So that's 74,000 assaults against a population of 1,328,000[1]. So about 5.57% of the armed forces were assaulted sexually in one year.
But the United States as a whole had a reported ≈325k[2] sexual assaults in 2021. That's 0.09% of the population.
Are you really over 60 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in the military than in the general public? And are over a fifth of sexual assaults in America happening between military personnel? Somebody please tell me what I'm missing because I must be making a serious logical mistake.
One common stat that is used is "1 in 5 women are SA'd in college". Assuming a 4-year college, that means 1-((1-.2)^.25) = 5.5% of women in college are SA'd each year. So the rates are somewhat similar to a rough approximation with some coarse assumptions about demographics.
It looks like the Statista data comes from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is available here. [1] Note that in 2022 the number rose to 531K, or 0.31% of women.
>Somebody please tell me what I'm missing because I must be making a serious logical mistake.
authority (and corresponding victim helplessness and defenselessness) breeds sexual assault and harassment. Military is by far among the most authoritarian institutions (only prison probably beats it by a thin margin).
Did you consider the gender demographics? The assaults refer to assaults on women and I doubt that women/men ratio is 50/50ish as in the general public.
Under-reported to police yes, but this data comes from NCVS which is generally regarded to be more accurate. You can learn more about their methodology here. [1]
> Self-described ‘news’ accounts rapidly spread falsehoods around the perpetrator. One viral narrative falsely named him as “Ali al-Shakati”, a Muslim migrant new to the UK. This was later debunked by the police. Nonetheless, false claims surrounding the attack quickly garnered millions of views online, galvanised by anti-Muslim and anti-migrant activists and promoted by platforms’ recommender systems.
"It is illegal for me to explain my position" is some grade-A bullshit my friend. I'm still laughing at the sheer chutzpah at trying to make that argument. It's got that "I can't fight you because my fists are classified as deadly weapons by the government" level of teenager argument.
I'm just saying that the comment saying it's illegal to talk about this stuff in his country is entirely plausible, there are lots of examples of people being arrested and jailed for saying the wrong things about this situation.
Well then quit beating around the bush and say what you mean. How are the actions of a Christian, UK-born citizen relevant to the Muslim refugees who were being harassed and abused by British race rioters?
So your point is that the rioters aren't misled or ignorant, they're knowingly and voluntarily committing acts of violence & thuggery in the streets against innocent people on purpose? Not exactly a sympathetic bunch if so. ;)
As mentioned, the SMTP protocol only allows for 1000 bytes of data per line. The author also mentions that they are sending html emails, which ignore line breaks.
So a message intended to be sent by an SMTP client:
DATA
Hello customer,<br>[978 characters] 27.00
Was erroneously formated into:
DATA
Hello customer,<br>[978 characters] 27
.00
.
The period after 27 will be removed. And this is how the html will be rendered.
but html does not ignore line breaks. when part of body text, a run of whitespace (including newline) becomes a single whitespace when rendered.
so splitting 27.00 on the . becomes 27 00, because the CRLF is significant to the client.
you would want to split at whitespace, not at any other character -- unless you had a 999+ string of non-whitespace of course.
perhaps the author didn't know or didn't realize or thought it insignificant to his point that in addition there was a quoted-printable encoding, in which case i believe the trailing/mandatory CRLF can be made non significant for client rendering. personally i still would have split on actual whitespace. (well, i wouldn't have written an smtp client in the first place.)
Hmmmm, html doesn't ignore line breaks, it just treats them as any other whitespace, where a consecutive sequence is folded into a single space. 27 00 would still be quite confusing, of course
I consider myself technically inclined, yet up until today I didn't realize numbers COULD be spoofed
One day a few months ago I woke up to a missed call from a verified number. I had been in a car crash the night before, and I was worried I missed a call from the driver's insurance company.
I called them back, and I was told that I was talking to a civil engineering firm; the receptionist was polite, but she sounded even more confused than I was. I had googled the number while I was on the phone, and yup, it belonged to a civie firm.
At the time I just assumed some engineer fat fingered my number by mistake, but I guess I missed a call from "Amazon" or "your insurance company" or some other nonsense. Funnily enough an insurance scam might have gotten me in the state I was in.
And, in fact, there are good reasons to spoof numbers. For example, a company may want all/many numbers to look like they come from a company's central exchange as opposed to an individual person's desk.
Some people lack an ear for accents, especially if they're subtle. Personally, my ear is so bad that I get Brazilian accents mixed with Eastern European accents; and west African accents mixed with Carribean accents.
I stopped reading when he criticized Google's "Don't be evil" motto as a corporate say-nothing. Yes it's a truism, but I'd argue that it was chosen because software engineers value simplicity and conciseness.
Hold on, I've heard of the replication crisis - though I don't know the scale - but are you saying that over 50% of "hard science" is bunk? I find that hard to swallow.
Not addressing the parent's specific claim, but there was recent discussion of a disturbingly high proportion of studies in one field being fake/flawed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37572394
> "For more than 150 trials, Carlisle got access to anonymized individual participant data (IPD). By studying the IPD spreadsheets, he judged that 44% of these trials contained at least some flawed data: impossible statistics, incorrect calculations or duplicated numbers or figures, for instance. And in 26% of the papers had problems that were so widespread that the trial was impossible to trust, he judged — either because the authors were incompetent, or because they had faked the data."
I don’t think hard sciences are 50% but still too high. But that’s just the data people looked at. There are so many papers and studies being submitted, who knows how many times a researcher fudged a few values to make the effect size bigger? I personally witnessed this in academia.
The paper was very careful to describe the mass increase of Cuban immigrants as "immigration shock", not just immigration. I don't think the conclusions of this paper can say any one thing about the effects of our (I'm assuming you're American as well) standard levels of immigration. Also..
These results suggest that immigration shocks do have implications for the fertility decisions and outcomes of natives, though these tend only to be temporary and short-lived. There therefore appear to be little long-term or sustained consequences for the fertility of natives from governments pursuing labour augmenting strategies through more open immigration policies.
From the conclusion. I only really skimmed the abstract and the conclusion, please tell me if I'm missing something.
There's still no way for TikTok, or any app, to determine your password hash, so even if they test for validity (by conforming to OS pin restrictions), how would they test for veracity (being given the user's ACTUAL) passcode.
But the United States as a whole had a reported ≈325k[2] sexual assaults in 2021. That's 0.09% of the population.
Are you really over 60 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in the military than in the general public? And are over a fifth of sexual assaults in America happening between military personnel? Somebody please tell me what I'm missing because I must be making a serious logical mistake.
[1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11994
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/642458/rape-and-sexual-a...