Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How long did you give it before you decided it was working?
labquiet_amy said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardslabquiet_amy said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.
Happy to go further on any of that.
labquiet_amy said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.