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.
Following on from julia.endo — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
hank_denver 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…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultshank_denver 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…
That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.
hank_denver 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…
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.