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.
I can think of experiments that were done uh in the realm of neurosurgery on humans in the 1960s people stimulating different brain areas and seeing Rage or seeing very politically controversial ideas emerge from the person's mouth in real time as a function of stimulating that brain area and then you say well did they really believe that and they just never were saying it and the person doesn't even recall that happening during the surgery
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.