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 entirely plausible that's what I was saying kind of the data is mixed on but it's plausible that if we would just exercise like work a little harder kind of not use as strong a reader as we want or not use that reader as often as we might really enjoy uh are we exercising those muscles and kind of exercising the ability to to to stretch versus relax the lens and kind of slow the progression from the 1.0 reader to the 1.25 reader to the 1.5 reader Etc right
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.