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.
And this, I should say, for those of you that are low vision or no vision and those of you that are blind or have poor vision, this entire process is translated to the auditory, to the sound domain, so it's true for people that can see and it's true for people that can't see.
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.
but there have been a few studies, not as many as I would've liked to find, but a few studies of, for instance, people who are blind or have low vision, don't see very well, and when they close their ears and they can't hear the external world or they put headphones on or noise-canceling headphones, then the world inside of them becomes very prominent relative to the world outside of them for obvious reasons.