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 matters just as much as if you've overestimated the market which is how you'd end up fifteen percent on the downside then if you've underestimated the market because your goal is to efficiently allocate your resources within the market that you're allocating the resources in and if your models wrong I don't care if it's wrong if it's under estimating or over estimating that's a problem for efficient allocation of resources
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.