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.
as soon as you introduce a double bond between those carbons and so one of the carbons can have a bond to the next carbon but then it can have two bonds the next carbon and that means that each of those carbons with two bonds they're double bonded has less hydrogens because they have those sort of positions for bonding on the carbon are occupied by the double bond
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.