• Dave@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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 😆).

    • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Dave@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because human life, aging, and experience aren’t linear, they’re logarithmic.