The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
And I think that's one of the great values of getting objective numbers, even if they have to be measured by some of these back-of-the-envelope techniques that, I guess, we always teach people in the laboratory, that a tool can be not extremely precise, but as long as it's reliable, there is still value there.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
For the real world, reliability beats validity as much as we can.