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's really really good to have this framework to be thinking about decisions and to really recognize the probabilistic nature of the world and the way that things turn out for you and understanding what the structure of a really good decision is
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.
so basically what I'm doing with the work because I'm taking these concepts that I talked about broadly and sort of bigger idea way and thinking in bets and I'm saying okay how do you practically make a decision how do you build out a decision tree how do you think about the way that luck might intervene how do you think about your own decision-making how do you see the luck how do you communicate with other people such that you're making sure that you're getting the purest feedback from them that you're not biasing their feedback that you're actually hungry for the information and you're seeking the feedback