We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
And this is something that's occurring all over the place. It deeply concerns me because I wouldn't trust the kind of people who I I mean it's not to disparage these people. I'm sure that they have good motivation, but I I just don't think that uh taking a person with no prior training and putting them in a program for a year is sufficient to um to cover all of the issues and nuances that are going to arise.
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.