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 question I want answered is how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
Happy to be told the question itself is wrong.
Short answer first, then the reasoning. 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.
mike_nyc said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
No disagreement with mike_nyc. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardstammy_FL 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 matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.