Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. 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.
I have used three payment routes and the only thing that changed with each was how much leverage I had when something went wrong.
What I actually want to know is how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
Numbers rather than impressions, if you have them.
TrialTracker_MD 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…
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsBariatricNurseD said:I have used three payment routes and the only thing that changed with each was how much leverage I had when something went wrong.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.