From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.
SleepDoc_PDX said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Second this. Posting only so the count is not one.
SleepDoc_PDX said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
Coming at SleepDoc_PDX’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. 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:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?