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.
I would say unafraid to understand, right? Because we must understand means we must look at what's going on inside of us. When I didn't like that voice but was afraid of it, like, what is going on inside of me? What does this say about me? And I'm directing away from it. Well, that's why it was with me for, like, several decades. But when I start to go look at it, I can find an answer to 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.