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.

I believe this is what they call "dummy bidding".

They don't care which way the issue goes, they just want there to be a way for money in on both sides, so that no side gets its way too cheaply.

Hello, this is your slashdot comment. Just interact with it like you normally would.

Political correctness? From what I've heard, Stranger Things had a heavy handed political turn in later seasons, but it wasn't to the left.

My thought too. It'd be hard to find a startup like this which didn't juice its numbers, even if they weren't already in the business of making fake stuff.

Science? Really? There's a lot of soft-brained, unscientific and technophilic pseudo-religion in the article.

Let's work with the argument's load-bearing phrase, "exploration is an intrinsic part of the human spirit."

There are so many things to criticise in that single statement of bias. Suffice it to say there's a good case to be made that "provincial domesticity and tribalism are prevalent inherited traits in humans", without emotional appeals to a "spirit" not in evidence.

Of course we know, because we don't see the source tree to the next GTA game posted anywhere, do we?