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.
when you give there's a real substrate to that if we can engage in a little reverse inference which is that and this and this was um shown actually a couple decades ago by by a neuroeconomist named Bill Harbaugh for the first time which is that um when you give to like a charity that you love you see activation of reward circuitry that looks just like if you got the reward yourself
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.