{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6569", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 6569, "subject": "Memento Mori, Re: This Week in Google Alerts: conference,\n\tsketch", "messages": 5, "voices": 3, "first": "2014-07-13T18:50:38+00:00", "last": "2014-07-13T23:59:49+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern at gwern.net" }, "date": "2014-07-13T18:50:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Memento Mori, Re: This Week in Google Alerts: conference,\n\tsketch", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\n- Via http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jenniferfitz/2014/06/should-you-be-writing-right-now-and-what-about-the-kids-and-what-about-a-conference-this-summer/\n, http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/9005474225.html \"Prominent\nCatholic Writers to Speak at Catholic Writers Conference in Chicago\nArea\":" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "By the way, I know how easy it is to let time slip by and never get\naround to doing something you always intended to do but never quite\ngot around to. If you want to write fanmail, see Wolfe in the flesh,\nget an autograph for a book, perhaps buy an autographed special\nedition etc, you should do so soon. As soon as possible.\n\nIt will sound morbid to point this out, but the odds are not good for\nWolfe surviving too many more years, and if you pass up opportunities\nyou may well discover you passed up your last such opportunity. List\nmembers may not have much experience with how elderly people can\nabruptly decline and die, or how mortality exponential increases over\ntime in the Gompertz curve, so here's some numerical calculations from\nSSA actuarial tables.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Wolfe tell us that Wolfe is now age\n83. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html 83: instantaneous risk\nof death that year, 0.083230 or 8.3%; remaining life expectancy: 6.66\nyears.\n\nOver the next 7 years, each year an American male's risk of death is:\n\n- 83: 0.083230 (8%)\n- 84: 0.091933 (9%)\n- 85: 0.101625 (10%)\n- 86: 0.112448 (11%)\n- 87: 0.124502 (12%)\n- 88: 0.137837 (14%)\n- 89: 0.152458 (15%)\n- 90: 0.168352 (17%)\n- 91: 0.185486 (19%)\n- 92: 0.203817 (20%)\n- 93: 0.223298 (22%)\n\nRisk increases dramatically each year, and since that's just the risk\neach year, the cumulative risk increases even more dramatically. This\nis why despite billions of people on earth, only one person (Jeanne\nCalment) has survived to 122 years (and the record age has actually\nfallen steadily ever since).\n\nThe probability of surviving to a particular age is the conjunction of\neach negated risk (since you have to not die in each previous year);\nso to survive to 84, one has to beat 1 * (1-0.083230) = 0.9168, and to\nsurvive to 85, one has to beat 1 * (1-0.083230) * (1-0.091933) =\n0.8325, and so on. It's easy to automate the calculation up to age 93\nin Haskell:\n\n ghci> scanl (*) 1 $ map (1-) [0.083230, 0.091933, 0.101625,\n0.112448, 0.124502, 0.137837, 0.152458, 0.168352, 0.185486, 0.203817,\n0.223298]\n ~>\n [1.0,0.91677,0.8324885835899999,0.7478869312826661,0.6637885416337929,0.5811455406233024,0.5010421827404082,0.42465429364417107,\n 0.35316289400058754,0.28765612144399455,0.2290269137396439,0.1778856619554089]\n\nOr, the probability an American male (like Gene Wolfe) will survive to\na specified age, having survived to age 83, is:\n\n- 1y, 84: 92%\n- 2y, 85: 83% (4/5)\n- 3y, 86: 75% (3/4)\n- 4y, 87: 66% (2/3)\n- 5y, 88: 58%\n- 6y, 89: 50% (coin flip)\n- 7y, 90: 42%\n- 8y, 91: 35% (1/3)\n- 9y, 92: 29%\n- 10y, 93: 23% (1/5)\n- 11y, 94: 18%\n\nThese figures are population-wide averages, which don't take into\naccount individual circumstances. On the positive side, Wolfe is\nhigh-status and has received many honors and can look back on a\nsterling writing career with great satisfaction; on the negative,\nWolfe has lost his wife recently, which is a well-known risk factor\nfor men, is not in perfect health, and may be overweight. On net, I'd\nsay these figures are underestimates.\n\nSo, this implies that if you pass up an opportunity this year in favor\nof next year, there's a >10% chance Wolfe will be permanently delayed;\nif you wait 2 years, ~20%, 3 years, 25%, and so on. These are not\nnegligible risks." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-07-13T23:22:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Memento Mori, Re: This Week in Google Alerts: conference,\n\tsketch", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The stressful and long decline of rosemary is concerning. This might be the\nmost depressing analysis ever undertaken on urth list. I have felt myself\nto be very fortunate in my childhood heroes. I am so grateful that my time\nand Gene's just happened to overlap significantly.