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.
acquisition of energy and reproduction were kind of the only things that would have mattered right there probably wasn't a lot of other stuff that mattered at the time and acquisition of energy was essential in that it could kill you very quickly if you failed to do that so acquiring energy storing energy was like kind of the struggle that defined us
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.
we've gone from being these creatures who evolved to because food was scarce and hard to find if you had the opportunity to eat it maybe eat a little more than you needed at any given time that would give you a survival Advantage because you could store that energy and then the next time that you can't find food you're going to survive that
acquisition of energy was essential in that it could kill you very quickly if you failed to do that so acquiring energy storing energy was like kind of the struggle that defined us