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.
every single person that I ever sent a chapter out to for technical feedback and review did so there's not one person that I sent a chapter to and every chapter of this book every technical chapter has been reviewed by a technical expert in that field at least one yeah at least one that's right and and often times at least you know more than one
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.
and um I think it makes this book a better book