I dont usually share all new features, loads being added monthly but a new feature has rolled out to allow use of Passkeys rather than Passwords. Ive set one up on my Samsung mobile and means I now have fingerprint login. All good biometric methods available.
Click on your preferences and go to the new security tab
They are not as unique as you might think. A long time ago now I did an assignment for The University of Kyoto on a MOOC. My project on DNA got me in the top 100 globally. It was about how we share DNA with (guess as I can’t remember offhand) 1000 others globally. (Seriously). My approach was to fiddle with an individual’s DNA so that differentiation could be made, eliminating false prosecutions etc.
Anyhow, one of the things that I learnt then was that (as you might expect with identical DNA) fingerprints are not as unique as you might think. It’s worse in courts of law, as different countries use different quantities of specific point matches on fingerprints before it is considered conclusive. Some countries (back then anyway) had a low bar, others a high one. So be careful which country you break the law in!
Or if you are going to rob a bank find one that only uses a low number of matches as your own fingerprint might work!
It was a long time ago now so my offhand answer here might not be accurate. I think it was identical, as you would expect with twins. The chances of ejcv2 being in your locality is statistically low, but if they committed a crime and you got lifted for it, the dna would ‘prove’ you are guilty. Hence my dna cutting and adding submission (long before Casper cas 9!). The University of Kyoto took ownership of my submission, wonder if they have used it.
Again, my offhand answer might not be accurate, but top 100 out of the 10000 plus submissions. I think it was actually in top 85 as there weren’t enough good enough ones for the University to go to the planned100.
I did not get to the top 5, who got to go to Kyoto.
Now ejc, remember this was likely 2 decades ago now.
As best as I can recall it was an introductory biochemistry course, so beginner level. I think, that I used publically available information from the New York? Public library as the basis of my submission.
My submission was more of (as best as I can remember) this, the identical DNA from the source - the library information….and taking a punt, it might have come from something like The New York? Public Library Science Encyclopaedia.
My point ejc, I doubt that I did any statistical analysis, as that wasn’t required, as that was the given, published facts, from which I prepared my submission on inserting dna markers to differentiate people.
The University accepted my source, and recognised my theory, and that was that. Top 100.
Perhaps the real question here, is, if science Encyclopaedia’s were stating this as fact, when? In the 1990s, how come most people still don’t seem to know it today? Unless science has proved itself wrong in the meantime obviously.
I reckon your specialist skill must be interrogator.
If you can’t recall the statistics - and I have tried to put my SPSS days behind me - what was the method? Did you make an assumption on how much DNA was the same in people, calculate the amount that could be different and then assess the likelihood of there being a 100% match in the world population in any given time or at any time in say the last 250k years? Or did you draw on other evidence that predicts DNA matches? Or was it based on the models used by the tests used in criminal cases?
A visit to get an award. It was quite touching, they surprised the top five in person. The course lead would turn up at their place of work/university/whatever and give them the good news in person, before flying them to Kyoto. Touching to watch.