FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 4 hours agodays of future pastlemmy.caimagemessage-square25fedilinkarrow-up1230arrow-down15file-text
arrow-up1225arrow-down1imagedays of future pastlemmy.caFoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 4 hours agomessage-square25fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareWalleyeWarrior@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up15·4 hours agoNot really. Most of these old canals were only a couple yards/meters wide and dried up 100 years ago.
minus-squareSparroHawc@piefed.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·2 hours agoIf they’re only a couple meters wide, how the heck are they supposed to fit watercraft?
minus-squareWalleyeWarrior@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up3·2 hours agoThe barges were just a little less than a few meters wide. The manpower to build a 100km long canal that is 2.5-3 meters wide is substantially less than what it takes to dig one 8 meters wide in the era before steam shovels.
minus-squareokwhateverdude@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 hours agonot enough attention is being paid to the drunken stumble into the canal that drowned someone! /s
minus-squareKorhaka@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 hours agoAhh that sucks, we have quite a few of ours still
Not really. Most of these old canals were only a couple yards/meters wide and dried up 100 years ago.
If they’re only a couple meters wide, how the heck are they supposed to fit watercraft?
The barges were just a little less than a few meters wide. The manpower to build a 100km long canal that is 2.5-3 meters wide is substantially less than what it takes to dig one 8 meters wide in the era before steam shovels.
But are they only 3 feet deep? /s
not enough attention is being paid to the drunken stumble into the canal that drowned someone! /s
Ahh that sucks, we have quite a few of ours still