This site is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION. b3de is content aggregator mobile friendly website that presents content made available by your favorite sources ( and even some you've likely never heard of ) via really simple sindication and web syndication.
Map created by The World In MapsThe map above shows which 5 countries were the first to recognise American Independence after the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th 1776. And before looking at the map I would not have had Morocco as doing so before France. The UK would finally recognise the […]
The map above shows which 5 countries were the first to recognise American Independence after the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th 1776.
And before looking at the map I would not have had Morocco as doing so before France.
The UK would finally recognise the United States as being independent in 1783 following the signing of the Treaty of Paris.
From the map creator:
In the aftermath of its independence, the United States sought international recognition to legitimize its place on the world stage. he first country to acknowledge the fledgling nation was Morocco, whose Sultan Mohammed III opened Moroccan ports to American ships on December 20, 1777, making Morocco the first to formally recognize the U.S.
France followed soon after, becoming the first major power to do so by signing the Treaty of Amity and Commerce and the Treaty of Alliance on February 6, 1778. This recognition came with vital military and financial aid that proved decisive in the Revolutionary War.
The Netherlands offered formal recognition on April 19, 1782, accepting John Adams as U.S. minister and hosting the first American embassy in The Hague. Spain, though initially cautious, officially recognized the United States on February 20, 1783, shortly before the Treaty of Paris concluded the war.
Sweden became the fifth country to recognize the new nation, signing a Treaty of Amity and Commerce on April 3, 1783. These early alliances were not only symbolic victories for American diplomacy but also practical lifelines, helping to secure trade, military support and international standing for the new republic.
Map created by Birthright, Inc. in 1944, accessed via Cornell PJ Mode Collection of Persuasive CartographyThe map above shows when various US states passed laws that could force criminals and those deemed as somehow mentally deficient to be sterilised. From the notes on the map by Cornell: The collection includes three folding pamphlets issued in […]
The map above shows when various US states passed laws that could force criminals and those deemed as somehow mentally deficient to be sterilised.
From the notes on the map by Cornell:
The collection includes three folding pamphlets issued in the mid-1940s supporting the forced sterilization of criminals and variously defined “mental deficients.”
Included is a chart of state laws and a set of four maps dramatically demonstrating how widespread the practice had become in America.
Forced sterilization is a manifestation of “eugenics,” the “science” of improving the population by preventing those deemed to be “inferior” from reproducing.
Toward the end of the 19th century, some medical and scientific works proposed that criminal behaviour, mental illness, alcoholism, epilepsy, and other diseases were largely inherited.
These reports coincided with a number of societal concerns: increased crime; difficulty in assimilating larger immigrant populations; growth in the number of those in prisons and mental institutions; and the lack of effective treatments of mental disability.
In 1907, Indiana adopted the nation’s first law providing for the involuntary sterilization of “confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles and rapists” in state institutions.
A number of other states followed, particularly after 1927, when the Supreme Court upheld state involuntary sterilization laws.
In that case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded for the majority that:
“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207.
The three pamphlets in the collection were published by the ironically-named “Birthright Inc.,” a well-funded organization that fostered new programs across the country and maintained sterilization statistics.
The first pamphlet, (which you can see here) discusses the number of “mental deficients” and “insane,” along with academic studies regarding their criminality and disease, and concludes that “Society cannot continue to support an ever-increasing number of socially inadequate persons.”
Accordingly, Birthright, Inc. “adopts selective sterilization as the only immediate and effective method of checking the increase of those who are least qualified to exercise the privilege of parenthood.”
Here’s the full text:
—-
PLATFORM OF BIRTHRIGHT, INC.
“There should be no child in America that has not the complete birthright of a sound mind in a sound body, and that has not been born under proper conditions.” THE CHILD'S BILL OF RIGHTS.
