3 ms·

Tom Scott interviewed him last year in a really wonderful video about microwaves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2

by mabbo 4y ago

Tom Scott interviewed him last year in a really wonderful video about microwaves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y > I found an article that said "The microwave was invented to heat hamsters humanely in 1950s experiments." And I thought, no it wasn't. ...was it? At over 100 years old, the man was remarkably coherent and healthy. Quite sad to hear he's passed now.

zeristor 4y ago
I posted that video to HackerNews, it was very good but had a very low key title. I probably have to watch it again since I can’t remember what it was about.
melling 4y ago
Born in 1919, he made it to 103. Lindbergh hadn’t yet flown across the Atlantic, people were watching silent movies, and only 35% of US homes had electricity. https://gizmodo.com/how-the-1920s-thought-electricity-would-transform-farms-510917940 https://gizmodo.com/how-the-1920s-thought-electricity-would-... Many people born today (10%?) are going to make it to 2125. The world is going to change even more in the next 103 years than in the last 103.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  No way it's 10%. Annual hurdle in the old age years is double digit percents.
  - melling 4y ago
    It’s at least 10%. We cure many cancer(s), heart disease, Alzheimer’s, etc over the next 100 years. There’s also likely a few discoveries on improving general health.
    - lordnacho 4y ago
      It's also the case that we already know what kinds of things kill people, and people aren't really sticking to the lifestyles that correspond to longer life. Someone the Queen's age was actually unlikely to make it to 100, so you'd have to improve survival quite a bit. From looking at a UK table I found, there's ~2000 people left of 100K at 99 years, 1300 left the year after. Table doesn't go to 103.
    - stonemetal12 4y ago
      All data I can find says expected lifespan is decreasing, not increasing.
      - iisan7 4y ago
        Some of the discrepancy is semantics. Global maximum lifespan is improving, but that's across societies taking the best survival rate at each age. Within many societies, net longevity gains have stalled.

by mabbo 4y ago

zeristor 4y ago

I posted that video to HackerNews, it was very good but had a very low key title. I probably have to watch it again since I can’t remember what it was about.

melling 4y ago

Born in 1919, he made it to 103. Lindbergh hadn’t yet flown across the Atlantic, people were watching silent movies, and only 35% of US homes had electricity. https://gizmodo.com/how-the-1920s-thought-electricity-would-transform-farms-510917940 https://gizmodo.com/how-the-1920s-thought-electricity-would-... Many people born today (10%?) are going to make it to 2125. The world is going to change even more in the next 103 years than in the last 103.

lordnacho 4y ago
No way it's 10%. Annual hurdle in the old age years is double digit percents.
- melling 4y ago
  It’s at least 10%. We cure many cancer(s), heart disease, Alzheimer’s, etc over the next 100 years. There’s also likely a few discoveries on improving general health.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    It's also the case that we already know what kinds of things kill people, and people aren't really sticking to the lifestyles that correspond to longer life. Someone the Queen's age was actually unlikely to make it to 100, so you'd have to improve survival quite a bit. From looking at a UK table I found, there's ~2000 people left of 100K at 99 years, 1300 left the year after. Table doesn't go to 103.
  - stonemetal12 4y ago
    All data I can find says expected lifespan is decreasing, not increasing.
    - iisan7 4y ago
      Some of the discrepancy is semantics. Global maximum lifespan is improving, but that's across societies taking the best survival rate at each age. Within many societies, net longevity gains have stalled.