▲ 694 ▼ Accidentally ruthless (startrek.website) submitted 2 years ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works 71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 93 points 2 years ago (2 children) Okay, that is painful. However, I think I’m going to start telling people that I was born in the mid-1900s. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Dave@lemmy.nz 19 points 2 years ago (2 children) What's the cutoff? My instinct is 1975 but then that gives a 50 year period for 'mid' and only 25 each for 'early'/'late'. So is the cutoff between mid and late 1966? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 years ago (2 children) I feel like early, middle and late aren't continuous, and there's gaps. I don't think 1932 is early or mid 1900s. Kinda like how young, old and middle aged don't have an immediate cutoff. A 31 year old is neither young nor middle aged, and a 54 year old is past middle aged, but they aren't old yet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Funny how you see gaps. I feel they overlap. For decades Like 31-34 is early 30s, 33-37 is mid, and 38 39 are late. (Late being a smaller interval because everyone likes it that way.) I think the about the same proportions work for centuries. But I definitely see gaps in being young, old, and middle-age. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I've always gone 30-33 is early, 34-36 is mid, and 37-39 is late myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I agree here. This is what I go by permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hmm, I normally say (since I turned 30) that 0-29 are young, 30-59 is middle aged, and 60-89 is old (90+ is super old/ancient 😆). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) This hurts nearly as much as the OP. Middle-aged starts at 30?! Fuck I’m old. At 53, middle-age didn’t start til 45, 75-89 is old, and I’d put super old at 95+. Then again, I may be skewed a bit since my 88 year old dad is sharper than most people I know, still works his regular job in aerospace, and drives Uber in his spare time to keep himself young. He may live to 120 at this rate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The problem with your scale is it's all over the place. If middle age doesn't start until 45 then is 44 young? Why are there 44 years of young, 30 years of middle age, and only 15 years of old? Is this some imperial age measurement? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Because human life, aging, and experience aren’t linear, they’re logarithmic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, 66 is about right, assuming you split the century into three 33 year chunks. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago They'll think you're a time traveller! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 19 points 2 years ago (2 children) What's the cutoff? My instinct is 1975 but then that gives a 50 year period for 'mid' and only 25 each for 'early'/'late'. So is the cutoff between mid and late 1966? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 years ago (2 children) I feel like early, middle and late aren't continuous, and there's gaps. I don't think 1932 is early or mid 1900s. Kinda like how young, old and middle aged don't have an immediate cutoff. A 31 year old is neither young nor middle aged, and a 54 year old is past middle aged, but they aren't old yet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Funny how you see gaps. I feel they overlap. For decades Like 31-34 is early 30s, 33-37 is mid, and 38 39 are late. (Late being a smaller interval because everyone likes it that way.) I think the about the same proportions work for centuries. But I definitely see gaps in being young, old, and middle-age. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I've always gone 30-33 is early, 34-36 is mid, and 37-39 is late myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I agree here. This is what I go by permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hmm, I normally say (since I turned 30) that 0-29 are young, 30-59 is middle aged, and 60-89 is old (90+ is super old/ancient 😆). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) This hurts nearly as much as the OP. Middle-aged starts at 30?! Fuck I’m old. At 53, middle-age didn’t start til 45, 75-89 is old, and I’d put super old at 95+. Then again, I may be skewed a bit since my 88 year old dad is sharper than most people I know, still works his regular job in aerospace, and drives Uber in his spare time to keep himself young. He may live to 120 at this rate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The problem with your scale is it's all over the place. If middle age doesn't start until 45 then is 44 young? Why are there 44 years of young, 30 years of middle age, and only 15 years of old? Is this some imperial age measurement? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Because human life, aging, and experience aren’t linear, they’re logarithmic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, 66 is about right, assuming you split the century into three 33 year chunks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 years ago (2 children) I feel like early, middle and late aren't continuous, and there's gaps. I don't think 1932 is early or mid 1900s. Kinda like how young, old and middle aged don't have an immediate cutoff. A 31 year old is neither young nor middle aged, and a 54 year old is past middle aged, but they aren't old yet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Funny how you see gaps. I feel they overlap. For decades Like 31-34 is early 30s, 33-37 is mid, and 38 39 are late. (Late being a smaller interval because everyone likes it that way.) I think the about the same proportions work for centuries. But I definitely see gaps in being young, old, and middle-age. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I've always gone 30-33 is early, 34-36 is mid, and 37-39 is late myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I agree here. This is what I go by permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hmm, I normally say (since I turned 30) that 0-29 are young, 30-59 is middle aged, and 60-89 is old (90+ is super old/ancient 😆). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) This hurts nearly as much as the OP. Middle-aged starts at 30?! Fuck I’m old. At 53, middle-age didn’t start til 45, 75-89 is old, and I’d put super old at 95+. Then again, I may be skewed a bit since my 88 year old dad is sharper than most people I know, still works his regular job in aerospace, and drives Uber in his spare time to keep himself young. He may live to 120 at this rate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The problem with your scale is it's all over the place. If middle age doesn't start until 45 then is 44 young? Why are there 44 years of young, 30 years of middle age, and only 15 years of old? Is this some imperial age measurement? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Because human life, aging, and experience aren’t linear, they’re logarithmic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Funny how you see gaps. I feel they overlap. For decades Like 31-34 is early 30s, 33-37 is mid, and 38 39 are late. (Late being a smaller interval because everyone likes it that way.) I think the about the same proportions work for centuries. But I definitely see gaps in being young, old, and middle-age. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I've always gone 30-33 is early, 34-36 is mid, and 37-39 is late myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I agree here. This is what I go by permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I've always gone 30-33 is early, 34-36 is mid, and 37-39 is late myself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I agree here. This is what I go by permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I agree here. This is what I go by permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hmm, I normally say (since I turned 30) that 0-29 are young, 30-59 is middle aged, and 60-89 is old (90+ is super old/ancient 😆). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) This hurts nearly as much as the OP. Middle-aged starts at 30?! Fuck I’m old. At 53, middle-age didn’t start til 45, 75-89 is old, and I’d put super old at 95+. Then again, I may be skewed a bit since my 88 year old dad is sharper than most people I know, still works his regular job in aerospace, and drives Uber in his spare time to keep himself young. He may live to 120 at this rate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The problem with your scale is it's all over the place. If middle age doesn't start until 45 then is 44 young? Why are there 44 years of young, 30 years of middle age, and only 15 years of old? Is this some imperial age measurement? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Because human life, aging, and experience aren’t linear, they’re logarithmic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) This hurts nearly as much as the OP. Middle-aged starts at 30?! Fuck I’m old. At 53, middle-age didn’t start til 45, 75-89 is old, and I’d put super old at 95+. Then again, I may be skewed a bit since my 88 year old dad is sharper than most people I know, still works his regular job in aerospace, and drives Uber in his spare time to keep himself young. He may live to 120 at this rate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The problem with your scale is it's all over the place. If middle age doesn't start until 45 then is 44 young? Why are there 44 years of young, 30 years of middle age, and only 15 years of old? Is this some imperial age measurement? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Because human life, aging, and experience aren’t linear, they’re logarithmic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) The problem with your scale is it's all over the place. If middle age doesn't start until 45 then is 44 young? Why are there 44 years of young, 30 years of middle age, and only 15 years of old? Is this some imperial age measurement? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Because human life, aging, and experience aren’t linear, they’re logarithmic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Because human life, aging, and experience aren’t linear, they’re logarithmic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, 66 is about right, assuming you split the century into three 33 year chunks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago They'll think you're a time traveller! permalink fedilink source parent