THE SITUATION
We are now supporting 1,500,000 mental deficients of whom only 100,000 are under institutional care while the remainder shift for themselves and receive some sort of help outside of institutions. There are 500,000 insane, and their care costs more than that of the mental deficients. Society cannot continue to support an ever-increasing number of socially inadequate persons. In a highly civilized community their presence gives rise to grave social and economic disturbances.
“The marked association between intelligence and infertility is bigger than has usually been thought. The very bright child whose father is in the lowest occupational group comes from just as small a family as does the very bright child of prosperous parents. The very gifted are, on the average, very infertile and this is true of ALL social classes. The dying out of the very gifted in the higher social categories cannot be partly compensated by greater fertility amongst the very gifted poor, who are themselves just as infertile.” (“Intelligence and Family Size” by J. A. F. Roberts, Eugenics Review, January 1939.)
“Low intelligence, low economic status, high incidence of disease and criminality, as well as high frequency of morons are associated in families of high fertility.” (“Heredity and Social Problems” by L. L. Burlingame, page 271.) This association of low intelligence with high fertility is neither a necessary nor a universal relation. It has arisen because the birth rate among this class has not fallen so rapidly as that among the more intelligent classes who are able to learn and to apply methods for controlling their fertility.
Professor C. C. Zimmerman of Harvard University said in 1941, “No American economic group with an income of over $1,000. a year is reproducing itself.” Yet this is the group upon whom we must depend to carry those who are too deficient to carry their own weight in a social order such as we are trying to maintain.
We cannot hope to put those able to plan their parenthood into competitive breeding with those who are unwilling or unable to restrict their fecundity. There remains but one realistic remedy and that is to place a check upon the ever mounting flood of human life that is produced in violation of the BIRTHRIGHT OF A SOUND MIND IN A SOUND BODY. To continue attempting to rectify the results of the fatal differences in our American birth rates merely by extended social services, socialized medicine, etc., will result in automatically raising the fertility of the lowest third in the population and thus hastening the deterioration we are trying to check. Emotionalism in our remedies only increases our problems.
The situation of an increasing proportion of defectives in our population rests on the difference in the fertility between those who constitute our social problems and those who carry them. The inadequacy of our present attempts to correct the results of this situation and the staggering and steadily mounting expenditures for the care of defectives demand prompt and vigorous measures for the good of the nation. Society can reverse this dangerous difference in the birth rates. The means to do it are available.
THE SOLUTION
There are but two ways to protect society from those who are too irresponsible or too defective to apply successfully the methods used by those who voluntarily restrict their parenthood.
Segregation during their reproductive lifetime.
Though many defectives need the protection of an institution, there is a far larger number who could safely live in the community if the possibility of parenthood were removed. For these segregation entails needless cruelty by preventing normal living and it seldom would be the choice of those concerned.
Any individual improvement gained by an improved environment or by training cannot improve the quality of the offspring and therefore is powerless to check the increasing burden on the next generation, which should be our chief concern.
Making parenthood impossible by means of a simple operation that is without danger.
This procedure leaves the personality intact and permits the full enjoyment of all the functions of normal living except parenthood. It is extensively used today by those able to pay a surgeon to perform the operation privately; it would be a boon to those less able financially if the county of their residence offered this service to them free of charge.
Treatment afforded the unfortunate should always have a two-fold aim; to increase the individual’s chances of living a useful and happy life and to protect the unborn from facing life with serious physical or mental handicaps. In so far as we succeed in this, society (which is merely the aggregate of the individuals composing it) will benefit and the future will be protected.
THE PLATFORM
Standing on the principle that procreation is not a right to be unrestrictedly exercised but that it is a responsibility to be assumed by those capable of producing normal offspring and of giving them necessary care, BIRTHRIGHT, INC., adopts selective sterilization as the only immediate and effective method of checking the increase of those who are least qualified to exercise the privilege of parenthood.
Since social security has been made an obligation of government, met by granting huge sums in subsidies, it is essential that we control the quality of life which is to be made secure.
Administration-The indication for sterilization should be considered in each case on its individual merits after careful study of the personal traits of the candidate AND THE FAMILY HISTORY.
