dard12

I am under the impression that most people are not watching this movie to find new evidence or dispute the trial outcomes. Like other commenters have mentioned, many people seem to be watching more out of a sense of curiosity, similar to wanting to see a magician reveal their tricks.

Both opinions can be true, drugmakers should still spend money on R&D, and consumers should hold academic research with significant financial ties to interested sponsors to a higher standard of scrutiny.

Criticism does not have to mean preventing work, we can be critical especially of work that we find important.

The lack of visual distinction is a valid complaint, but to be fair em dashes have been around for a long time and were used by many classic authors.

It's just more commonly used in literary writing than in technical writing.

I believe RYM is referring to Rate Your Music here.

Wanted to note that the pattern of starting and never finishing projects maybe fits the CDC symptoms around difficulty directing one's attention. Potentially then a lack of motivation to start new projects could be a common experience of people with undiagnosed ADHD later in life, but it is perhaps less common for those without the accumulated guilt of past experiences (speaking hypothetically and without expertise).

I empathize with how the complexity of these experiences and their knock-on effects make understanding what is happening with ourselves difficult.

The voting rights point is interesting. My understanding is that one side wants more verification of eligibility, but the other side is worried that if the approach to verification is too onerous that voter turnout will decrease.

There's seemingly a parallel to the gun control discussion, where again one side wants more verification of eligibility, but the other side is worried that the verification--if applied over-zealously--will be too restrictive.

The two sides are swapped on the two issues, but each time they disagree not necessarily because their fundamental opinions are different, but because they do not trust the other side to be reasonable.

This seems like a simple case of different people finding different things unintuitive.

My theory is that many people have a mental model of colors that maps roughly to the hue and value in HSV, so for example terms like "dark orange" is a value followed by a hue. Now suppose you understand brown as a "dark beige", that's suddenly confusing because beige introduces saturation and you cannot map beige back to orange without thinking about saturation.

I love this, I've spent time researching a lot of these topics before and I'm looking forward to saving time in the future.

One small feedback is to visually highlight the top pick more. My workflow with reviewers like The Wirecutter is to scroll straight to the "our pick" section. This assumes I have some level of trust in the reputation of the reviewer as being thoughtful.

Caveats:

- The top pick is noted in the summary but it's always one of many bullet points.

- It's also the first row of the summary matrix, but that wasn't immediately obvious to me.

- I may be more of a skimmer than your target user.