I am wondering if the statement in the comment is correct or if it misrepresents the tiny edits and their timing?
I think I've worked quite hard to not alter the question after the original post and I can't see how these edits have had any impact whatsoever on answers
- no actual modification to the question has occurred
- two of three visible answers happened long after edits
I'll welcome suggestions how to improve, but here I'm just asking if this vote-to-close comment is fair and correct, or if it misrepresents my actions.
Also, I think the question both started out quite clear and has remained clear and steady. In this case vtc as unclear seems to me misplaced as well. It's my first question here and it may have a slightly different style, or may not be the question that people wish I had asked.
I'm voting to close as unclear. So far there are 4 answers, and they have resulted in modifications to the question to render them invalid. I recommend taking this question to the sandbox to clarify the question to reflect what the OP is really asking for.
replaced with this after this meta question was posted:
I recommend taking this question to the sandbox, where we can address issues, such as issues with the RF thresholds in both dose and time, and the assumption that everyone feels the need to suddenly change their behavior all at once, but wont curb their device usage. These issues make it very hard to guess what answers you will find acceptable. It needs clarification.
I think the statement in bold is false, here's why:
There are only two edits, each added one word, one of those only being a heading, and the other word clarifying an existing point within the same sentence following an answer (10k rep required) that was subsequently self-deleted for (as I remember, I can't see it) not reading the question properly.
2019-03-22 03:42:38 inserted one word (can't make billions of phones in weeks)
2019-03-22 00:33:58 added the heading "premise" to the existing premise