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 it's it's kind of this I don't know I think it was this guy Fisher who maybe has established this 0.05 but this has been the threshold that they're they're more or less they're willing to accept at least for the purposes of a single trial that the p-value of 0.05 that they're willing to accept a level of of a false positive in their results and still make that claim that they they rejected that hypothesis 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.