pat_auckland said:Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.
pat_auckland said:Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFollowing on from pat_auckland — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
BethLabQueen said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.