We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
it is categorically a piece of garbage I would call it a random number generator for heart rate it can't come close to estimating my heart rate y there are times I look down and it says I'm at 170 beats per minute when I know I'm below 100 conversely there are times when I'm probably at 160 beats per minute and it says I'm at 110 so it as far as I can tell it serves absolutely no purpose
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.