It should apply to persons both in and out of institutions, thereby preventing the necessity of some people ever being committed to institutions and permitting the release of many now under confinement.
It should be administrated by state boards among whose members are those thoroughly trained in the fields of medicine, psychiatry, and the laws of heredity as they pertain to man; with the privilege provided of consulting with competent persons in related fields, such as social case workers, educators, and officers of institutions. Appeal to the courts should be provided.
Where sterilization is indicated for an individual but is objected to by any organization
BIRTHRIGHT, INC., recommends the sterilization bills introduced in New Jersey in March 1942 (Assembly No. 170 and No. 171) as being most carefully conceived and expertly drawn. Abstracts can be had free upon request, copies at ten cents.
which is conscientiously opposed to the principle of sterilization, the patient may be paroled to the organization so long as it shall exercise such supervised care as will effectively prevent parenthood, and at no cost to any municipality, county, state or federal budget.
Legal Status-The Supreme Court of the United States in 1927 used these words in upholding the Virginia law: “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the state for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped by incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”
Twenty-eight states and Puerto Rico and eleven foreign countries now have sterilization laws.
We are expending our utmost in defeating the enemies of our way of life. Every day our best blood is being sacrificed in defense of the very institutions which must perish if we fail to stop the multiplication of our weakest stock at home. Dr. Alexis Carrel warned that “Modern society must promote, by all possible means, the formation of better human stock.” The purpose of BIRTHRIGHT, INC., is to foster, by educational means, a nationwide program of selective sterilization in order that the cost of national preservation may not have been spent in vain.
Adopted October 5, 1943.
The second pamphlet (which you can see here) is a “Summary of the Sterilization Laws of 28 States and Puerto Rico.”
This folding chart contains a wealth of information as to each state, in some 35 categories, including the classes of persons and conditions covered; the administrative and surgical procedures; and the presence or absence of various protections.
Among other things, the data show that three states required no notice to the patient, parent or guardian; only three states allowed a jury trial on demand; and the grounds for involuntary sterilization in California included “syphilitic disease, insanity of pregnancy, families already too large.”
The final pamphlet (map above) unfolds to a dramatic series of four “U.S. Maps showing the States having Sterilization Laws in 1910-1920-1930-1940?.”?
On each map, the states that had adopted these laws are shown in white and all other states are black.
The year the legislation was enacted is spelled out the first time any state appears in white.
The images show at a glance the steady growth of the movement each decade, from the three states in 1910 to 28 in 1940.
Just as this Suffrage Map showed the apparently undeniable progress toward votes for women nationwide, this series of maps suggest a similarly inevitable movement to forced sterilization.
It has been estimated that more than 60,000 people in 30 states were sterilized under these laws from 1907 to 1963.
In addition, “thousands of poor, mostly Black women were sterilized each year in the United States under federally funded programs.” Villarosa 2022.
The aggressive use of forced sterilization by the Nazis brought much increased criticism and reconsideration and a slowing of American programs.
At the same time, “already-entrenched programs continued to sterilize about 2500 institutionalized persons each year.”
Although many state laws have been repealed, the practice continues, and recent patterns of forced or coerced government sterilization were reported in California (2006 to 2010), in Tennessee (2017), and in a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Georgia (2020). Villarosa 2022.
Note the The descriptive information in the "Collector's Notes" has been supplied by Mr. Mode and does not necessarily reflect the views of Cornell University.
Map created by reddit user Organic_Product_2464 The map above shows which of the 10 biggest cities in the world is closest to you (of course there’s a decent chance you may even live in one of them). The author has gone with the 2018 estimates by the United Nations for their list of the 10 […]
The map above shows which of the 10 biggest cities in the world is closest to you (of course there’s a decent chance you may even live in one of them).
The author has gone with the 2018 estimates by the United Nations for their list of the 10 biggest.
