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.
What I am trying to establish is how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
Practical detail welcome, however dull — the duller the better.
Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.
Dr.RaviCardio said:It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsjason_paloalto 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. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.