Not a shower thought, we all saw the headline last month. And the Biden thing doesn’t make any sense anyway, he’s one person.

360p is probably enough. And that’s “up to” per second, average is probably far far far less.

So did the 28 lb corgi eat 2.8 times the food of the cat?

What is the price difference between feeding a dog and feeding a cat?

Only one way to find out. C’mere.

in such a way that things end up worse for you?

IANAL. This is what they want you to think, “just do this and it’ll be better for you”. It might be a short term hassle waiting for the drug dog, or being arrested while they conduct their investigation. But long term it’s the court that matters. And the court will throw out anything obtained illegally or the cops do illegally.

Cops are not there to help you, they just want to find someone to pin a crime on. The only one that will help you is your lawyer. Stfu. Don’t talk to the police.

? Your point being that we didn’t stop burning coal when we got oil? I am aware.

If you didn’t have things to burn, then you couldn’t access certain advancements. Not nearly as easily anyway. We would have needed charcoal for steam engines. Or your example, how would we have processed ore into metal without coal (on any significant scale). Maybe charcoal again. Without something liquid (and very energy dense) combustion engines would have been very hard. Maybe ethanol, but production of that would have been hard. I think advancement has been very dependent on easy, energy dense energy sources.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/turn-on-head

It’s useful to think about things by turning them on their head, aka inverting them. In this case: Burning of coal facilitated the industrial revolution. Yes, yes, yes, I know all the things that it was not caused by the burning of coal, it as not “just about burning coal”, it was not named because of the burning of coal, things were iterative, etc, etc, etc. But it behooves you turn things on their head and think through them in different ways.

In the bigger sense of turning things on their head, we can look at energy sources as we go through history: We burned wood. Then we burned coal. Then we burned oil. Then we burned atoms.

Yes I inverted it to burning coal is called the industrial revolution because I think it’s neat way to look at it.

It would be the Second one, but it’s not the oil that marks it.

… So it would not the be second one.

CF?

That’s not what crowd sourcing is.

They use Google street view, so it’s a ton.

There really are some good geoguessers. It’s not a crowd source game.

Some other wiki reading:

Napoleon needed peace with Britain to take possession of Louisiana [from Spain]. Otherwise, Louisiana would be an easy prey for a potential invasion from Britain or the U.S. But in early 1803, continuing war between France and Britain seemed unavoidable. On March 11, 1803, Napoleon began planning an invasion of Great Britain.[15][16]

In Saint-Domingue, Leclerc’s forces took Louverture prisoner, but their expedition soon faltered in the face of fierce resistance and disease. By early 1803, Napoleon decided to abandon his plans to rebuild France’s New World empire. Without sufficient revenues from sugar colonies in the Caribbean, Louisiana had little value to him. Spain had not yet completed the transfer of Louisiana to France, and war between France and the UK was imminent. Out of anger towards Spain and the unique opportunity to sell something that was useless and not truly his yet, Napoleon decided to sell the entire territory.[17]

I was under the impression that there wasn’t much farming at the time in that region. Nothing like the population today. It was mostly fur trapping.

Also in the event of a war, they have to consider if they could defend it. So the expense to try to defend it and probably lose it anyway, or some cash right now.

I always heard he needed the money for his European ambitions.

a slave revolt at the colony beginning in 1791 that led to the successful Haitian Revolution in 1804 frightened those living in the Southern United States who supported slavery, raising fears that it would inspire other slaves.[7][10] Such sentiments among wealthy slaveholding Americans strained relations between the United States and Haiti, with the United States initially refusing to recognize Haitian independence while slaveholders advocated for a trade embargo with the newly created Caribbean nation.[10] The Haiti indemnity controversy – which France forced upon Haiti through gunboat diplomacy in 1825 due to France’s financial loss following Haiti’s independence – resulted with Haiti using much of its revenue to pay debt to foreign nations by the late-1800s.[11]