this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024

362 points (98.4% liked)

News

23014 readers

3 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.

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

[email protected]

362

Weinstein victims’ fury as rape conviction overturned as Bragg commits to retry case (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The women who came forward against Harvey Weinstein reacted with fury after the disgraced media mogul’s rape and sexual assault convictions were overturned by a New York appeals court on Thursday.

Weinstein, 72, was found guilty in 2020 of raping and assaulting two women, and is serving his 23-year sentence at a prison in upstate New York.

In a 4-3 decision on Thursday, New York’s highest court ruled the original judge made “egregious errors” in the trial by allowing prosecutors to call witnesses whose allegations were not related to the charges at hand.

Weinstein was once one of Hollywood’s most well-connected and powerful producers who made a series of Oscar-winning films. But behind the glamourous facade, it was a different story. More than 80 women have accused him of abuse ranging from groping to rape. Even with his conviction overturned in New York, he remains convicted of rape in California.

The Weinstein revelations launched the #MeToo movement in 2017, which saw women from all corners of society come forward to talk about their experiences of sexual harassment and assault.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Okay, please show these odds since they are known.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

From a quora post because IDGAF and I'm not doing any more deliberate research on this than that:

Galton Calculated that the chance of 2 people having the exact same fingerprint is one in 64 billion.

Dunno who Galton is, but there ya go

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So some random person made a calculation according to another random person on fucking Quora and you think those are actual odds?

Another two second Google search, it was Francis Galton who calculated those odds.

That means at least 2 people have the same fingerprints based on the odds you have given me without checking their accuracy.

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

it was Francis Galton

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?

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”.

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.