\n\nThere's a picture at the Fuller award I didn't know was taken at the time,\nwhere, for the many kindnesses he showed me, thinking we were mostly\nalone, I told him that I loved him, and he would always be my hero,\nthinking I would never see him again. Then the nebulas were in California\nthe very next year, and Gene named grandmaster, so it proved to not be the\nlast time.\n\nhttp://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc282/maramini/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps379db714.jpg" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sunday, July 13, 2014, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nOn Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Gwern Branwen > wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "- Via\nhttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/jenniferfitz/2014/06/should-you-be-writing-right-now-and-what-about-the-kids-and-what-about-a-conference-this-summer/\n, http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/9005474225.html \"Prominent\nCatholic Writers to Speak at Catholic Writers Conference in Chicago\nArea\":" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "By the way, I know how easy it is to let time slip by and never get\naround to doing something you always intended to do but never quite\ngot around to. If you want to write fanmail, see Wolfe in the flesh,\nget an autograph for a book, perhaps buy an autographed special\nedition etc, you should do so soon. As soon as possible.\n\nIt will sound morbid to point this out, but the odds are not good for\nWolfe surviving too many more years, and if you pass up opportunities\nyou may well discover you passed up your last such opportunity. List\nmembers may not have much experience with how elderly people can\nabruptly decline and die, or how mortality exponential increases over\ntime in the Gompertz curve, so here's some numerical calculations from\nSSA actuarial tables.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Wolfe tell us that Wolfe is now age\n83. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html 83: instantaneous risk\nof death that year, 0.083230 or 8.3%; remaining life expectancy: 6.66\nyears.\n\nOver the next 7 years, each year an American male's risk of death is:\n\n- 83: 0.083230 (8%)\n- 84: 0.091933 (9%)\n- 85: 0.101625 (10%)\n- 86: 0.112448 (11%)\n- 87: 0.124502 (12%)\n- 88: 0.137837 (14%)\n- 89: 0.152458 (15%)\n- 90: 0.168352 (17%)\n- 91: 0.185486 (19%)\n- 92: 0.203817 (20%)\n- 93: 0.223298 (22%)\n\nRisk increases dramatically each year, and since that's just the risk\neach year, the cumulative risk increases even more dramatically. This\nis why despite billions of people on earth, only one person (Jeanne\nCalment) has survived to 122 years (and the record age has actually\nfallen steadily ever since).\n\nThe probability of surviving to a particular age is the conjunction of\neach negated risk (since you have to not die in each previous year);\nso to survive to 84, one has to beat 1 * (1-0.083230) = 0.9168, and to\nsurvive to 85, one has to beat 1 * (1-0.083230) * (1-0.091933) =\n0.8325, and so on. It's easy to automate the calculation up to age 93\nin Haskell:\n\n ghci> scanl (*) 1 $ map (1-) [0.083230, 0.091933, 0.101625,\n0.112448, 0.124502, 0.137837, 0.152458, 0.168352, 0.185486, 0.203817,\n0.223298]\n ~>\n\n [1.0,0.91677,0.8324885835899999,0.7478869312826661,0.6637885416337929,0.5811455406233024,0.5010421827404082,0.42465429364417107,\n\n0.35316289400058754,0.28765612144399455,0.2290269137396439,0.1778856619554089]\n\nOr, the probability an American male (like Gene Wolfe) will survive to\na specified age, having survived to age 83, is:\n\n- 1y, 84: 92%\n- 2y, 85: 83% (4/5)\n- 3y, 86: 75% (3/4)\n- 4y, 87: 66% (2/3)\n- 5y, 88: 58%\n- 6y, 89: 50% (coin flip)\n- 7y, 90: 42%\n- 8y, 91: 35% (1/3)\n- 9y, 92: 29%\n- 10y, 93: 23% (1/5)\n- 11y, 94: 18%\n\nThese figures are population-wide averages, which don't take into\naccount individual circumstances. On the positive side, Wolfe is\nhigh-status and has received many honors and can look back on a\nsterling writing career with great satisfaction; on the negative,\nWolfe has lost his wife recently, which is a well-known risk factor\nfor men, is not in perfect health, and may be overweight. On net, I'd\nsay these figures are underestimates.\n\nSo, this implies that if you pass up an opportunity this year in favor\nof next year, there's a >10% chance Wolfe will be permanently delayed;\nif you wait 2 years, ~20%, 3 years, 25%, and so on. These are not\nnegligible risks.