diff --git "a/Debunking-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md" "b/Debunking-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md"
index dbc44f4..b7f0a9a 100644
--- "a/Debunking-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md"
+++ "b/Debunking-\"uBlock-Origin-is-less-efficient-than-Adguard\"-claims.md"
@@ -72,4 +72,4 @@ Memory usage after all tabs loaded (see pic, top is after browser launch + garba
 
 ### Conclusion:
 
-Both extensions use essentially the same code on Microsoft Edge as they do on Chromium, so it is expected they will have the same relative performance outcome. Given that uBlock Origin consumes 1/3 of CPU cycles to actually accomplish more than Adguard (uBO's defaults includes Peter Lowe's and malware lists), to claim that the results are completely reversed on Microsoft Edge is an extraordinary claim, and thus needs to be substantiated by more than just a completely subjective and data-less assessment such as "methodology is real life usage".
+Both extensions use essentially the same code on Microsoft Edge as they do on Chromium, so it is expected they will have the same relative performance outcome. Given that uBlock Origin consumes 1/3 of CPU cycles to actually accomplish more than Adguard (uBO's defaults includes Peter Lowe's and malware lists), to claim that the results are completely reversed on Microsoft Edge is quite an extraordinary claim, and thus needs to be substantiated by more than just a completely subjective and data-less assessment such as "methodology is real life usage".