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.
So the more concave down it is, the more negative the second derivative, the quicker you get to that point of diminishing return. It just means the curve is shaped that way. Um, and so most things in biology work that way, 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.
That's different than saying it else actually goes down at some point. So a lot of things go down at some point, right? Too little will kill you, too much will kill you.