The theme of this issue is: "Men Live Worse Than Dogs"...of course, this is not about daily life.
As background data, let's look back at the "Titanic."
In the early morning of April 15, 1912, the Titanic sank. Among the 843 male passengers, 161 survived, a survival rate of 19%, which is lower than that of dogs (facepalm).
In comparison, of the 12 dogs on board, 3 survived, a survival rate of 25%.
So...men live worse than dogs, I mean in terms of survival rate.
In the movie "Titanic," the poor artist Jack gave up his chance to live for the noblewoman Rose, making the world remember their love...
After doing the data analysis, I realized: Rose's survival was not solely due to love.
Through data analysis, it was found that:
Jack's death was almost inevitable: As a male in third class, Jack's survival rate was only 16%.
Rose's survival was almost certain: As a female in first class, Rose's survival rate was as high as 97%.
Even if they had never met, the outcome might have been the same.
So, what fascinating discoveries are hidden behind these cold numbers?
Did the rich really "escape first"?
What was the survival rate for first-class men?
Answer: 34.1%.
Wait, only 33% survival rate for first-class men?
I further asked: "What about the survival rate for third-class women?"
Answer: 49%.
The survival rate of third-class women (49%) was actually higher than that of first-class men (33%).
It seems the principle of "women and children first" was more strictly enforced than "class priority."
"Could ticket price buy a life?"
"Survival rate for passengers with tickets over £100?"
71.4%.
"Survival rate for passengers with tickets under £50?"
32.1%.
Money makes the world go round, it's truly not deceiving.
Embarkation Port Foretells Destiny
Cherbourg (France): 55.6%
Queenstown (Ireland): 35.8%
Southampton (UK): 33.3%
Cherbourg passengers were mostly wealthy vacationers with higher class berths; Queenstown was crowded with Irish immigrants, mostly in third class.
Second-Class Men Most Tragic
A quick statistic shows that the survival rate for second-class men was only 14.6%, which is even lower than that of third-class men.
If we only count adult men...this proportion drops further to 8.4%.
As for why? Just a guess...
First-class men, though expected to be "gentlemen," were closer to the lifeboats.
Third-class men, with nothing to lose, rushed upwards.
Second-class men? They had to take care of women and children, and their location was not advantageous.
More...
Then, I calculated the survival rates for all age groups on the Titanic (manually verified, no errors):
Elderly: 30%
Adult men: 18.5%
Adult women: 76%
Teenage girls: 82.1%
Teenagers: 47.6%
Children: 56%
It can be seen: Teenage girls > Adult women > Children > Adult men > Elderly > Men.
Oh, I missed pet dogs here: 25%.
So it's: Teenage girls > Adult women > Children > Adult men > Elderly > Dogs > Men.
Damn it...
I thought of a strange PPT...forget it, let's not mention it...
Returning to the original question
Did Jack really die because he was poor?
After some analysis, I found: Not entirely.
If Jack had been a third-class woman, his survival rate would be 49%, higher than that of a first-class man.
If Jack had been a child, even in third class, he would have had a 34% chance.
But he was neither. As a 15-25 year old third-class male, Jack's chance of escape was only 15.3%.
Data is not sentimental or romantic, but it tells you the most authentic information.
With the aid of AI, we uncovered more information.
Conclusion
Data source: Titanic DataSet on OpenML, containing complete information for 1309 passengers.
Pet information: From Wikipedia.