NicoleRaleigh said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Pushing back on NicoleRaleigh here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
NicoleRaleigh said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
NicoleRaleigh said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.
Dr.AddMedPHL 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…
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.