On the subject in the title: Books and papers worth reading that are not about this at all Working notes rather than a conclusion.
Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a claim.
Something adjacent that I have been thinking about and that does not belong in any of the technical categories. No question in particular; I am interested in how other people see it.
I read the opening post twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Not a rules-free zone: the guidelines still apply. No phones, no Telegram, no endorsements of other communities. Just a relaxed bar for how directly the topic needs to relate.
Industry and supply chain: post about manufacturing, pharmaceutical economics, or market dynamics if you have something substantive to contribute.
Personal stories: if you want to talk about what led you to this compound, your journey, or how the change has affected your life, the Lounge is the place for that.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
post #6 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Politics and public policy: healthcare policy that affects access to these compounds is relevant here. Partisan politics is not.
Science communication: if you come across an interesting science paper or article about peptides or metabolism, sharing it and discussing the idea is on-topic.
This follows post #6 rather than contradicting it.
Humour: light, relevant humour is welcome. Cruel humour targeting individuals or groups is not.
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.
Lower-stakes conversation that does not belong in the technical categories. Still civil, still sourced when a claim is made, but the bar for relevance is lower.
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.
Newer drugs and mechanisms: when a new drug launches or a new mechanism is discovered, the Lounge is a place to discuss the news and speculate before hard data exists.
This follows post #11 rather than contradicting it.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Science communication: if you come across an interesting science paper or article about peptides or metabolism, sharing it and discussing the idea is on-topic.
Politics and public policy: healthcare policy that affects access to these compounds is relevant here. Partisan politics is not.
Coming back to post #15, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Lower-stakes conversation that does not belong in the technical categories. Still civil, still sourced when a claim is made, but the bar for relevance is lower.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Books and papers worth reading that are not about this at all — one year on
Books and papers worth reading that are not about this at all — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if…
|
+3 | 7 | 424 | 1mo |
|
Follow-up: The most useful thing you learned here that was not the answer you came for
On the subject in the title: The most useful thing you learned here that was not the answer you came for Working notes rather than a conclusion. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if…
|
+30 | 34 | 9.7k | 11h |
|
The most useful thing you learned here that was not the answer you came for — a second dataset
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. Lower-stakes topic, but…
|
+111 | 121 | 6.6k | 9mo |
|
Spreadsheets: an appreciation
On the subject in the title: Spreadsheets: an appreciation Working notes rather than a conclusion. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still applies if anyone makes a claim. Something adjacent that I…
|
+26 | 30 | 25k | 2.1y |
|
The most useful thing you learned here that was not the answer you came for
The most useful thing you learned here that was not the answer you came for Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still…
|
+54 | 61 | 57k | 1d |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What happens after your first post: likes, trust levels, and why none of it matters much — what changed since
The question in the title: What happens after your first post: likes, trust levels, and why none of it matters much — what changed since I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I…
|
+105 | 118 | 57k | 9mo |
|
The most useful thing you learned here that was not the answer you came for
The most useful thing you learned here that was not the answer you came for Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Lower-stakes topic, but the sourcing rule still…
|
+54 | 61 | 57k | 1d |
|
What "marked as solution" means and who gets to mark it — does this still hold?
What "marked as solution" means and who gets to mark it — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I want to check my reasoning rather…
|
+69 | 74 | 2.4k | 3mo |
|
The anatomy of a question that gets answered within an hour — does this still hold?
The anatomy of a question that gets answered within an hour — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Question in the title. Context…
|
+19 | 23 | 40k | 14d |
|
About the Mental health category
Mood, anxiety, disordered eating history, and knowing when to involve a professional. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its…
|
+4 | 8 | 34k | 9mo |