Additionally the demand was lower. Laptops were just starting to become common for consumers. In the mid-2000s advances in manufacturing of semiconductors to reduce the size of components allowed laptops to become powerful enough to compete with desktop units, and gave rise to smart phones. I started college around this time. In my first year I saw maybe 10 Laptops total on campus and limited WiFi. By the time I graduated almost everyone had a laptop and a smart phone, and the campus had deployed WiFi to cover all occupied areas, plus some outdoors.

Both. New tech leads to new tech breakthroughs. New tech is expensive and it takes time to find ways to mass produce them to make them affordable.

[removed]

Internet service speeds in 2002 were also pitiful by modern standards. You weren’t walking around the house streaming video on a 56k modem.

Homes had one computer and it was hard wired to a phone jack. There was no use case for a wireless router.

[removed]

Wireless and Bluetooth technology was not widespread 20 years ago because the technology was not available or developed yet. It was only in the 1990s that the first Bluetooth products began to appear on the market. Before that, most communication between devices was done using cables or infrared waves. Additionally, the cost of the technology was prohibitive for many consumers and businesses.

Yes, per official Coca-Cola FAQ.

He also broke his army up into smaller yet still complete units. Which made huge supply lines unnecessary.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting. Users will often either find a thread that meets their needs or find that their question might qualify for an exception to rule 7. Please see this wiki entry for more details (Rule 7).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

To build on what some others have pointed out:

He would divide his forces into smaller units. This would allow them to cover more territory/ strategic points. This gives you multiple places to defend against any enemy strikes as well as allows you to forage for food a lot easier, as feeding 500 men in ten different cities is much easier than feeding 5000 men in one city.

You might think that defending multiple fronts is terrible, and you'd be right, but the enemy would do the same thing to counter your armies from encircling them. If they didn't split their forces, then you would possibly disrupt their own supply lines or take vital cities.

If they did split their forces, Napoleon would then gather up most of his forces from each of his different parts of his army, march them through the night or through the early morning, and then attack the divided enemy forces. Once a majority of the enemy was routed, he would go back and try and save all the smaller skeleton crews he had left behind to stall the enemy from uniting his forces.

He would do this while adding in some truly ingenious artillery and infantry tactics. His cavalry tactics weren't great, but he had a lot of great cavalry generals help him with those tactics (as well as great infantry and artillery generals). His generals were generally better than their counterparts in opposing armies, too. This is because they were not only getting a lot of experience in fighting, but also Napoleon started building his officers out of a meritocracy and not a monarchy's lords and nobles.

One of the big factors was reorganising the logistics train such as lighter equipment to advancing on wider front to improve forage. This dependence on forage, made a smaller supply train and allowed swift movement that allowed him to choose where and when to fight. This fell apart with the guerrilla war in Spain and the retreat from Moscow where he was forced to fall back or the same path as his advance and the Russians using scorched earth tactics.

Firstly he was a good publicist and claimed victories for battles which were actually draws. Next he used his army's ability to forage on the move to march faster without a huge slow moving baggage train so could get his forces to s crisis point quicker than the opposition though this would upset the locals where he was marching through which would come back to bite him later. Next he attempted to fight opposing armies in detail, so use the large part of his army to batter away at a smaller army until it surrendered then turn the army towards another force which was being delayed by a smaller group of his army and defeat that one in turn, continue to repeat his until all opposition is crushed. Finally unlike most armies he didn't bother with sieges where his army potentially could be tied down in the same location for weeks instead he either took places by storm or ignored them and defeated armies in the field until there was no armed forces left to defend the towns.

Something not mentioned yet is that France had a massive population for the time, and thus a much larger army

Because he was really good at what he did, and he had behind him a country with very motivated population that has just recently overthrown monarchy in a successful and popular revolution.

Because France had its popular uprising, and no longer was a monarchy, he had access to a substantially larger army than any other leader of the time. His grande armee was over a million, which is a truly colossal number at the time, and it would take a coalition of multiple nations banding together to come up with similar numbers.

Wait….so coca cola, invented santas drip?

AFAIK red was a commercial addition from the likes of Coca Cola who advertised Santa in red.

Very interesting! I wasn’t sure if cardinals were everywhere or not but funny how it’s basically the same icon just didn’t bird

His tactics were quite innovative for the time:

• Talented usage of artillery and cavalry
• Surprise attacks
• Quick movement of his armies across land, often ignoring supply lines and using local resources
• Extremely high morale of his army - Napoleon knew how to make soldiers loyal and inspire them

He also gained huge support of civil population in France, meaning that he got his back covered throughout the wars.

He wasn't and didn't, famously.

As for why he was as successful as he was, simply put, he was a great military leader with a sense of strategy, tactics, and organization, and his army was almost fanatical in terms of their loyalty to him.

If you're not local to SC, I can speak a little more about the larger context. I spent a lot of time in MB in the 80s and early 90s. Our parents would literally just tell us to be back by lunch or dinner and we were free to roam the beach or the strip. We always felt safe, and you would constantly run into people you knew. Sure, locals knew to avoid the OD around bike week, black bike week, and senior week but overall it was a very family friendly experience.

Things changed in the 2000s. Black bike week was exploding in popularity. (BTW, don't come at me about "black bike week". This is the name that locals both black and white have called the event for decades). Atlantic Beach, it's traditional home, could no longer contain the event and the focus of the event shifted to Myrtle. For a few years, things went off the rails. Shootings and stabbings downtown, high levels of property crime, etc. Harley Week was little better. It seemed like Harley Week turned into Harley Month, and good luck trying to move anywhere between 17bypass and the water. During both bike weeks, seeing women twerking in thongs, flashing, or even couples performing sexual acts on public was not unusual. This was not casual toplessness like you might find on a beach in Europe. This was sexually charged nudity around children. The Pavilion (an amusement park) closed around 05 or 06 leaving a literal gaping hole on the strip and tons of teenagers with less options to contain them at night. Meanwhile, MB was experiencing the same woes as the rest of the country with housing shortages, opioid addiction, homelessness, etc. In other words, family friendly Myrtle Beach turned into Dirty Myrtle.

The current crop of city leaders realize that Myrtles reputation has taken a hit and its hurting tourism and local investment. (For example, I don't take my kids there and I personally know very few families here in SC that do. We go to other beaches now). They invested in more infrastructure to lure families, like the boardwalk and that big farris wheel. They are targeting a different demographic with the country music fest. Part of the change seems to be much stricter law enforcement on seemingly trivial things like vehicle modifications, traffic infractions, and revealing swimwear.

Also point for consideration is women's vote, UK allowed women's vote in 1918 compared to 1920 in USA (arguably later and no full enfranchisement till the 1960s but hey ho, big country, not really fair comparison)

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Loaded questions are not allowed on ELI5. A loaded question is one that posits a specific view of reality and asks for explanations that confirm it. A loaded question, by definition, presumes that something must be true in order for the question to stand.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

So... About this thing called "Roman Empire". Before you go on about how in Rome wealthy class held power and there were classes that weren't allowed to vote, along with disfranchised areas - this is the case with USA right now.

Ancient Greeks would be surprised