• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1411 months ago

    I feel like early, middle and late aren’t continuous, and there’s gaps.
    I don’t think 1932 is early or mid 1900s.

    Kinda like how young, old and middle aged don’t have an immediate cutoff. A 31 year old is neither young nor middle aged, and a 54 year old is past middle aged, but they aren’t old yet.

    • Ook the Librarian
      link
      1111 months ago

      Funny how you see gaps. I feel they overlap. For decades Like 31-34 is early 30s, 33-37 is mid, and 38 39 are late. (Late being a smaller interval because everyone likes it that way.)

      I think the about the same proportions work for centuries.

      But I definitely see gaps in being young, old, and middle-age.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      311 months 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 😆).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        511 months 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months 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?