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

161–170 of 205 posts

Re: Death Clock

#161

Post by dang »

Zababa wrote: post #156
dang wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—things like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The website is made to show you how much time you have left, to highlight that time is precious. To get this reminder, you have to enter your date through a date picker. This date picker is cumbersome, and makes you waste time. I think this is not a tangential annoyance, but a central one. Those two things are in opposition, and this detracts a lot from the message of this website. If time is so precious, why is my t…

You have a point, but it's still pretty tangential at a macro level. The main macro-level thing is that the thread at the top of a page should be responding to the core of the story—or on rare occasions, be something surprising and even more interesting than the story.

The UX of a date picker on the page doesn't clear that bar. That doesn't mean it's unimportant, just that the top of an HN page is not the appropriate context for it. Unless, of course, the story is about the UX of date pickers!

Re: Death Clock

#162

Post by Zababa »

dang wrote: post #161
Zababa wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The website is made to show you how much time you have left, to highlight that time is precious. To get this reminder, you have to enter your date through a date picker. This date picker is cumbersome, and makes you waste time. I think this is not a tangential annoyance, but a central one. Those two things are in opposition, and this detracts a lot from the message of this website. If time is so precious, why is my t…

You have a point, but it's still pretty tangential at a macro level. The main macro-level thing is that the thread at the top of a page should be responding to the core of the story—or on rare occasions, be something surprising and even more interesting than the story. The UX of a date picker on the page doesn't clear that bar. That doesn't mean it's unimportant, just that the top of an HN page is not the appropriate…

That's fair, thanks for the clarification. Would that clear the bar if that post was a Show HN? I feel like one of the problem here is that the author isn't here to listen to the feedback anyways, so anything that is "feedback" isn't very interesting.

Re: Death Clock

#164

Post by dang »

samwillis wrote: post #132
dang wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—things like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Apologies dang, I regret the post. Quite right pushing it to the bottom where it rightly should be.

The problem, of course, is more with the upvotes than the original comment. But we can't really address the problem at that level.

I suppose we could let people mark their own comments off topic, which would drop them to the bottom of the page...

Re: Death Clock

#165

Post by dang »

Zababa wrote: post #162
dang wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a point, but it's still pretty tangential at a macro level. The main macro-level thing is that the thread at the top of a page should be responding to the core of the story—or on rare occasions, be something surprising and even more interesting than the story. The UX of a date picker on the page doesn't clear that bar. That doesn't mean it's unimportant, just that the top of an HN page is not the appropriate…

That's fair, thanks for the clarification. Would that clear the bar if that post was a Show HN? I feel like one of the problem here is that the author isn't here to listen to the feedback anyways, so anything that is "feedback" isn't very interesting.

Hmm - that's a bit harder to say. It still shouldn't be the top comment in that case though.

Re: Death Clock

#166

Post by AnotherGoodName »

pmarreck wrote: post #158

If only it didn't take me 10 minutes to scroll the calendar back to april 1972 lol EDIT: You can click the month and year directly. Meh, I don't like "invisible UI". And the result seems wrong, I doubt I have 61% of my life remaining at this point, alas... And the small dots stop at about 28... and the big dots stop at 70... no unit shown... Is this years? It's unclear. Guessing each dot represents a week? Maybe? 28…

I don't even think you clicked the wrong thing. You can test the website multiple times with the same DOB. It gets it wrong!

My age went from 20->60 and a few results in between with the same DOB. There's something screwy with this site when it's under high load. I think i'm getting someone elses input.

Re: Death Clock

#167

Post by AnotherGoodName »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #80
bagels wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You hav to select a specific date, even if you've selected the month and year. It also uses expectancy at birth, not at current age. Pretty useless.

You're absolutely right, I missed entering the day of the month. Year + Month was not enough. Easy bug to fix? LASt the very least I expect it to pick some arbitrary day of the month I enter. I should tell my dad though that he is has about 13 weeks left to live. (Or should?)

Only entering the month+year isn't the issue. The website is near random. I entered my DOB perfectly and was suggested i was an age decades off (with corresponding % being that wrong). Clearing cookies, meticulously entering and checking DOB again and i get decades off the other side of my age.

The website is seriously malfunctioning. I guess it's just giving results of a different user.

Re: Death Clock

#169

Post by Zababa »

dang wrote: post #165
Zababa wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair, thanks for the clarification. Would that clear the bar if that post was a Show HN? I feel like one of the problem here is that the author isn't here to listen to the feedback anyways, so anything that is "feedback" isn't very interesting.

Hmm - that's a bit harder to say. It still shouldn't be the top comment in that case though.

Thanks again, and thanks for all your hard work on the moderation!

Re: Death Clock

#170

Post by erikerikson »

throwhauser wrote: post #9

I think there's a bug, if you put in a birth date in the 1930s for the USA, it says you have negative time remaining.

Makes sense to me. Consider that at 91-92 years you will have exceeded the expected number of years for your cohort.
Post reply on HN