The UN figures include a mixture of city proper, metropolitan area, and urban area and has a list of 81 cities with a population of over 5 million as you can see below:
Map created by Amazing__Maps The map above shows what percentage of Europeans think their government is hiding a cure for cancer. It comes from Eurobarometer’s 2025 report on European citizens' knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology. The question they asked was the following: “The cure for cancer exists but is hidden from the public […]
Map created by reddit user Ok_Somewhere9687The map above shows the estimated range of Israel’s Jericho III Nuclear Missiles which is estimated could carry a a single 750 kg (150-400 kiloton) nuclear warhead or two or three low-yield MIRV warheads. To put that in some comparison the Hiroshima bomb was only about 15 kilotons. Here’s more […]
The map above shows the estimated range of Israel’s Jericho III Nuclear Missiles which is estimated could carry a a single 750 kg (150-400 kiloton) nuclear warhead or two or three low-yield MIRV warheads.
To put that in some comparison the Hiroshima bomb was only about 15 kilotons.
Here’s more about them and their nuclear weapons program:
?Israel’s Jericho III missile is a central component of its strategic deterrent, closely tied to its unacknowledged nuclear weapons program.?
Jericho III Missile Overview
The Jericho III (also designated YA-4) is a solid-fuelled, three-stage intermediate to intercontinental ballistic missile developed by Israel Aerospace Industries.
It entered service around 2011 and is believed to be operationally deployed.
The missile has an estimated range between 4,800 and 6,500 kilometres, with some sources suggesting it could reach up to 11,500 kilometres depending on payload configuration.
This range allows it to strike targets across the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and potentially parts of North and South America and Australia.
The Jericho III is capable of carrying a payload between 1,000 and 1,300 kilograms, which could include a single nuclear warhead with a yield estimated between 150 and 400 kilotons, or multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) with lower yields.
Its mobility is enhanced by various basing options, including transporter erector launchers (TELs), silos, and railcars.
Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Program
Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding its nuclear arsenal, neither confirming nor denying its existence.
However, it is widely believed that Israel has possessed nuclear weapons since the late 1960s. Estimates of its current stockpile range from approximately 90 to 400 warheads.
The country’s nuclear capabilities are supported by a triad of delivery systems: land-based missiles (including the Jericho series), submarine-launched cruise missiles from Dolphin-class submarines, and air-delivered weapons via F-15 and F-16 aircraft.
This diversified arsenal enhances Israel’s second-strike capability, ensuring a credible deterrent posture.
The existence of Israel’s nuclear program was brought to public attention in 1986 when Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at the Negev Nuclear Research Center, disclosed detailed information and photographs to the media.
His revelations provided concrete evidence of Israel’s nuclear weapons production capabilities.?
Strategic Implications
The Jericho III missile significantly extends Israel’s strategic reach, allowing it to deter adversaries beyond its immediate region. Its deployment underscores Israel’s commitment to maintaining a robust deterrent capability amid regional security challenges.?
Source redditThe map above shows the different regional names for Primo Brands various bottled water brands across the United States. Here’s a little more about each of them: Arrowhead Region: Western U.S. Founded: 1909 Type: 100% Mountain Spring Water Source: Springs in California and other western states Fun Fact: Known for its connection to the […]
The map above shows which countries use Celsius for measuring outdoor temperatures and which still use Fahrenheit. According to World Population Review the following 19 countries use Fahrenheit (often in conjunction with Celsius): Fahrenheit Exclusively: United States Liberia Marshall Islands United States Virgin Islands Micronesia Cayman Islands Fahrenheit Alongside Celsius: Puerto Rico Cyprus Belize Bahamas […]
The map above shows which countries use Celsius for measuring outdoor temperatures and which still use Fahrenheit.
According to World Population Review the following 19 countries use Fahrenheit (often in conjunction with Celsius):
Originally, Fahrenheit was trained as a merchant (following in his father’s footsteps), but he was much more interested in science and precision instruments.
He settled in the Netherlands, which at the time was a hub for scientific progress.
He became skilled as an instrument maker, producing thermometers, barometers, and other scientific devices.
