FDA_TrackerJim said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
FDA_TrackerJim said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsmatt_MKE said:I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Nothing to add that would improve it.
matt_MKE said:I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Coming at matt_MKE’s question from a different direction. 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.