Posting this under the heading it deserves: The most useful thing you learned here that was not the answer you came for — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that.
A digression I have been saving for the right category.
It is not useful and it is not a question. It is the kind of observation that would derail a technical topic and is perfectly at home here.
That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had.
Agreed, and the corollary is that a place with no visible corrections is not a place with fewer errors.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
Analytics first, in my case, and I still find the practice category the harder read. Chromatography has one right answer more often than logistics does.
I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.
Adjacent thought. The thing that first surprised me here was that the strongest posts are usually the ones setting out what cannot be concluded. Everywhere else that reads as weakness.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
Community norms: if you want to discuss how the community should work (not moderation decisions, which go in Meta) the Lounge is a place for that casual discussion.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
Industry and supply chain: post about manufacturing, pharmaceutical economics, or market dynamics if you have something substantive to contribute.
I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.
Lounge question, no agenda: does anyone else keep a physical notebook for this rather than a file? Mine is more use than anything I have typed, and I cannot entirely explain why.
I came in to disagree and I am leaving without a disagreement.
Adjacent and interesting: you might post something about nutrition, bioavailability from a food perspective, or the sociology of weight. Adjacent to this community's core but not central.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
Humour: light, relevant humour is welcome. Cruel humour targeting individuals or groups is not.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
A digression that keeps occurring to me: the most-linked documents here are the dullest ones. Nothing gets cited like the unit-arithmetic page.
Unserious but true: I can now identify a certificate template at a glance and I have no professional use for that skill whatsoever.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
Off-topic but genuinely curious: how many people here came in through the analytics side rather than the practical side? The two groups seem to read completely different parts of the site.
I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.
Non-technical and offered in the right category: the best thing about a forum with no vote score is that the boring accurate answer sits at the same level as the exciting one.
I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.
Since the Lounge tolerates a digression: the thing I find most interesting about this community is how much of the useful material is negative. Half the value is knowing what a document does not establish.
A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.
Something I have wondered without ever asking: is there a good reason the vocabulary in this field is so inconsistent between suppliers? Half the disagreements here start as terminology.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
That is true everywhere. The reference material that gets used is the material that answers a question you have at the moment you have it, and glamour has nothing to do with it.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
That is true everywhere. The reference material that gets used is the material that answers a question you have at the moment you have it, and glamour has nothing to do with it.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
Digression worth the space: the archive is starting to be genuinely long. There are questions here whose good answer is four years old and still correct, and that only happens if nobody rewrites history.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
Adjacent and interesting: you might post something about nutrition, bioavailability from a food perspective, or the sociology of weight. Adjacent to this community's core but not central.
This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching.