this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
1350 points (98.8% liked)

Privacy

8213 readers
465 users here now

A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy

Rules:

  1. Be civil
  2. No spam posting
  3. Keep posts on-topic
  4. No trolling

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There were definitely people under 18 fighting in both world wars.

[–] axexrx@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sure but even if we drop the age all the way to 13, theyre still 93 years old, and that would be people who only saw combat at the very end.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah I mean not a statistically significant difference, I just think the assumption set should be as broad as possible as a matter of conservative estimation. We're trying to show that the living memory footprint is low, which I thought better served by getting the absolute maximum number that could be alive, and it's still very small.