360
Weinstein victims’ fury as rape conviction overturned as Bragg commits to retry case
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
360 points (97.9% liked)
News
23320 readers
4240 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As far as I know, there has never been two people with the same fingerprints, it isn't a myth.
Not that we shouldn't be critical of our standards when it comes to evidence and what not.
We have no idea if there have never been two people with the same fingerprints. It's never been tested and there's no way to test it since the majority of people who have existed are now dead. I would say that puts that claim squarely in myth territory until there can be some way to show that it's true beyond "we haven't found two matching sets out of the small subset of people we've fingerprinted."
Anyway...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-fingerprints-180971640/
This is true. Similarly, we haven't tested and have no means to test if two well-shuffled decks have ever matched. But we do understand the mechanisms that underlie these phenomena, and (specific or ballpark) likelihood of an exact match occurring, and from those odds can make a reasonable assertion that a match has (in all likelihood) never occurred.
That being said, the approximate impossibility of an exact match does not make up for the other issues of fingerprinting as you quoted. The chances of finding someone's fingerprint whole and readable to compare to a control may be far more likely than two distinct people matching exactly, but far more often the prints being used are nowhere near "whole and readable"
Okay, please show these odds since they are known.
From a quora post because IDGAF and I'm not doing any more deliberate research on this than that:
Dunno who Galton is, but there ya go
So some random person made a calculation according to another random person on fucking Quora and you think those are actual odds?
That's so amazingly dishonest that I don't know what else to say.
But let's say he's right. Let's say it's 1 in 64 billion. There have been over 100 billion people. That means at least 2 people have the same fingerprints based on the odds you have given me without checking their accuracy.
So thanks for proving my point.
Another two second Google search, it was Francis Galton who calculated those odds.
I don't think 1 or 2 pairs of people having had fingerprints that matched from the dawn of humanity to today is sufficient to say it's a myth that "no two people have the same fingerprint". The likelihood that two living people, or even two people who lived at the same time ever, shared fingerprints, is still effectively 0. I'm not trying to say fingerprints are magic, just that they are relatively unique. That's not a myth.
It's clear you have strong feelings on this, and I really don't, so I don't expect I'll be engaging further. I'm sorry for any distress.
Oh, Fancis Galton. Then it must be true. Could a 19th century racist who didn't even understand the concept of genetics possibly be wrong?
That literally makes that statement false. i.e. a myth.
Seriously, dude... you used the work of a 19th century racist, the literal founder of the racist "science" of eugenics, who couldn't possibly calculate odds accurately, to show, based on that work, the statement about fingerprints was false and you're now saying, "well just because that statement is false, you can't really say that it isn't true."
But please, do show me what Dr. Mengele thought on the subject next.
Imo, something isn't a myth just because it's hard to prove definitely due to a near infinite amount of samples. By the same argument you could pretty much discredit most knowledge. Dna being unique or the speed of light because we haven't tested all individual photons.
Its healthy to always acknowledge the possibility but if there's a mountain of evidence pointing one way, you kind of go with what you have.
Obviously though, it's insane we don't have better standards. It sounds like most times, it boils down to a judgment call from an expert and that is clearly not okay.
You're assuming the fingerprint is perfect. It might not be. In enough cases they do not have the full fingerprint. Then if there's a match, was it actually a match or not?
For above, this caused problems though times. Especially with huge fingerprint databases.
Disagree with your statement that there's loads of evidence pointing that fingerprint are unique. That's not how they're used. And there's enough cases where it went wrong.
Yes and it has nothing to do with two people having the same fingerprint. We need to be much more precise on how we measure differences and what samples we allow (like no partials) but there isn't an inherent fault in fingerprint evidence because there are multiples of the same one floating around.
I'm arguing against the notion that it's individuals can have the same exact fingerprint and not talking about how we process them.
That's not how science works at all. You don't need to test individual photons to know the speed of light. That involves mass and energy. There's a famous equation that allows you to calculate it if you re-order the variables, E=mc².
You do not present a hypothesis that has no evidence to back it up and pretend it's true. That is not fact, that is folklore. Mythology.
You don't ignore all the evidence just because every single bit of possible data hasn't been parsed.
There has never been two individuals with the same fingerprint, out of all the fingerprints we have collected, they are all unique. This kind of points to all of them being unique and this will be true until we find one that isn't.
How many fingerprints have been collected versus how many humans have ever lived?
Again, that's not how science works.
So dna isn't unique as well? And I mean, we haven't boiled every drop of water on the planet, how can we know all water boils at 100c at sea level.
There isn't much things we know that was tested to such an extent.
You really do not understand how science works. You are arguing that the test for uniqueness is the same as the test for uniformity.
If someone were to claim that every drop of water is unique, you would have a point. No one is claiming that. That is the claim about fingerprints and it is a claim which has never been tested to the satisfaction of anyone working in that field of science.
I'm not saying it's proven beyond a doubt, my point is that something that has turned out true the millions of times we have checked can't possibly be a myth.
You can say there's a possibility of it being wrong but shouldn't lump it in with antiquity gods just for the sake of your argument.
There's a whole range between fantasy and certain beyond a doubt, you should stop assuming I'm an idiot and ask yourself why you are so adamant about defending the extreme in such an abrasive manner.
Can't possibly be a myth? So you know for a fact that, based on the supposed millions of times that we have checked (have we checked millions of times? do you know?) no two of the estimated 100 billion people that have lived over the course of the past 200,000 years had the same fingerprints, yes? And you can present empirical evidence to support that claim? Because I'm really not sure how you can claim that with any sort of certainty based on a sample size of what is likely less than 1% of that number over the course of less than two centuries.
