this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
433 points (94.8% liked)
Technology
59123 readers
2294 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
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
with big enough database you simple have every single person in it. that still doesn't back up the quote i disputed in any way. can you find source of the quote? i'd be interested to see the original.
They caught the Bay Area Strangler(or whatever his title was) by finding a dna relative match on one of these services and using that to narrow down suspects. DNA can absolutely be used to narrow things down without just having a direct 1:1 match saying it's THAT person.
they "narrowed it down" to about 1000 people. that is the case covered by video i linked in my comment above.
the sentence The fbi estimates they can use dna evidance to single dowm the possible people to 2 or 3 out of the entiriry of the us is still nonsense
It's not exclusively DNA they're using.
It never was exclusively DNA.
There are location, sex, age, and other factors to consider that help narrow it down. You could have 1000 close matches, but only half a dozen or so that could actually have committed the crime, and only a few of them that fit the profile.
You guys are arguing semantics. Walk away...