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.
And so some people you know who don't have quote unquote the goods on an argument will resort to other things. They'll resort to ad hominemum attacks. They'll resort to innuendo. they'll resort to quips. Quips are great, you know, innuendo or not homing them attacks, not so great in my view, but none of those are dispositive.
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.