Development of the Fahrenheit Scale
Around 1714, Fahrenheit developed the mercury-in-glass thermometer, which was more accurate and reliable than the alcohol-based thermometers used at the time. Mercury's consistency over a wide range of temperatures made it perfect for precise measurements.
How He Created the Scale:
The Fahrenheit scale is kind of quirky but clever!
Here's how he set the points:
0°F: The temperature of a mixture of ice, water, and salt (brine). Basically the lowest temperature he could reliably reproduce in the lab.
32°F: The freezing point of pure water.
96°F: Originally, human body temperature (later revised to 98.6°F due to better measurement).
212°F: Boiling point of water at sea level.
Fahrenheit chose 180 degrees between the freezing and boiling points of water, which allowed for more precise subdivisions than the Celsius scale at the time.
Later Life and Death
He became a member of the Royal Society of London in 1724, one of the highest honors for a scientist.
Died: September 16, 1736, in The Hague, Netherlands.
Why Fahrenheit's Scale Was So Successful
Better Thermometers = More Trust
Fahrenheit’s mercury thermometers were way more accurate and stable than the earlier alcohol-based ones.
Alcohol expands inconsistently, and its volume changes depending on atmospheric pressure. Mercury, on the other hand, is much more stable across a wide temperature range.
Because his thermometers worked so well, people trusted the scale that came with them.
In other words: It wasn't just the scale that succeeded , it was the whole package of a reliable instrument with a clear, repeatable scale.
Practical, Everyday Usefulness
The Fahrenheit scale avoided negative numbers in most everyday weather situations (at least in Europe).
0°F was colder than most people would experience naturally, so day-to-day weather readings usually stayed positive, which made the readings more user-friendly.
Body temperature at 96°F (later corrected to 98.6°F) was a nice, easy-to-remember number for health measurements.
Fine Resolution
Fahrenheit chose 180 degrees between freezing and boiling. That gave finer gradations between temperatures than Celsius (which has 100 degrees between freezing and boiling).
This was helpful before modern digital thermometers, people could easily read small changes on an analog scale.
Early Adoption in English-Speaking Countries
Because Fahrenheit spent time in the Netherlands and England, where his instruments spread quickly, the scale became entrenched in British scientific circles.
When Britain and later the U.S. standardized measurements, they leaned on what was already in use and Fahrenheit's thermometers were common.
The U.S. stuck with Fahrenheit even as Europe slowly shifted toward Celsius.
Inertia and Familiarity
Once a system is in place and people are used to it (especially in medicine, meteorology, and daily life), it's hard to switch.
Even though Celsius is mathematically simpler, Fahrenheit was already “baked into” many aspects of British and American life.
Why has the US never switched away from Fahrenheit?
The System Was Already Deeply Embedded
By the time Celsius (and the metric system) started gaining traction in Europe during the 19th century, the U.S. had already been using Fahrenheit and Imperial measurements for everything, trade, weather reporting, engineering, and everyday life.
Changing all the infrastructure, machinery, road signs, school materials, recipes… it would have been a massive (and expensive) project.
Cultural Identity and Resistance to Change
There was (and still is) a sense in the U.S. of wanting to do things differently from Europe, kind of a post-colonial independence thing.
Switching to the “European system” didn't have much political appeal. The public didn't demand it, and there was no strong push from leaders to make it happen.
Industry and Economics
The U.S. became a major industrial power during the 19th and early 20th centuries, before the metric system really took hold globally.
Manufacturing tools, car parts, machinery, all based on inches, feet, and Fahrenheit.
Redesigning everything for metric? Super costly.
Even today, the aerospace and construction industries in the U.S. still rely heavily on Imperial units.
The law encouraged industries to move toward metric, but there were no penalties for staying Imperial, so… most people ignored it.
Some industries (like science, medicine, and the military) do use metric consistently, but the general public does not.
People Are Used to What They Know
Fahrenheit feels more “intuitive” to many Americans for weather:
0°F = very cold
100°F = very hot
Compare that to Celsius, where typical temperatures hover around single digits or teens, which can feel less natural to people who grew up with Fahrenheit.
