Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Death Clock

thedeathclock.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 205 posts

Re: Death Clock

#81

Post by rex-mundi »

thepaulmcbride wrote: post #66

Well this kinda popped off more that I expected it to! A bit of background about this and how it was built: I started back to work this week after some time off over Christmas. This year the company I worked for decided to hold a creative week to help get us back into work. I ended up being just 3 days as we presented them all to each other on Friday. I know this is definitely still rough around the edges, it was jus…

One small improvement might be to make it so that it creates a url which the user can go back to without entering the data again.

That way they can bookmark it / share if they want.

Re: Death Clock

#83

Post by ejb999 »

jimhefferon wrote: post #37
webwielder2 wrote: post #11

Feeling bad that you’re not using your time to the max is one of the worst ways to use your time.

Also unfruitful is clicking backwards to 1958.

Quick tip: clicking on the year gets you to pick the year at least - no way I was going to click all the way back one month at a time.

Re: Death Clock

#84

Post by thedragonline »

thepaulmcbride wrote: post #74
falcolas wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A shame there’s no affordance to indicate that this is available.

Yeah, fair point. I'll try to improve that. Any idea on how you'd want to see it done?

Ex: A down arrow button attached directly to the right side of the year input field. Make it a deeper blue and then wrap a 1 or 2 pixel wide rectangle around the field itself of that same color.

Re: Death Clock

#85

Post by thepaulmcbride »

rex-mundi wrote: post #81
thepaulmcbride wrote: post #66

Well this kinda popped off more that I expected it to! A bit of background about this and how it was built: I started back to work this week after some time off over Christmas. This year the company I worked for decided to hold a creative week to help get us back into work. I ended up being just 3 days as we presented them all to each other on Friday. I know this is definitely still rough around the edges, it was jus…

One small improvement might be to make it so that it creates a url which the user can go back to without entering the data again. That way they can bookmark it / share if they want.

Oh good call!

Re: Death Clock

#86

Post by hungryforcodes »

I like the concept -- but in my family the women live for a really long time. My great grandmother was 99 when I met her as a six year old. Most of my family (both genders) goes well into their 90s.

It would be much more accurate if the clock started when one of your parents or grand parents died and or could use that information to create a more accurate final day.

Re: Death Clock

#87

Post by _ttg »

trgn wrote: post #70
_ttg wrote: post #30

I can't put my finger on it but I always find this modern(Americanized?) peddling of stoicism too pretentious and vapid as to be not only useless but actively off-putting to me. The fact that life is short is already central to most adults and I don't see what purpose any of these reminders serve except to seem high-minded (and annoying). The faux precision of this "clock" also bothers me but that's a different story…

Let me take a try why you feel that way. (I might be wrong). Stoicism is very easily repurposed, because it is divorced from a religious praxis, and therefore easily assimilated. It is pithy and vague enough too, its maxims can fit on a bumper sticker. "Life is short!", honk if you agree. The appeal for stoicism today is because it is aspirational; we no longer recognize the stoic hero in ourselves and our neighbors.…

Exactly right. Essentially the consumerist, "fast food for the brain" idea is what I was struggling to point out. Having read a little of this thread though, I'm more open to the idea that even what seems to me as fluff is pretty useful as a regular centering mechanism so I'm just moderately indifferent instead of annoyed now.

Re: Death Clock

#88

Post by ejb999 »

falcolas wrote: post #22
emerged wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine said 61% and to me it seems like a crazy amount. It’s hard to imagine doing all the living I’ve already done all over again and then some. I think about 10 years ago I felt like I had already gotten plenty enough out of life not to feel short changed. Still love living, don’t get me wrong.

Exactly. I hit 40 a few years back, and I’m statistically likely to live at least that long again. A lot happened in 40 years, and I was not in control of my life for just shy of half of that. The next 40 is going to be interesting.

>>The next 40 is going to be interesting.

The next 20-25 will be interesting for you - after that you will just be telling people to get off your lawn, and making doctors appointments. ;>)

Re: Death Clock

#89

Post by mbg721 »

bambax wrote: post #27

This conflates life expectancy at birth with your current life expectancy. Those are wildly different. They were even more different in the past when life expectancy at birth was below 30, and most healthy adults lived past 70. But they're still very different.

I think the tables that actuaries use are publicly available and account for that. The thing to watch for would be that you're not using something with a lot of built-in conservatism meant for life insurance statutory compliance.

Re: Death Clock

#90

Post by watwut »

dahart wrote: post #65
watwut wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most healthy adults lived past 70 Citation needed. Or, qualification of what you mean by "healthy adult".

Here you go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity Human Longevity has been around 70-80 years for thousands of years we know about, and possibly forever. It’s one of the common misunderstandings we get by learning about life expectancy.. I misunderstood it for a long time until my brother, an anthropologist, explained that there are historical records of people living to be 80 years old from a thousand and even 10…

"Most adults" fall under "life expectancy after reaching adulthood" rather then "longevity".

Adult young people and middle aged people died a lot more then today. Whether due to incidents that were more common and harder to treat or sicknesses.

If you limit the stats to "adults never never got seriously sick and never got injured" then the comparison is completely meaningless. Yeah, people did evolved to live longer, but we do expect more treatment and health.

Post reply on HN