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.
why because in the case of the latter it assumes evolutionarily that the kidney will forever be able to recognize bad things but in the former it assumes evolutionarily that the only thing the kidney needs to understand is what is good and obviously that's a much better strategy because that's a finite set of things as opposed to an infinite set of things
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.
the kidney has one way of filtering which is it goes to the dresser and takes every single thing out and then it simply pulls back in what it wants to keep that's very different than the kidney saying I'm going to go and identify things that we don't need or we don't want and pull them out