The facts were often brief and mixed in with chatter of the conversation. They relied on interjection from the experts so it was not a thorough explanation and often did not address the “why” and “how” questions in the handshake experiment or the long-term effects. They briefly addressed the potential for long term change of the microbiome and how they figure out if there’s a change in the ecosystem, but the commercials and jumping around in the conversation made it more difficult to follow. I thought they did a good job at relating the context to an average person. They were brief and didn’t totally overbear you; I think it really depends how inquisitive the person listening to the podcast is. For the uninterested listener, it was an adequate mix of detail and generalities. The inquisitive listener would want a more complete explanation of the supporting item like I mentioned earlier, not necessarily deeper
The facts were often brief and mixed in with chatter of the conversation. They relied on interjection from the experts so it was not a thorough explanation and often did not address the “why” and “how” questions in the handshake experiment or the long-term effects. They briefly addressed the potential for long term change of the microbiome and how they figure out if there’s a change in the ecosystem, but the commercials and jumping around in the conversation made it more difficult to follow. I thought they did a good job at relating the context to an average person. They were brief and didn’t totally overbear you; I think it really depends how inquisitive the person listening to the podcast is. For the uninterested listener, it was an adequate mix of detail and generalities. The inquisitive listener would want a more complete explanation of the supporting item like I mentioned earlier, not necessarily deeper