\n\n--\ngwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Antonin Scriabin", "address": "kierkegaurdian at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-07-13T23:26:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Memento Mori, Re: This Week in Google Alerts: conference,\n\tsketch", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At first I was depressed, then I was interested in the math, then I was\ndepressed again, then Marc's picture cheered me up. Here's to all the best\nfor Gene." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Jul 13, 2014 7:22 PM, \"Marc Aramini\" wrote:\nThe stressful and long decline of rosemary is concerning. This might be\nthe most depressing analysis ever undertaken on urth list. I have felt\nmyself to be very fortunate in my childhood heroes. I am so grateful that\nmy time and Gene's just happened to overlap significantly.\n\nThere's a picture at the Fuller award I didn't know was taken at the time,\nwhere, for the many kindnesses he showed me, thinking we were mostly\nalone, I told him that I loved him, and he would always be my hero,\nthinking I would never see him again. Then the nebulas were in California\nthe very next year, and Gene named grandmaster, so it proved to not be the\nlast time.\n\n\nhttp://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc282/maramini/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps379db714.jpg\n\n\nOn Sunday, July 13, 2014, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "- Via\nhttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/jenniferfitz/2014/06/should-you-be-writing-right-now-and-what-about-the-kids-and-what-about-a-conference-this-summer/\n, http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/9005474225.html \"Prominent\nCatholic Writers to Speak at Catholic Writers Conference in Chicago\nArea\":" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "By the way, I know how easy it is to let time slip by and never get\naround to doing something you always intended to do but never quite\ngot around to. If you want to write fanmail, see Wolfe in the flesh,\nget an autograph for a book, perhaps buy an autographed special\nedition etc, you should do so soon. As soon as possible.\n\nIt will sound morbid to point this out, but the odds are not good for\nWolfe surviving too many more years, and if you pass up opportunities\nyou may well discover you passed up your last such opportunity. List\nmembers may not have much experience with how elderly people can\nabruptly decline and die, or how mortality exponential increases over\ntime in the Gompertz curve, so here's some numerical calculations from\nSSA actuarial tables.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Wolfe tell us that Wolfe is now age\n83. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html 83: instantaneous risk\nof death that year, 0.083230 or 8.3%; remaining life expectancy: 6.66\nyears.\n\nOver the next 7 years, each year an American male's risk of death is:\n\n- 83: 0.083230 (8%)\n- 84: 0.091933 (9%)\n- 85: 0.101625 (10%)\n- 86: 0.112448 (11%)\n- 87: 0.124502 (12%)\n- 88: 0.137837 (14%)\n- 89: 0.152458 (15%)\n- 90: 0.168352 (17%)\n- 91: 0.185486 (19%)\n- 92: 0.203817 (20%)\n- 93: 0.223298 (22%)\n\nRisk increases dramatically each year, and since that's just the risk\neach year, the cumulative risk increases even more dramatically. This\nis why despite billions of people on earth, only one person (Jeanne\nCalment) has survived to 122 years (and the record age has actually\nfallen steadily ever since).\n\nThe probability of surviving to a particular age is the conjunction of\neach negated risk (since you have to not die in each previous year);\nso to survive to 84, one has to beat 1 * (1-0.083230) = 0.9168, and to\nsurvive to 85, one has to beat 1 * (1-0.083230) * (1-0.091933) =\n0.8325, and so on. It's easy to automate the calculation up to age 93\nin Haskell:\n\n ghci> scanl (*) 1 $ map (1-) [0.083230, 0.091933, 0.101625,\n0.112448, 0.124502, 0.137837, 0.152458, 0.168352, 0.185486, 0.203817,\n0.223298]\n ~>\n\n [1.0,0.91677,0.8324885835899999,0.7478869312826661,0.6637885416337929,0.5811455406233024,0.5010421827404082,0.42465429364417107,\n\n0.35316289400058754,0.28765612144399455,0.2290269137396439,0.1778856619554089]\n\nOr, the probability an American male (like Gene Wolfe) will survive to\na specified age, having survived to age 83, is:\n\n- 1y, 84: 92%\n- 2y, 85: 83% (4/5)\n- 3y, 86: 75% (3/4)\n- 4y, 87: 66% (2/3)\n- 5y, 88: 58%\n- 6y, 89: 50% (coin flip)\n- 7y, 90: 42%\n- 8y, 91: 35% (1/3)\n- 9y, 92: 29%\n- 10y, 93: 23% (1/5)\n- 11y, 94: 18%\n\nThese figures are population-wide averages, which don't take into\naccount individual circumstances. On the positive side, Wolfe is\nhigh-status and has received many honors and can look back on a\nsterling writing career with great satisfaction; on the negative,\nWolfe has lost his wife recently, which is a well-known risk factor\nfor men, is not in perfect health, and may be overweight. On net, I'd\nsay these figures are underestimates.