Otherwise, I think it could possibly be a myth.
I believe it's probably true. I don't believe it can be classified anywhere near the word myth since that implies it's almost certainly false.
People believe it's "probably true" that the world was created in 7 days. And they have only a little less credible evidence at their disposal than you do.
In our current discussion, I'm assuming based on the millions of times it has been true while you are assuming and declaring as truth based on one mystical scenario that has never been found. For all your talk about science, I don't think your reasoning is very thorough.
The above scenario would only apply to me if said people had also found millions of world's that were also created in seven days. It applies to you as is because your double finger print scenario is currently completely imaginary.
I'm going to leave it at that but if one of us is a zealot running on blind faith, I don't think it's me.
Yes, again, that's not how science works.
That's not how science works.
Except I'm not doing that at all. That would be the person referring to Francis Galton.
What's your new position then?
You started by claiming no two fingerprints are unique based on the fact that there is beyond a doubt a set of two identical pairs out there somewhere even though no such pairs have ever been found, a god pair if you will.
I never said it was beyond a doubt.
In fact, I said:
So I don't know why you're telling such a ridiculous lie.
Okay so what's your position? Its a spectrum I'm guessing? So what, you think there's a 50% chance that fingerprints aren't unique?
I literally just gave you my position and I will not continue this discussion any further until you acknowledge that you made a false claim about me.
I am acknowledging I made a false claim and I'm asking you to correct me by asking this question. What's your position? All you have told me is what your position isn't.
I'm not sure why you need to ask this because I made it very clear. It is a myth because it is not a provable claim and assuming something you can't show to be valid is true is the antithesis of the scientific method. The burden of proof is on the claimant and so far, no one who has made that claim has been able to back it up. Until they can, it's a myth.
By being an unprovable claim, the burden of absolute proof cannot be on either side since that would constitute an appeal to ignorance.
This may vary by region but in mine, saying something is a myth means it's 100% unequivocally false.
So in this context, saying something is false because of some as of yet very very unlikely scenario seems like misrepresentation.
That's basically what my real issue was with all this.
"Absolute proof" is also not a thing in science.
How unlikely? Do you actually know? Can you show me the odds from someone other than the 19th century eugenecist's estimation which I've already been shown that would suggest there has actually been at least been one matching set if he's right (he's not right).
Its likelier than Zeus being up there with lightning bolts and what not.
I agree there is a possibility but that doesn't make the more likely scenario a myth.
You're confusing religious mythology with something being a myth.
It's a myth that you regularly swallow spiders in your sleep. Is it a myth because they've watched lots of people at home while they sleep every night to make sure they aren't swallowing spiders? No, it's a myth because no one who has ever made that claim has been able to back it up.
https://www.burkemuseum.org/collections-and-research/biology/arachnology-and-entomology/spider-myths/myth-you-swallow-spiders
Nobody that has claimed to have found two seperate identical fingerprints has been able to back that up either. I'm pretty sure most myths are associated with the unlikeliest scenario and not the opposite like you are doing. By their very nature they are usually outlandish, religiously outlandish or old wives tales that turned out to be false.
You're basically saying "it's a myth that spiders don't crawl into our mouths as we sleep". It kind of makes the opposite sound like a regular occurrence and saying "we haven't watched every person sleep throughout history to know if it's 100% always the case" is not a valid reason to say it
Again- no one has to say that because the burden of proof is on the claimant. This is true every single time.
Where is your proof that two fingerprints can be the same?
And before it comes about, the absence of proof isn't proof. "Could ofs" and "maybe exists" don't really cut it. I hope you understand this is why appeals to ignorance don't work and you can't use the fact that we haven't gathered all data especially when all the current data point squarely point one way.
This is why labeling something as false, a myth or a fantasy needs more than just a slight possibility.
We could label physics as a myth by arguing we just haven't found the cases in which it doesn't work yet. These things have happened before and there's always a slight possibility but to bungle about saying it's a myth is a bit silly imo.
Ah, you're back to lying about what I said again. I think this conversation is over.
This is what you wrote. Is "Fingerprints aren't all unique" a provable claim? This is why your logic isn't sound, it can be applied to all of it and makes things that clearly aren't myths into myths. And practically nothing is provable beyond a doubt especially when you need all data in all of space and time as you imply.
You basically explained it to yourself with the spider example.
I know what I wrote.
I also wrote this, which I have said in reply to you twice now. I will bold the relevant parts to help you comprehend what you're reading.
And since you have decided to lie about it again, this will be my last reply to you. Go ahead and lie about me a third time if you like. Or a fourth time, I suppose, depending on how you count these last two replies.
Do you understand that your logic applies to both and is meaningless. I changed three letters and it still makes perfect sense. You can't label things as myths because edge cases might exist somewhere in the known universe.
But please, if you don't want to interact with me, I invite you to not reply.
Thing is, as with DNA, the whole fingerprint is not examined, just certain reference points. The chances of 10 points in a particular print matching another random person's are much much greater than the whole fingerprint.
You can run a better match test than that on GIMP just by using the difference blend mode and some rotation. It's absurd that this is what they rely on instead.
I and the other user are talking about the actual fingerprint on the finger which looking at it now might not be the right term.
I'm mainly saying I don't believe something is automatically false just because we haven't verified all 8 billion datapoints, even more so when we've already sampled quite a bit. I don't get why it's fantasy or a myth like the other user is saying.