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]

Are you confused about what “many weeks” means? it means >>few weeks

How does that work out 6 months in on your ‘many weeks’ work estimate?

Huh? Do you not believe 20 to 30 weeks is >>few weeks?

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.

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.

Nope. Just pointing out it’s the wrong scale, and providing context of the right scale. Which is months. Many months.

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…