I'm not an expert, but assuming that by revolution you mean something close to "an attempt to change government through non-legal means", then I agree with your points, but I'll also note that revolt and revolution only partially overlap. Revolts are typically less organised and with more modest goals than a government overthrow. They are also mostly initiated and fueled by the resentment and desperation of a lower class.

My tentative model is "Starving peasants revolt. Kings don't like revolts." Not "Starving peasants lead successful revolutions."

To take a modern day example that I have experience with, the yellow vest movement in France was a revolt from the working poor outside big cities because the rise in the gas price made their life impossible in a context where they needed cars to work and purchase essential goods. They were leaderless and actually opposed attempts at vertical organisation. In their early stages, they would have been content with gas prices returning to their previous levels. Nonetheless, they were a thorn in the side of the government, and were even a threat to it at some point.

Yes, it seems I read too fast.

It seems to be of French origin. The name is French and the French cuisine adopted first. The main hypothesis for its apparition is that Richelieu's cook invented it out of lack of alternative ingredients while occupying the city of Mahon in Spain. Source: same as you.

Chef' just means 'chief' in french (like the military rank or the man in charge) and comes from the brigade system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_de_cuisine)

In addition, in the context of cooking, chef means "cook", and it's common to call the cook "chef", even if it's your friend who's making a barbecue. It has positive connotations, implying that the cook is skilled.

That could also explain why French bakeries, with their staple and iconic baguette and croissant, seem to be faring better in my experience.

I can't help but notice that if for you "nothing else could have happened than what happened", then your definition of "could have happened" is so narrow as to become trivial.

Rather, I think that by "X could have happened in situation Y", the laymen mean something like: even with the knowledge of hindsight, in a situation that looks identical to situation Y for the parameters that matter, I could not exclude X happening".

I was just curious and wanted to give you the occasion to expand your viewpoint. I didn't downvote your comment btw.

In what ways?

I think the bigger difference between humans and chimps is the high prosocial-ness of humans. this is what allowed humans to evolve complex cultures that now bear a large part of our knowledge and intuitions. And the lack of that prosocial-ness is the biggest obstacle to teaching chimps math.