\n\nSo, this implies that if you pass up an opportunity this year in favor\nof next year, there's a >10% chance Wolfe will be permanently delayed;\nif you wait 2 years, ~20%, 3 years, 25%, and so on. These are not\nnegligible risks.\n\n--\ngwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-07-13T23:53:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Memento Mori, Re: This Week in Google Alerts: conference,\n\tsketch", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course, I am a Wolfe fan first and an SF one second (or third) but even\nthough I preferred the Fuller Ceremony because it was all about Gene, I\ncan't recommend the Nebula Awards highly enough. The panels in memory of\nthe SF greats are astonishingly informative - you get to hear people talk\nwho knew guys like Bradbury or pretty much every Golden Age SF writer\nworking in the beginning and mid 20th centuries as well as meet some of the\nnew faces. I sat at dinner with Connie Willis, chatted with Joe Haldeman\nas he wrote, had Robert Silverberg ask to pet my dog, sat at a panel where\nthe guy who wrote Logan's Run and other SF screenplays talked about the\nconstruction of so many of the classic movies and moments in SF ... SF\nfandom is truly special for that. (How many times have I, frustrated at\nelderly drivers or shoppers in Arizona, quipped about Logan's Run? And\nthere sitting at the front of the room was the man who provided the\npunchline for my least humanitarian nastiness). When I was a child I got\nto meet Jack Williamson - he lived about 30 minutes away from me, and I\ncurse the foolishness that did not lead me to seek out Roger Zelazny while\nhe was living in Santa Fe, mere hours away, though I was a fan of his by\nthe 4th grade. I feel like fans of truly popular entertainment are cheated\nof this closeness. When I saw my name in the SFWA directory, with my\naddress and phone number next to the addresses and phone numbers of most of\nthe authors I had grown up reading, it was an ethereal and impossible\nfeeling. Most of the other famous personages throughout history are lost\nin antiquity, forever inaccessible to us, or others are so overwhelmed with\ninexplicable and mostly unwarranted fame (actors? golfers? really?) that\nthey are unapproachable." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-07-13T23:59:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Memento Mori, Re: This Week in Google Alerts: conference,\n\tsketch", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Marginally off topic, having said all that and been rather smug in my\ndismissal of \"popular\" entertainers, if you hang out in Las Vegas boxing\ngyms you will meet an amazing number of famous boxers coming through to\ntrain or with their proteges, most fairly friendly and accessible and happy\nto be recognized - the sport must now be something more of a niche thing\nthan it used to be, much as SF probably is. I felt a little bad after I\nwrote that last sentence below." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:\n\nOf course, I am a Wolfe fan first and an SF one second (or third) but even\nthough I preferred the Fuller Ceremony because it was all about Gene, I\ncan't recommend the Nebula Awards highly enough. The panels in memory of\nthe SF greats are astonishingly informative - you get to hear people talk\nwho knew guys like Bradbury or pretty much every Golden Age SF writer\nworking in the beginning and mid 20th centuries as well as meet some of the\nnew faces. I sat at dinner with Connie Willis, chatted with Joe Haldeman\nas he wrote, had Robert Silverberg ask to pet my dog, sat at a panel where\nthe guy who wrote Logan's Run and other SF screenplays talked about the\nconstruction of so many of the classic movies and moments in SF ... SF\nfandom is truly special for that. (How many times have I, frustrated at\nelderly drivers or shoppers in Arizona, quipped about Logan's Run? And\nthere sitting at the front of the room was the man who provided the\npunchline for my least humanitarian nastiness). When I was a child I got\nto meet Jack Williamson - he lived about 30 minutes away from me, and I\ncurse the foolishness that did not lead me to seek out Roger Zelazny while\nhe was living in Santa Fe, mere hours away, though I was a fan of his by\nthe 4th grade. I feel like fans of truly popular entertainment are cheated\nof this closeness. When I saw my name in the SFWA directory, with my\naddress and phone number next to the addresses and phone numbers of most of\nthe authors I had grown up reading, it was an ethereal and impossible\nfeeling. Most of the other famous personages throughout history are lost\nin antiquity, forever inaccessible to us, or others are so overwhelmed with\ninexplicable and mostly unwarranted fame (actors? golfers? really?) that\nthey are unapproachable." } ] } ] }