Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Your "age" calculation is broken.


sort by: page size:

> they need to re-calibrate that and make it x3

They guessed 39 for me (I'm 25). The age bit seems not so accurate


They just forgot to define age as:

"born after 1800"


This calculates my age incorrectly. The diagram shows the number of years I've lived as about 3 years less than my true age. It's kinda disappointing when the site literally has one job — to calculate my age — and it doesn't get it right.

They fixed it by having a rolling "epoch" it just so happens that some people's ages don't fit that assumption.

It's ridiculous to use age in this way.

It is a bug to ignore the max-age parameter that is presently widely used.

Age is a wrong explanation.

Looks like there's an off-by-one error with ages

This is worthless unless they correct for age. Which they most likely don't, since age is not even mentioned in the post.

This programmer is broken. The part that made it necessary to state an age.

The entire point of this is that their age estimate is totally random.

Validating ages/birthdates based on plausible human lifespans is, frankly, dumb.

Just look at age bar charts and you’ll see this isn’t accurate for developed countries…

Age is only a number.

Same here. I selected my real age and the algorithm thinks I'm 7 years younger than that (well, thanks I guess, but it is not me who's not telling the truth).

>Age

Actually, it is "&& age >= 30", I guess there is some HTML messup somewhere.

The more reality denying part is when you ignore that age is calculated on distance and not counting.

30 is still pretty young, but your math is off.
next

Legal | privacy