Most active commenters
  • SketchySeaBeast(10)
  • mrtksn(7)
  • nkrisc(4)
  • kube-system(3)

←back to thread

Extracting DNA from the air – DNA evidence of human occupancy in indoor premises

(www.nature.com)
248 points punnerud | 28 comments | 15 Mar 25 18:38 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source | bottom
Show context
treetalker ◴[16 Mar 25 01:35 UTC] No.43376369[source]▶
From the abstract:

> Detectable levels of DNA were also observed in air and dust samples from ultra-clean forensic laboratories which can potentially contaminate casework samples.

Great news for criminal defense attorneys.

replies(3): >>43396186 #>>43396637 #>>43396805 #
mrtksn ◴[18 Mar 25 08:12 UTC] No.43396805[source]▶
It cuts both ways, there was this high profile case of the son of a very rich and powerful family brutally murdering his working class girlfriend in his family mansion with some family present, motives still unknown.

In the autopsy they discovered sperm from a 3rd person on her body, tried to claim that it was an infidelity case(you get different sentece depending on your motives and circumstances) but later it was revealed that this was just a contamination during the autopsy.

So, the more forensic options the better but likely longer and more expensive trials. All lawyers win.

replies(2): >>43396845 #>>43401147 #
paulluuk ◴[18 Mar 25 08:19 UTC] No.43396845[source]▶
> just a contamination during the autopsy.

How does sperm end up on her body during the autopsy? Are we talking necrophilia or are there multiple murdered bodies laying next to each other and the tools are re-used or something?

replies(2): >>43396911 #>>43396975 #
mrtksn ◴[18 Mar 25 08:35 UTC] No.43396911[source]▶
IRRC The official explanation is that there were a few autopsies going on at the same time in that facility and it came from the body next to hers. The public opinion was that they bribed the technician to contaminate her body.

The whole case is a huge mess with attempts of cover ups, months long manhunts and all kinds of conspiracy theories. The killer was sentenced to 24 years of prison but unalived himself in prison and there're still conspiracy theories saying that he actually escaped to China because he was studying Chinese in prison prior that. This happened more than 10 years ago and last year they opened his grave to check the remains and again it was confirmed that that's him. Yet, this is still not enough to end the public discussion and conspiracy theories.

Anyway, if anyone is curious this is the case in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Münevver_Karabulut

Unfortunately, the juicy literature around that is mostly in Turkish.

replies(2): >>43396988 #>>43398108 #
nkrisc ◴[18 Mar 25 11:20 UTC] No.43398108[source]▶
> unalived himself

In English the phrase is “killed himself”.

replies(2): >>43398271 #>>43398688 #
1. mrtksn ◴[18 Mar 25 11:45 UTC] No.43398271[source]▶
Feel free to use your choice of synonym when you are writing something.
replies(2): >>43399064 #>>43399150 #
2. SketchySeaBeast ◴[18 Mar 25 13:15 UTC] No.43399064[source]▶
Normally I'm more than happy to roll with someone's choice of words - if you want to use "literally" to describe things that are not literal, please, fill your skibidi or whatever, but I'm hostile towards it when it's an attempt to appease a corporation's filters. I get it, you gotta use it where you gotta use it, but I hate the indicators that our language is being filtered everywhere by certain social media's moderation rules.

That's not language changing because of fresh eyes, it's because of tired eyes looking towards the bottom dollar.

replies(3): >>43399105 #>>43399437 #>>43402705 #
3. mrtksn ◴[18 Mar 25 13:18 UTC] No.43399105[source]▶
It's not about filters, I like using unalive in the context of suicide when I have no sympathy to the person who dies. It's such a nice dehumanizing word.
replies(2): >>43399149 #>>43399186 #
4. SketchySeaBeast ◴[18 Mar 25 13:22 UTC] No.43399149{3}[source]▶
But it's entered the vernacular because of the filters.
replies(2): >>43399214 #>>43401029 #
5. nkrisc ◴[18 Mar 25 13:22 UTC] No.43399150[source]▶
I only mentioned it because it took me a few moments to figure out what you had actually written since I assumed it was a typo or mistranslation. It distracts from what you’ve written.
6. nkrisc ◴[18 Mar 25 13:25 UTC] No.43399186{3}[source]▶
It sounds kinder and gentler, to me, more like a word you’d use in polite company to avoid speaking crassly about someone respected.
replies(1): >>43399674 #
7. mrtksn ◴[18 Mar 25 13:28 UTC] No.43399214{4}[source]▶
That's true, some day in the future somebody will make 5 seconds long, long format documentary about the fascinating origins of the word :)

It has a passive aggressive character, I like that word a lot.

replies(1): >>43405433 #
8. itishappy ◴[18 Mar 25 13:55 UTC] No.43399437[source]▶
HN doesn't filter "suicide" though. This is organic language. Free-range, grass-fed, and GMO-free.
replies(2): >>43399585 #>>43402650 #
9. SketchySeaBeast ◴[18 Mar 25 14:07 UTC] No.43399585{3}[source]▶
Yeah, my argument is we shouldn't use "unalive" when we don't have to.
replies(1): >>43401070 #
10. mrtksn ◴[18 Mar 25 14:13 UTC] No.43399674{4}[source]▶
Suicide is a statement, it is the last act of somebody against the society. It is something serious that puts the burden on the shoulders of the remaining. It has long, deep history attached to it.

