Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
The narrow version of the question is how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
Tell me what I have not thought of.
Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
Dr.GastroMayo said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsgreg_boulder said:Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.