re: that recent post an interesting thing about being an any pronouns user is that most cishet people will hear that and immediately go "oh thank god I can just call you the normal girl pronouns" and many queer people will go "okay got it I'll use they/them and apologize if I ever fuck up and use a different one" and it's like. okay. you're actually both kind of whiffing it in different ways.
For those who need to hear it. To be ten pounds overweight is barely noticeable. To be ten pounds underweight is cause for concern if not outright alarm.
The primary health impact of being fifty pounds overweight is medical neglect. The primary health impact of being fifty pounds underweight is organ failure.
Skinny =/= healthy. You can not underfeed yourself into balanced nutrition. You can not subtract your way towards a healthy diet. You can not exercise all the spare calories off because bomb calorimetery is a joke of a scientific model that would have been laughed out of any other field.
For more stories like this, like Slate on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
The Washington Post published a story so horrifying this weekend that it would stop your breath: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”
What went wrong? The Post continues: “Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far.” The shameful, horrifying errors were uncovered in a massive, three-year review by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project. Following revelations published in recent years, the two groups are helping the government with the country’s largest ever post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.
Chillingly, as the Post continues, “the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death.” Of these defendants, 14 have already been executed or died in prison.
The massive review raises questions about the veracity of not just expert hair testimony, but also the bite-mark and other forensic testimony offered as objective, scientific evidence to jurors who, not unreasonably, believed that scientists in white coats knew what they were talking about. As Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, put it, “The FBI’s three-decade use of microscopic hair analysis to incriminate defendants was a complete disaster.”
This study was launched after the Post reported that flawed forensic hair matches might have led to possibly hundreds of wrongful convictions for rape, murder, and other violent crimes, dating back at least to the 1970s. In 90 percent of the cases reviewed so far, forensic examiners evidently made statements beyond the bounds of proper science. There were no scientifically accepted standards for forensic testing, yet FBI experts routinely and almost unvaryingly testified, according to the Post, “to the near-certainty of ‘matches’ of crime-scene hairs to defendants, backing their claims by citing incomplete or misleading statistics drawn from their case work.”
NACDL executive director Norman Reimer said in an interview with Associations Now that the flaws in the system had been known for years now. “What we were finding was that the examiners … wouldn’t just simply say that there was a microscopic similarity [between the two hairs], but they would go beyond that and say it was a 100 percent match, essentially misleading the jury into concluding that the evidence had a certain value that it didn’t actually have,” Reimer said.
This article came out in 2015. I repeat: 2015. That's 10 years ago.
This is not a new issue. We've known for over a decade that a lot of "forensics" methods are complete bunk, including hair matching, bite mark analysis, and blood spatter analysis. This is common knowledge in both criminal justice communities and in many scientific communities.
And yet, these are still some of the methods used to identify perpetrators. People are still getting put behind bars or sentenced to death over pseudosciences. Like many ways of identifying criminals, these methods aren't still used because they're the best, they're used because they're easy and convenient and in many cases, they let people point fingers at whoever they want to get rid of.
There’s a branch of the Medicis that moved to Ireland and now are running a successful chain of fried chicken restaurants which is a very different vinbe from when they were like buying popes and stuff
Correction: it's not the Medicis who run the Dublin fried chicken shops, but the direct decendants of the enemies of the Medici; the Borgias. The chain is called Borza and is better known for fish and chips. They moved to Ireland in the early 20th century. They are also said to have introduced the deep fried Mars bar from Scotland to Ireland.
The Borgias, among the most feared and reviled families in European history, running a fish 'n chips shop with deep fried Mars bars is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. It's like something from a D&D campaign where they decided to completely change genres.
all dressed up like a spider in a cup @bleeezie - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
romaincrisis
izzy806
dailybridgerton
germansingergirl
jacobvanloon
tangentwithtanner
kaledo-art
gummygunk