Unalive on the other hand is a simplistic word that has neither of those, it is originally derived as an attempt to bypass automatic filter. IMHO using it for someone without the practical need to bypass censorship takes away the heft of their act. Makes it insignificant.

replies(1): >>43410296 #
11. kube-system ◴[18 Mar 25 16:03 UTC] No.43401029{4}[source]▶
Pick any sentence and trace the words back to their origin and you'll find some sort of story about where it was borrowed from. That's just how language works. It isn't anything new -- we're all just older than we've ever been. Every generation coins new terms.
replies(1): >>43402570 #
12. adolph ◴[18 Mar 25 16:07 UTC] No.43401070{4}[source]▶
you just did tho

(I am currently reading and infected by Hofstadter's "Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking" which I think would side with using unalive, which might also construe a set larger than that of "dead.")

replies(2): >>43401397 #>>43405511 #
13. JoshTriplett ◴[18 Mar 25 16:34 UTC] No.43401397{5}[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinctio...
14. SketchySeaBeast ◴[18 Mar 25 18:00 UTC] No.43402570{5}[source]▶
I'm not against language growth, but the reason this is happening is upsetting to me.
replies(1): >>43403680 #
15. ◴[18 Mar 25 18:06 UTC] No.43402650{3}[source]▶
16. inetknght ◴[18 Mar 25 18:11 UTC] No.43402705[source]▶
> I'm hostile towards it when it's an attempt to appease a corporation's filters

Maybe you should be hostile towards the corporations that create those filters instead.

replies(2): >>43404154 #>>43405534 #
17. ZacNorth ◴[18 Mar 25 19:16 UTC] No.43403680{6}[source]▶
If you're taking the time to write one or more posts about this, you are implicitly against language growth, you've just found a justification for being against it that you find acceptable to your worldview.
replies(1): >>43403810 #
18. SketchySeaBeast ◴[18 Mar 25 19:24 UTC] No.43403810{7}[source]▶
Yes, there are occasions where I would take exception to language evolution. If we entered a pattern of 1984-era newspeak I'd take exception there as well. I think it is usually the product of a poorly considered stance for one to be an absolutist about the vast majority things.
replies(1): >>43404752 #
19. kossae ◴[18 Mar 25 19:49 UTC] No.43404154{3}[source]▶
Why not both?
20. kube-system ◴[18 Mar 25 20:36 UTC] No.43404752{8}[source]▶
Euphemism is already common, particularly when discussing sensitive topics like the cycle of life, bodily functions, etc. You are probably okay with many existing euphemisms because they are familiar. This really isn't a social media thing, newspaper obituaries also use euphemisms for death. e.g. "passed away", "departed", "eternal rest", etc.
replies(1): >>43404886 #
21. SketchySeaBeast ◴[18 Mar 25 20:46 UTC] No.43404886{9}[source]▶
Yes, because that euphemistic language is there to lighten the blow. "unalive" is an attempt to bypass a social media filter and speaks to the shift in how and why words enter our lexicon.
replies(1): >>43405041 #
22. kube-system ◴[18 Mar 25 20:59 UTC] No.43405041{10}[source]▶
Are you against profanity filters? What's the difference?
replies(1): >>43405314 #
23. SketchySeaBeast ◴[18 Mar 25 21:23 UTC] No.43405314{11}[source]▶
Well, because "suicide" isn't profane. It might be considered a pseudo-profanity, but people don't stop saying swearing because of profanity filters. This is an instance where the filter is feeding back into the zeitgeist.
24. SketchySeaBeast ◴[18 Mar 25 21:35 UTC] No.43405433{5}[source]▶
I get the opposite out of it. Using the negative prefix weakens the word, emphasizing what it is not instead of what it is, when act like suicide is not just the state of being not alive. The phrasing isn't committed enough to be oxymoronic and it ends up feeling impersonal and indirect.

But maybe I'm just an old man yelling at a cloud.

25. SketchySeaBeast ◴[18 Mar 25 21:42 UTC] No.43405511{5}[source]▶
I quoted it for specificity. I suppose I could have said "the word formerly known as suicide" but that is probably a phrasing that anyone young enough to unironically use the word formerly known as suicide wouldn't understand.
26. SketchySeaBeast ◴[18 Mar 25 21:44 UTC] No.43405534{3}[source]▶
Yes. I am more upset by the one responsible for the filtering than the effect it's having on the zeitgeist.
27. nkrisc ◴[19 Mar 25 10:44 UTC] No.43410296{5}[source]▶
I would be very surprised if anyone other than you sees it that way. The fact you had to explain that distinction shows the uselessness of the word. In fact all you’ve done is draw attention to this guy’s suicide and give it significance.
replies(1): >>43410597 #
28. mrtksn ◴[19 Mar 25 11:29 UTC] No.43410597{6}[source]▶
Given the upvotes, obviously there are more people that are on the same page with me on this than not.