Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
obviously this suggests degree of statistical uncertainty in the study's conclusions whether or not it was just due to a small sample size I said there's only 44 people in this study perhaps if there were 444 people there would have been more of a stronger signal and uh the data wouldn't have had to have been pulled together or maybe there really isn't much of an effect there's no telling
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.