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.
So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: 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.
Short answer first, then the reasoning. 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.
mike.trainer_LA said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsmia_MS2 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. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.