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.
Yeah, this comes back to this whole idea that I don't think what we see with aging is just random stochastic damage or errors. I think we've always thought of aging as just accumulation of errors but it really might just be a program that kind of goes wrong and there's nothing evolutionarily that needs to prevent it from doing that because it doesn't benefit, you know, fitness to prevent that program from going wrong.
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.