A person with an unusual mind who was obsessively focused on this thing for quite a while - they label that as "autism" and suggests it gave him special powers to break the case.

There's another type of person with an unusual mind and tendency to obsessiveness, we generally call them "cranks". Are you sure we have a magical rain man and not a crank?

Margolis was a suspect for the Dahlia case, but he was cleared by the police due to having an alibi.

No non-cranks have suggested a link between that murder and the zodiac murders, since they're nothing like each other and also far removed in time.

That "Elisabeth" is the key to z13 is nonsense, since only a few of the ciphertext letters in z13 are even letters. Our "autist genius" had to give himself a lot of leeway to squeeze that interpretation in.

The most likely decoding of z13 is "Alfred E Neuman". That's the MAD magazine mascot. It's a joke. He didn't put his name in there, just like he didn't in any of the other ciphers. There's internal corroboration: the three first letters of the ciphertext are A E N - the initials of the solution.

Get replaced by AI, starve.

Just one of many examples of "content" which has no advantage over AI generated stuff (unless you count providing employment in a miserably meaningless job, I guess).

I saw a nice indie puzzle game, clearly well thought out, but the music was abysmal. Author had a short up "this is how easy it is to make a smooth jazz soundtrack!" Yes, this is how easy it is to take a couple of jazzy chords and put some directionless sax noodling on top, but unless your goal was to drive people crazy, you would be better of letting the AI do it.

All emergency powers laws should come with a footnote: Does not apply if you caused the emergency yourself.

It's not as if once he's done that, his media power is "spent" and can't be used any longer, all the physical assets are worthless etc.

If someone tells him Spotify is foreign, I'm sure he'll do it unless someone else talks to him first.

You know what a red team is, right? No way they didn't know this would fail. The question was always how and how fast.

Denmark, or rather the clique in charge in Denmark, was a big "chat control" proponent.

This is "think of the children" all over again. The goal is to get acceptance for policing who can talk to who and what they're allowed to talk about. It's not subtle at all.

You are hereby forbidden from learning anything from this comment!

But you weren't going to anyway, were you.

Random guy? It's probably the guy who founded the fertility clinic. Or the technician in charge of taking the samples out of storage.

There's no honor among eugenics fans. "Good genes' always means "my genes", otherwise you were sleeping in biology class... There's a whole Wikipedia list page for doctors who pulled this little trick. And that's just the ones who got caught.

It is a toothless threat, but not because of the courts, pah. The Democrats always defend the new normal, no matter how bad it is. Nothing bad ever gets rolled back.

Unless a suspect themselves have tested, genetic genealogy can only produce leads for further investigation. You can't be convicted, probably not even accused on your cousins DNA alone... in a state which respects basic civil rights, at least. Which it's an open question how much the US is right now.

Then again, if they don't respect basic civil rights, it's bold to assume they care about evidence at all, genetic or otherwise.

Ancestry is a PE run lobster trap, in a screw of enshittification. They are the sort of company which hikes subscription fees and "forgets" to cancel even though you tell them to. (Very profitable with their elderly customer base). If they're clamping down on police use of their databases, that's because the way they think the wind is blowing, not because of any sort of principle.

People who want to help missing person cases/cases where the police still care about actual evidence, can submit their results to the pretty open GEDmatch instead (ideally testing somewhere which doesn't have subscriptions).

Do you believe in a right to privacy of action? If I've murdered someone and taken their wallet, is that none of your business?

Money is not speech. Money is action. Money is backed by obligations - public obligations. The only bilateral agreement is a gentleman's agreement. As soon as you need any kind of stronger agreement than that, you need a third party. And that can be a mafia don, or it can be your tribe's patriarch to wage blood feuds over you, or it can be a government.

From public view? That's trivial. Deposit it in a bank, and pay your bills from it there. The public can't go in and see what you've spent money on.

But you probably meant from the government's view, didnt you? That's called money laundering. The reason it's illegal is that if it weren't, the whole system that makes money practical and safe to use in your everyday dealings would come crashing down. Even faster than it already is, I mean. We would be back to blood feuds before you could blink.

There's a word for a person who would submit untainted coins to a tumbler without compensation (i.e, getting back more coins than they put in).

That word is "sucker". Sure, there are many people who will tell you that it's a perfectly normal thing to give your money to a likely money launderer in the hopes of getting back the same amount, just for "privacy". They're hoping you'll do it. They're fishing for suckers.