zlacker

> a 57-year-old man in the US has only a 50% chance of living to see their child reach 23 years of age

Perhaps a clearer way to put it: a 57-year-old man in the US has a 50% chance of living to 80, which doesn't seem quite as shocking of a statement.

>>pc86+(OP)
It might also be loaded with the assumption the man has a child - I'd assume outcomes are different for those with and without? I wonder by how much.

>>pc86+(OP)
yo if people like looked at an actuarial table they'd have a better idea what that means

>>pc86+(OP)
How many men are having their first child at 57? I’ll be well under 57 when my oldest child is 23.

>>jonhoh+f2
I'm not sure what that has to do with the parent comment.

>>pc86+qd
I on the other hand, don't understand why that first comment brought up children at all. Did Kevin have his first kid at 57?

>>oefnak+Ud
The third sentence of the linked article tells us that his wife is pregnant.

>>jonhoh+f2
I guess it is more of a millionaire thing.

The poster above mentioned that Mitnick had more than 9 million shares of some company sold for ~25 dollars each. That would be ~225 million.

>>oefnak+Ud
Reading between the lines of the article he battled cancer for 14 months, but his wife is currently pregnant with their first kid. So they chose to have a kid knowing he was a 57 year old with an aggressive form of cancer.

>>jonhoh+f2
Interestingly, I'll be 57 when my child is 23.

>>witten+6L
Per other comments his cancer was in remission for a portion of that 14 months as well.

>>witten+6L
Yikes.