labquiet_amy said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
labquiet_amy said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
labquiet_amy said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
pat_auckland said:Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third…
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.