lisa_labSD said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Pushing back on lisa_labSD here. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
lisa_labSD said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
lisa_labSD said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
anders_CPH said: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…
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.