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.
Ericsson did publish measures of variance and turns out there was enormous variance not only was their enormous variance in the original paper the papers from 1993 and it was three or four years ago that he finally published the variance made clear that their conclusions were wrong that there was not complete correspondence between the number of practice hours and the group that someone was in
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.