Example: Saying "It's 72 degrees outside" (nice and comfy) sounds very different from "It's 22 degrees outside" if you're not used to Celsius!
The Metric System Was Political, Too
The French Revolution played a big role in developing and spreading the metric system.
Some countries resisted partly because metric was seen as tied to revolutionary France.
The British Empire and its former colonies (including the U.S.) were slower to adopt because they had their own established systems.
Which is Better Celsius or Fahrenheit?
Celsius: The Scientist's Favorite
Pros:
Directly tied to water: 0°C is the freezing point, 100°C is boiling (at sea level). Super logical, super clean.
Makes calculations easy in science, chemistry, and physics, where water's behavior is important.
Works smoothly with the metric system (grams, liters, meters, etc.).
Used by most of the world (except the U.S., a few Caribbean countries, and Liberia).
Cons:
The numbers can feel too compressed for daily weather:
“It's 1°C” vs. “It's 34°F” Fahrenheit gives more "room" between temps.
“Comfortable” human body temperatures are in the 30s and 40s on the Celsius scale, which can feel less intuitive to some.
Fahrenheit: The People's Weather Scale (well… in the U.S.)
Pros:
More precise for daily life: there are 180 degrees between freezing and boiling, compared to 100 in Celsius, so you can describe smaller temperature changes without decimals.
Human comfort range feels natural:
0°F = really cold
70s°F = comfortable
90s-100°F = hot
Better for weather forecasts, cooking, and general life stuff (if you’re used to it).
Cons:
Not tied to scientific constants (it's based on brine freezing and a bunch of historical quirks).
Almost no one outside the U.S. uses it, so if you travel or work internationally, it can be confusing.
Scientists and medical professionals still mostly prefer Celsius (or Kelvin).
What Scientists Use:
Celsius (or Kelvin for absolute temperatures) is the go-to for science, medicine, and engineering.
Fahrenheit is almost never used in scientific work because it's not based on universal reference points.
Map created by geo.facts_The map above shows where (at least officially) it’s a crime to knock on the door and run away. In the UK this is known by a variety of names including: Knock down ginger Knock a door run Knock and run Ding dong ditch Knock knock ginger It’s also the only place […]
Every person who shall wilfully and wantonly disturb any inhabitant by pulling or ringing any door-bell or knocking at any door without lawful excuse, or who shall wilfully and unlawfully extinguish the light of any lamp [shall be liable to a penalty].
It’s also interesting to see what other things were included on the list:
Prohibition of nuisances by persons in the thoroughfares.
Every person shall be liable to a penalty not more than [F1level 2 on the standard scale], who, within the limits of the metropolitan police district, shall in any thoroughfare or public place, commit any of the following offences; (that is to say,)
1.Every person who shall, to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers expose for show or sale (except in a market lawfully appointed for that purpose) or feed or fodder any horse or other animal, or show any caravan containing any animal or any other show or public entertainment, or shoe, bleed, or farry any horse or animal (except in cases of accident), or clean, dress, exercise, train, or break any horse or animal, or clean, make, or repair any part of any cart or carriage, except in cases of accident where repair on the spot is necessary:
2.Every person who shall turn loose any horse or cattle, or suffer to be at large any unmuzzled ferocious dog, or set on or urge any dog or other animal to attack, worry, or put in fear any person, horse, or other animal:
3.Every person who by negligence or ill-usage in driving cattle shall cause any mischief to be done by such cattle, or who shall in anywise misbehave himself in the driving, care, or management of such cattle, and also every person not being hired or employed to drive such cattle who shall wantonly and unlawfully pelt, drive, or hunt any such cattle:
4.Every person having the care of any cart or carriage who shall ride on any part thereof, on the shafts, or on any horse or other animal drawing the same, without having and holding the reins, or who shall be at such a distance from such cart or carriage as not to have the complete control over every horse or other animal drawing the same:
5.Every person who shall ride or drive furiously, or so as to endanger the life or limb of any person, or to the common danger of the passengers in any thoroughfare:
