> And this number is just a floor: It reflects only the cases that resulted in pregnancy, that did not end in miscarriage or abortion, and that led to the birth of a child who grew into an adult who volunteered for a research study.
This might not be logical. If your DNA's in UK Biobank you might be more likely to have had a genetic disease stemming from incest.
The UK Biobank definitely has a bias, but it's in the opposite direction to that you are suggesting here. It's primarily healthy people who are enrolled only when they reach the age of 40 and still have no significant health problems. So, if you are in the UK Biobank, you are less likely to have had a genetic disease stemming from incest.
I think the assertion is that most people basically don't feel they have anything special genetically. As such, most people just aren't entering these databases that are opt-in.
Contrast this to people that do have a genetic oddity about them. Just having the traits is often enough to get people to find out more about them.
Yes, for UK Biobank's samples. I'm saying that the UK Biobank's samples could in theory have a higher than average rate of incest, making that number not a floor for the overall population.
I'm only making a technical point of logic. It's not a comment on UK Biobank in general.
If the statistics are done on "Incest survivors DNA bank" and show 100% occurence of incest, it doesn't mean they're applicable to the general population.
That's the argument. That this DNA bank has a (lesser than the contrived example, but still true) bias.
I got a "sign in or start a free trial" wall that blocked most of the article.
I suspect these sites don't put up that block until articles reach a certain popularity. That encourages early readers to enjoy and share the article, and everyone else gets to think that the person that shared it with them has an account, so maybe they should too.
Not everyone can be bothered to disable JavaScript by default.
It's a pity that archive.today walls off their saved pages behind a Google CAPTCHA, which requires JavaScript. I would think avoiding that kind of fingerprinting/tracking would be a common use case for an archive site, but the Google-wall renders archive.today useless for that purpose.
Paywalled here - can only read 2 paragraphs. Possibly paywall is triggered conditionally, for example if you read multiple articles in some time period?
> The article doesn't appear to be paywalled and I'm reading it just fine without JavaScript enabled. Is an archive really necessary?
Not every browser has the option to disable JavaScript for a webpage.
Yes, of course archive is necessary, as it helps everyone read the article easily, see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html, which points out that complaining about paywalls is not.
Entire countries have ceded their b2b and b2c communications channels to WhatsApp.
End users don't give any thoughts to privacy, generally speaking. Either they've "nothing to hide", or they have given up due to an overwhelming sense of helplessness and loss of agency on the matter.
It's not even a decision anymore. They just type their phone number (aka permanent tracking unique identifier) into the new app and smash "agree".
My customers are on Whatsapp, my suppliers are on WhatsApp. I can fight WhatsApp all I like but that won’t change, but they will change where they spend their money and whether I can give them my money.
I think we're going to find that a large number of people who were shamed as "town sluts" were actually abuse victims. Every so often I see nasty comments that 'she got pregnant at 15' or 'she had two kids before finishing high school' with follow-ups blaming poor sex ed. I think people are side stepping the implications, especially if the father is otherwise unknown. Even in my day the girl who got pregnant by the volleyball coach shouldered the bulk of the blame.
are you unaware of the meaning of quote marks? They are quoting labels that society will place on them, primarily as a consequence of puritanical thinking acting as a cover up for abuse. What's shameful is hiding the horrors of our reality. I thought their comment was particularly poignant and reflects the actual horrors of abuse when it is uncovered in retrospect, compared to how it was perceived at the time.
We see this countless times in our history, abusers lauded, praised, with status, titles, wealth and popular acclaim. Detractors are ignored, slandered and side-lined, and after the abusers die, it transpires all those hushed whispers were true and the detractors were right all along.
Readit News
This might not be logical. If your DNA's in UK Biobank you might be more likely to have had a genetic disease stemming from incest.
(Unless I've misunderstood somewhere)
Contrast this to people that do have a genetic oddity about them. Just having the traits is often enough to get people to find out more about them.
(I work in Genomic)
They were trying to get an estimate on the prevalence of incest.
So the number of people who have been documented to have DNA showing that this happened is literally the floor on the amount of times incest occurs.
I'm only making a technical point of logic. It's not a comment on UK Biobank in general.
That's the argument. That this DNA bank has a (lesser than the contrived example, but still true) bias.
I suspect these sites don't put up that block until articles reach a certain popularity. That encourages early readers to enjoy and share the article, and everyone else gets to think that the person that shared it with them has an account, so maybe they should too.
It's a pity that archive.today walls off their saved pages behind a Google CAPTCHA, which requires JavaScript. I would think avoiding that kind of fingerprinting/tracking would be a common use case for an archive site, but the Google-wall renders archive.today useless for that purpose.
Not every browser has the option to disable JavaScript for a webpage.
Yes, of course archive is necessary, as it helps everyone read the article easily, see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html, which points out that complaining about paywalls is not.
Deleted Comment
Sounds like a thing you would never want to share with Facebook given its approach to privacy.
End users don't give any thoughts to privacy, generally speaking. Either they've "nothing to hide", or they have given up due to an overwhelming sense of helplessness and loss of agency on the matter.
It's not even a decision anymore. They just type their phone number (aka permanent tracking unique identifier) into the new app and smash "agree".
I read GP's comment as being more about the 'on Facebook' part, not so much about 'invite-only'.
We see this countless times in our history, abusers lauded, praised, with status, titles, wealth and popular acclaim. Detractors are ignored, slandered and side-lined, and after the abusers die, it transpires all those hushed whispers were true and the detractors were right all along.
Some discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39765894
Deleted Comment