I love this site down voting facts if it doesn't conform to preconceived "progressive" notions.
The vedas have many sections which get widely ignored.
Edit: HN throttling is terrible. Here is a link to a couple studies [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32641190/], [https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trends-in-consanguineous...]
AP has the highest rate, around 28%
But note that the article is really talking about first-degree incest/pedophila/sexual abuse which is taboo in pretty much every society.
> In the overwhelming majority of cases ... the parents are a father and a daughter or an older brother and a younger sister, meaning a child’s existence was likely evidence of sexual abuse.
Not saying SA isn't an issue, but if the issue is incest, then cultural acceptance of it is the biggest offender.
What your talking about with 1st cousins is called inbred. Inbred is the superset of incest. You can get that with no incest.
Label it whatever you want. It's still consanguinity and it causes a tremendous amount of disease and the largest offender by far is cultural acceptance if it.
Cousin sex is just not a big deal, and especially beyond the 1st cousins with zero removal, ie the children of your parents' blood siblings. When it comes to stuff like "She's the daughter of my great-auntie's oldest boy" it's negligible. In some societies that wouldn't be tracked, everybody is a cousin and nobody is. Americans are weird about this. Rudy Giuliani for example married his second cousin. I don't even know the names of my second cousins. If I met one in a bar I'd have no idea. But in the US somehow that counts as strange.
It is not a non issue. The communities where marrying cousins is normal do have this issue and have significantly more severe disabilities.
So there's a huge gap between "Your mum and dad both have twins, and there was a double marriage, so, she's your first cousin twice over" and "She's your great-aunt's child's youngest" and yet you might get told both people are your "cousin" for lack of convenient terminology.
No one cared. It wasn't that big deal.
This might not be logical. If your DNA's in UK Biobank you might be more likely to have had a genetic disease stemming from incest.
(Unless I've misunderstood somewhere)
(I work in Genomic)
Contrast this to people that do have a genetic oddity about them. Just having the traits is often enough to get people to find out more about them.
Some discussion then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39765894
Sounds like a thing you would never want to share with Facebook given its approach to privacy.
I read GP's comment as being more about the 'on Facebook' part, not so much about 'invite-only'.
End users don't give any thoughts to privacy, generally speaking. Either they've "nothing to hide", or they have given up due to an overwhelming sense of helplessness and loss of agency on the matter.
It's not even a decision anymore. They just type their phone number (aka permanent tracking unique identifier) into the new app and smash "agree".
toomuchtodo•5h ago
zahlman•3h ago
voidnap•3h ago
dang•2h ago
tetromino_•3h ago
Jtsummers•3h ago
john01dav•3h ago
zdragnar•3h ago
I suspect these sites don't put up that block until articles reach a certain popularity. That encourages early readers to enjoy and share the article, and everyone else gets to think that the person that shared it with them has an account, so maybe they should too.
bookofjoe•3h ago
foresto•3h ago
It's a pity that archive.today walls off their saved pages behind a Google CAPTCHA, which requires JavaScript. I would think avoiding that kind of fingerprinting/tracking would be a common use case for an archive site, but the Google-wall renders archive.today useless for that purpose.
bookofjoe•3h ago
boston_clone•2h ago
If you do already program, have you never been exposed to JavaScript at all? If not, I think you should use that curiosity to find out what JavaScript is and what effects disabling it may have.
Even more odd when I see that the majority of your comments are really just posting archive links to bypass a paywall. Not an issue with me per se, but even more surprising to be ignorant of JS at that point.