We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
pcking is people tinkering with the numbers or the experiment or the hypothesis after the data are in in order to try and establish statistical significance which and by the way p is isid not just not good it's bad it's it's it's cheating of a uh it's not making up data but it's tweaking the experimental design um in hopes that you'll get something where you probably didn't it's not good you don't want to do it
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.