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.
you're willing to claim a causality based on a two sigma not five not three but a ninety-five percent confidence level when if you actually try to think about it if you said let's treat this like the physicists treat their science we can go through and we can come up with so many possible alternative explanations that there's a very high likelihood that what you see claiming is a discovery is a false positive
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.