• key@lemmy.keychat.orgEnglish
    1251·
    10 months ago

    It’s a “best before” date not an expiration date, it might still be good!

    • chetradley@lemmy.world
      20·
      10 months ago

      From a reverse image search, looks like this was originally posted on Twitter by Orla Walsh, a dietician. Her education experience on her LinkedIn puts her at about 36 years old at the time the image was posted (July 2023). Since this is her mom’s fridge though, we estimate her age at 36+25=61. So, total score is 42.62.

      • mypasswordistaco@iusearchlinux.fyi
        1·
        10 months ago

        What formula are you using? And where did 25 come from? 2023-1997 = 26 and (26 / 36) x 100 = 72.2

        Edit: nevermind, I see you were estimating the mom’s age. My bad, all is well.

    • rustyredox@lemmy.world
      1·
      10 months ago

      I kind of want to see a charter plot of that scoring function projected onto a 3-axis manifold with a colored heat map. How would I minMax my anticipated score given my current age or projected lifespan?

    • bobalot@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 months ago

      Isn’t this just survivor bias?

      The unreliable fridges from 1980 have all failed already.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        1·
        10 months ago

        In Engineering you have two different kinds of failures:

        The first is to do with manufacturing flaws and happens in the first couple of months of use, hence how Warranties work - bad part of bad assembly so it breaks on first use or soon after.

        The second kind is the device dying from decay due to use, from old age if you will.

        Survivor bias, IMHO, only applies for those devices that last beyond the stage were the first kind of failure can happen as it’s kinda random (you can reduce the proportion of devices that fail, but for any one device it’s random if it will be one that fails or not)

        So a 3 year old fridge dying is not from manufacturing defects but it’s dying from faster ageing, which is a flaw in the design or a choice of cheaper, lower quality components.

        From what I’ve seen that’s exactly what’s been happenning: less robust designs and cheaper components with shorter lifespans, all to save on raw material costs.

        Lower manufacturing quality tends to cause the first kind of failures, not the failures well past the first few months.

        PS: Note that dying from the second kind of failure still has a random probability for any one device, though whilst the probability from dying from manufacturing flaws is very time dependent (starting very high and then tailing off to pretty much zero within some months), the probability of dying from age is a lot less time dependent and if that much increases slightly with increasing age (whilst the other kind decreases steeply with age, specifically decreases steeply with use). I’m mentioning this for completness, as the point still stands - if there is a high proportion of devices of a given type dying at year 3, then that design has a much higher rate of failure due to aging than devices for which a much smaller proportion dies at year 3, hence the design is not robust and/or lower quality components are being used.

      • And009@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        2·
        10 months ago

        The rising red river of the 52nd Ketchup alliance was a dreadful day indeed. Only the infidels call it the Mayo war.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          2·
          10 months ago

          Some say the rivers ran red from all the ketchup spilled in the greatest battle of the war.

    • Siegfried@lemmy.world
      5·
      10 months ago

      2097, obviously, cause 1817 there were no plastics* or refrigerators** or cameras cheap enough to take pictures of trivial shit*** and 1997 would be to obvious. Nah, its definitely not 1997

  • kamen@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    10 months ago

    I’d honestly be impressed by a freezer that’s been running since '97.

    • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
      131·
      10 months ago

      That’s before they started building them to fail. Why? Because a freezer that’s been running since '97 is at least two unsold new freezers.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        7·
        10 months ago

        There’s also a lot of other stuff that changed over time. New appliances may be more efficient, run on different (more environmentally friendly) coolant, have lead-free solder circuits, etc.

        The thing is, a lot of that old stuff which was found to have health or environment issues also lasted longer. Leaded solder didn’t get burrs, for example. The components may also have been easier to repair.

        But there’s also survivor bias. For every old freezer that sat in grandma’s basement for 2-3 decades many more ended up in a scrap heap.

    • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
      166·
      10 months ago

      I have a freezer from 1953, works fine. It’s appliances made after @2000 that shit the bed in 5 years or less. No, it’s not survivorship bias, there’s a certain time period you don’t see anything survived from.

      • sfgifz@lemmy.world
        41·
        10 months ago

        No, it’s not survivorship bias

        Yes it is. The probability is much more significant that there are appliances from 2000s still working fine while your 1950s piece is one of the last few left. Just because your reality has a different view doesn’t mean it’s the same on a global scale.

        • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
          11·
          10 months ago

          No, it’s not. You should see a bunch of appliances from that era like you do older eras, but they’re just gone. My 53 fridge i bought last year, i was so happy when it turned on again. Moving them at that age is risky as hell. but I have ten fridges and 6 freezers i use to run my small town restaurant. I’ve paid close attention to the used market, I’m not just blowing random horseshit. Commercial grade is a different story. but wasn;t what I was talking about.