6.Every person who shall cause any cart, public carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow, with or without horses, to stand longer than may be necessary for loading or unloading or for taking up or setting down passengers, except hackney carriages standing for hire in any place not forbidden by law, or who, by means of any cart, carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow, or any horse or other animal, shall wilfully interrupt any public crossing, or wilfully cause any obstruction in any thoroughfare:
7.Every person who shall lead or ride any horse or other animal, or draw or drive any cart or carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow, upon any footway or curbstone, or fasten any horse or other animal so that it can stand across or upon any footway:
8.Every person who shall roll or carry any cask, tub, hoop, or wheel, or any ladder, plank, pole, showboard, or placard, upon any footway, except for the purpose of loading or unloading any cart or carriage, or of crossing the footway:
9.Every person who, after being made acquainted with the regulations or directions which the commissioners of police shall have made for regulating the route of horses, carts, carriages, and persons F2… for preventing obstructions during public processions and on other occasions herein-before specified, shall wilfully disregard or not conform himself thereunto:
10.Every person who, without the consent of the owner or occupier, shall affix any posting bill or other paper against or upon any building, wall, fence, or pale, or write upon, soil, deface, or mark any such building, wall, fence, or pale with chalk or paint, or in any other way whatsoever, F3… :
12.Every person who shall sell or distribute or offer for sale or distribution, or exhibit to public view, any profane, F5… book, paper, print, drawing, painting or representation, or sing any profane, indecent, or obscene song or ballad, F5…, or use any profane, indecent or obscene language to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers:
14.Every person, F7…, who shall blow any horn or use any other noisy instrument, for the purpose of calling persons together, or of announcing any show or entertainment, or for the purpose of hawking, selling, distributing, or collecting any article whatsoever, or of obtaining money or alms:
15.Every person who shall wantonly discharge any fire-arm or throw or discharge any stone or other missile, to the damage or danger of any person, or make any bonfire, or throw or set fire to any firework:
16.Every person who shall wilfully and wantonly disturb any inhabitant by pulling or ringing any door-bell or knocking at any door without lawful excuse, or who shall wilfully and unlawfully extinguish the light of any lamp:
17.Every person who shall fly any kite or play at any game to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers, or who shall make or use any slide upon ice or snow in any street or other thoroughfare, to the common danger of the passengers.
Map created by reddit user Extension-Sink7777 The map above shows the largest supermarket chains from each European country. It should be noted that this does not mean that these are the only chains operating within the country or even the biggest within the country. For example, Aldi is the 5th largest supermarket chain in the […]
The map above shows the largest supermarket chains from each European country. It should be noted that this does not mean that these are the only chains operating within the country or even the biggest within the country.
For example, Aldi is the 5th largest supermarket chain in the UK, but because it originates in Germany it’s shown in Germany.
Here are the top 20 chains across all of Europe from Gourmet Pro.
Map created by the.world.in.mapsThe map above shows where in the world Popes were born. In total there have been 266 official popes (and 29 antipopes) since 30 AD. Below we have a list of where they were born but it varies slightly from the list above. Italy196 Unknown18 France15 […]
Here’s what the World In Maps Has to say about their map:
Map shows modern-day countries where Roman Catholic Popes were born.
Since the beginning of the papacy, the vast majority of Popes-217 in total-have come from modern-day Italy, highlighting Rome's central role in the history of the Catholic Church.
The next most represented country is France with 16 Popes, followed by Germany (6), Syria (5), and several others including the Holy Land, Greece, Turkey and Tunisia, each contributing a handful of Popes in the early centuries of Christianity.
Notably, Argentina is home to Pope Francis, the first non-European Pope in over a millennium. This map shows how the papacy, while historically concentrated in Europe-especially Italy-has had occasional geographic diversity reflecting shifts in global Catholicism.
