Andrew Huberman· PhD
and it's also clear it's not good for you so if you're going to going to do something that's bad for you do a bunch of things to offset the thing that's bad for you that's always my advice
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.
and it's also clear it's not good for you so if you're going to going to do something that's bad for you do a bunch of things to offset the thing that's bad for you that's always my advice
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.