Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
josh_phd_bmore said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
I read this differently from josh_phd_bmore, on substance rather than tone. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsjosh_phd_bmore said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
josh_phd_bmore said:The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.