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.
It has a huge error range. So, I can never um truly tell if my idea is good when I'm on drugs because I know I'm on drugs and I know I'm irrational, but I get a high volume of ideas and some I can kind of feel like like vibe wise like this is stupid. it's actually nonsense or you get a sense of profoundity but without the logical anchor of actually anything profound going on.
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.