This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Source for the Feature request figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
I disagree with the framing of Feature request above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Post #32 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Do the arithmetic by hand the first few times, whatever tool you use afterwards. A calculator with a wrong input gives a confident wrong answer and there is nothing in the interface to tell you.
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
What would change my mind on Feature request is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
On post #35 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
A tool that refuses to give an answer when the result falls below one graduation is doing something useful. Most just print the number.
Post #36 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Tools that run entirely in the browser send nothing anywhere, which matters more to some people here than others and is worth stating either way.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
Adding the measurement that post #36 says would settle it.
Checking a tool against a worked example you already trust is five minutes well spent, and it is the only validation available to a user.
I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.
Post #38 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
The residual-volume question belongs in the tool rather than in a footnote, because it is the difference between the calculation and reality.
A guess, clearly labelled as one.
The thing about Feature request that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
If a tool asks for a value you do not have, the honest response is to find the value rather than to estimate it. Estimated inputs propagate silently.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Follow-up: Why the titration planner refuses to produce a schedule below a floor
The question in the title: Why the titration planner refuses to produce a schedule below a floor I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. A follow-up question about titration…
|
+120 | 146 | 14k | 10mo |
|
Validating a calculator against hand arithmetic — what changed since
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Validating a calculator against hand arithmetic — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that. What changes if the standard account of Validating a…
|
+121 | 137 | 21k | 13mo |
|
Second pass at: The storage lookup and where its data comes from
On the subject in the title: Second pass at: The storage lookup and where its data comes from Working notes rather than a conclusion. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on storage lookup,…
|
+38 | 42 | 13k | 19d |
|
Validating a calculator against hand arithmetic
Validating a calculator against hand arithmetic Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Validating a calculator against hand: setting out the arithmetic in full,…
|
+17 | 21 | 12k | 3mo |
|
About the Calculators category
Reconstitution, dose equivalence, titration planning, mass-error checking and storage lookup. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with…
|
+2 | 7 | 733 | 5mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Trust level 3 requirements: a clarification
Trust level 3 requirements: a clarification — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Trust level 3 requirements, and specifically the version of it that the documentation does not…
|
+10 | 14 | 7k | 9mo |
|
Choosing a concentration on purpose rather than by accident
On the subject in the title: Choosing a concentration on purpose rather than by accident Working notes rather than a conclusion. Working notes on choosing a concentration rather than a conclusion. I would…
|
2 | 719 | 1mo | |
|
Coming back to: How much context is too much context in a first post?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: How much context is too much context in a first post? Counting it rather than describing it, because the count is the part that can be argued with.…
|
+2 | 6 | 7.5k | 1d |
|
Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind — one year on
Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…
|
+74 | 80 | 17k | 2d |
|
Why "any advice?" is the least effective ending for a post
The question in the title: Why "any advice?" is the least effective ending for a post I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Counting it rather than describing it, because the…
|
+113 | 126 | 55k | 20mo |