3 ms·
Oh, neat - I wrote the top answer there (over two years ago apparently!) I stand by the modelling, although it's embarrassing to read my two year old code.
by pwoeir 11y ago
Oh, neat - I wrote the top answer there (over two years ago apparently!)
I stand by the modelling, although it's embarrassing to read my two year old code.
- Rainymood 11y agoReminds me of the guy who answered some question about Python how to put two strings together, and then 3 years later commented 'Oh look here I am asking the same question I answered' lol
- Someone 11y agoI found that model somewhat overkill. I would have cut some corners there: assume that the oldest person alive is 110 or older (reasonable, given a world population in the billions and the data we have) and compute his (more likely her) hazard rate from the curve you fitted. For hazard rates at old age, taking life expectancy equal to 0.5/hazard rate isn't an extremely bad approximation (I have no education in actuarial science and gave that little thought; corrections welcome), so one gets: age h(age) life expectancy 109 0.473 1.058 110 0.503 0.993 111 0.536 0.933 112 0.570 0.876 113 0.607 0.824 114 0.645 0.775 115 0.685 0.730 116 0.728 0.687 Again, we get in the range of that 2/3-ish.