also highly seasonal, and still very dangerous. So the absolute fastest turn around time was 12 weeks/3 months, and more realistically 4-6 months. With some decent odds that one of the legs of the trip might sink, losing all hands. It’s why a literal founding father (and one of the most influential ones) was the ambassador. No one else could be trusted. [https://www.history.com/articles/benjamin-franklin-france https://www.history.com/articles/benjamin-franklin-france]
- MichaelZuo 1y ago
  Are you confused about what “many weeks” means? it means >>few weeks
  - lazide 1y ago
    How does that work out 6 months in on your ‘many weeks’ work estimate?
    - MichaelZuo 1y ago
      Huh? Do you not believe 20 to 30 weeks is >>few weeks?
      - lazide 1y ago
        I have never seen (or used) ‘few’ in the description of something when there was 20 of something. Technically, a year could also count if you said >> few seconds, but no one will take you seriously if you do either.
        MichaelZuo 1y ago
        You seem very confused… “many weeks” was the exact quote. “few” was only brought up after the bizarre reply as part of the explanation in “>>few weeks”. And yes “many weeks” easily covers the range of 20 to 30 weeks.
        lazide 1y ago
        Nope. Just pointing out it’s the wrong scale, and providing context of the right scale. Which is months. Many months.
        MichaelZuo 1y ago
        This doesn’t even make sense. Why don’t you accept it is often used? You can search older HN comments and see hundreds upon hundreds of instances of “many weeks” and so on…

lazide 1y ago

which part? your timelines seem pretty off if you think ‘weeks’ was a remotely possible timeline at the time either. There was no electronic communication of any sort (electricity was barely understood at the time), and best case transit time was around 6 weeks each way, often 8-12 if possible at all. It was also highly seasonal, and still very dangerous. So the absolute fastest turn around time was 12 weeks/3 months, and more realistically 4-6 months. With some decent odds that one of the legs of the trip might sink, losing all hands. It’s why a literal founding father (and one of the most influential ones) was the ambassador. No one else could be trusted. [https://www.history.com/articles/benjamin-franklin-france https://www.history.com/articles/benjamin-franklin-france]

MichaelZuo 1y ago
Are you confused about what “many weeks” means? it means >>few weeks
- lazide 1y ago
  How does that work out 6 months in on your ‘many weeks’ work estimate?
  - MichaelZuo 1y ago
    Huh? Do you not believe 20 to 30 weeks is >>few weeks?
    - lazide 1y ago
      I have never seen (or used) ‘few’ in the description of something when there was 20 of something. Technically, a year could also count if you said >> few seconds, but no one will take you seriously if you do either.
      - MichaelZuo 1y ago
        You seem very confused… “many weeks” was the exact quote. “few” was only brought up after the bizarre reply as part of the explanation in “>>few weeks”. And yes “many weeks” easily covers the range of 20 to 30 weeks.
        lazide 1y ago
        Nope. Just pointing out it’s the wrong scale, and providing context of the right scale. Which is months. Many months.
        MichaelZuo 1y ago
        This doesn’t even make sense. Why don’t you accept it is often used? You can search older HN comments and see hundreds upon hundreds of instances of “many weeks” and so on…