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.
some people philosophically say that in itself is wrong or bad that you should be absolutely steady and constant because what we're trying to do is be consistent and reproducible and others would say we're trying to treat individuals who have different demands on them and have different patterns during their day so there are different philosophies about what's better or worse
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.