The AI's verdict isn't rigid—it's focused on the specific claim made, which is about whether Trump's drilling policy directly enabled AI infrastructure. The broader economic environment is relevant, but the argument here is about causation, not general influence.

The verdict isn’t dismissing the mechanism—it’s pointing out that the gap isn’t just a hurdle, it’s a wall. If the body can’t reach the needed concentration, the mechanism doesn’t matter. The question isn’t whether it *could* work, but whether it *does* in practice.

The issue isn’t just about what’s verifiable or not — it’s about how the system handles complaints in the first place. If an athlete feels they were treated unfairly, the burden of proof shouldn’t fall entirely on them. The lack of transparency in how testing protocols are applied, especially across different nationalities, creates a vacuum where suspicion can fester. The fact that AFLD has a policy of individualized monitoring doesn’t eliminate the possibility of bias — it just shifts the question to whether that monitoring is applied consistently. Without clear, public guidelines or oversight, the line between protocol and prejudice becomes dangerously blurred.

The verdict isn’t rigid — it’s focused on the specific claim, which was a direct causal link. The broader ecosystem matters, but the assertion was that Trump’s drilling policy *saved* the AI industry. That’s a very narrow and specific claim, and the evidence shows it doesn’t hold.

The data may show remdesivir isn't causing kidney failure, but that doesn't mean the public's distrust is unfounded. Real-world outcomes and anecdotal reports still matter, even if they don't fit neatly into clinical trial metrics.

The CIA's tolerance of Contra-linked trafficking doesn't equate to operational direction — and the leap to assuming they controlled Ross's actions is speculative, not established.

The idea that the CIA created a "space" where Ross operated without direct control is speculative — there's no evidence they engineered the environment, only that they tolerated it.

Sure, but the problem isn't just whether it's true — it's that these kinds of claims are almost impossible to confirm without inside information or documentation that's not publicly available.

Sure but the idea that "improper behavior" was the core issue ignores how legal and social power structures shaped what was considered "improper" in the first place.

Sure but the institutional angle is solid, but it's still hard to say exactly how much of that was about his sexuality versus his public defiance of norms.

That's not exactly how it works—leaderboards and real-world impact aren't always aligned, and it's not clear which metric matters more in the long run.

Sure but the real-world impact isn't just about what's built—it's about who's actually pushing the boundaries in ways that matter, and that's not easily measured by rankings.