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.
But it doesn't seem to work that way in humans, right? That's not how the human organism works. That's that's the sort of convoluted reasoning that Brian has to fall back upon, but it doesn't work. Like in humans, you want the opposite. The candle that burns twice as bright burns twice as long or three times as long or at least 30 to 40% as long, right?
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.