Solved Getting old :-(

[The_Doc_Man]

It's just that a test for "date too far back" is just as easy against #1/1/100# as it is for #12/30/1899# - either constant works in comparisons. However, when looking backwards a few generations from members of my current generation, I'm more likely to accidentally run into #12/30/1899# than the other date and get a false negative.

It's easy enough, though, to have that date that way. Public Const MinDate As Date = #1/1/100# works just fine and date comparisons love it.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Understood, however it would be nice to, for example, filter on the 17th Century to see which members were alive during that era.

I can do that with my current setup. In fact, the end of the 16th century is as far back as I've gone in any branch. My biggest problem is that a lot of times, the data available to me is from a church ledger and it tells me NOTHING about the person, only location, birth, and death. Which is why I'm moving on towards winding down the Ancestry subscription. Too expensive to keep much longer.

 

[DickyP]

500 years from now our descendants will know a lot of details about us. ...

I wouldn't be so sure about that!

I wrote an archive database for my wife's school as few years back. I could tell tell you the results for the public exams in 1910 and the records of school governors meeting for the first 70 years of the 20th century which were stored on paper,, but not anything on the same subjects after 'computerisation'. Even if they were electronically recorded nobody thought to make a permanent, accessible store for the records, or update after technology changes.

 

[DickyP]

Our current technology is capable of documenting and preserving huge amounts of data. I believe it's possible.

I'm not doubting the technology- it's the people involved and their management of the systems to ensure the collection and retention.

 

[gemma-the-husky]

Are you taking Mounjaro, or some other GLP for weight loss?.. I'm on Mounjaro 10mg x1 weekly and have lost 50 lbs, and counting. Currently at 210, goal is 190. It works!

How long. I am in my third month. I lost 9lbs, 1 pound, and maybe 4 pounds so far, so about a stone altogether. Only 2.5mg.

 

[MarkK]

The fact this thread called Getting Old :-( is marked Solved is misleading.
IMO.

 

[MarkK]

It will never get solved.

Exacta-mundo.

 

[MarkK]

Maybe someone marked it solved so we would stop rambling on?

Except the suggestion getting old is solved is what attracted my attention ITFP, so this solved distinction, if intended to inhibit ramblings-on, is creating a bigger problem.

 

[gemma-the-husky]

I started with 2.5 one year ago. Two months later it didn't curb my appetite anymore so they increased it to 5. That lasted 3 months and went up to 7.5 for 3 more months, and been on 10 since then and that dose still works. There's only 2 higher doses, 12.5 and 15, but not everyone can tolerate those levels, especially if you've had heart and constipation issues in the past.I weighed 265 lbs when I started, now at 210, goal is 190, ideal weight for 6'1" height.

View attachment 120886

It's funny. I don't know whether it's curbed my appetite or whether it's just reminding me to make better choices. I know if I'm dining out, I don't feel like I need to take multiple helpings of fries, and I don't hunger for things I used to like peanuts. However it's certainly making me need a lot less insulin to manage my diabetes. I was probably about 235 pounds and I'm down to about 220. If I can carry on steadily down to 180 by the new year that will be a job well done. I will need a new wardrobe though.

 

[gemma-the-husky]

@BlueSpruce
Congrats on your steady weight loss though. How long has it taken you to lose 50lbs?