dan_philly said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
dan_philly said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
dan_philly said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFrom 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.
PeptideChemSF 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 matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.