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.
if you get up in the 90s mid 90s you really want to maximize that potential responsiveness and that's where a seated measurement makes more sense but that's a fairly small percentage of the population that's going to be you know up in that ranges rmsd you're talking 120s 130s 150 we get up in those ranges you probably want to take it seated
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.
we get up in those ranges you probably want to take it seated
if you get up in the 90s mid 90s you really want to maximize that potential responsiveness and that's where a seated measurement makes more sense