When you’re deciding which antibodies to buy you’ll look at these figures to get a sense of their quality. Antibodies aren’t perfect and might bind proteins unrelated to the one you want to study. Depending on your application, some off-target binding might be acceptable, but usually it’s not. Also, they might just be completely nonfunctional and bind nothing (perhaps due to missteps during manufacturing).
So what this fraud does is convince you to give these antibodies a chance when you otherwise wouldn’t have. You should validate them yourself and show they only bind your target before doing an experiment, but now you’re just wasting time and money evaluating something that’s guaranteed to fail.
Antibodies are notoriously unreliable, so you might have to give two or three vendors a try before you get one that works. Now I’m starting to wonder how much of that reputation is due to fraud and not just nature.
There’s nothing to be reminded of. English has a word to describe North and South America together (“the Americas”). Other languages have different words for the same concept.
It’s like reminding someone they shouldn’t say “bicycle” but should instead say “fahrrad”.
I’d be surprised if they’re running at less than 100% capacity after this. It’s just too useful to too many people for whom an $80/month increase is immaterial (I speculate)
This is not so much about capacity, I pay $X and I get a certain amount.
This is much more about removing access to a feature I have access to. Having a chat with Claude Code (removed) seems to me to be likely less usage than Claude Cowork Tasks (more like open claw, cron triggers).
This seems much more like a SaaS Tax. I would not be as unhappy if they kept the Code feature and gated my access to Opus. I mostly use Sonnet anyway
I think it would be helpful to reframe this as a statistical problem, and not as an issue with units. Estimating some measure of central tendency and variance (mean and 95% CI maybe? I'm not familiar with time series statistics) would not only make it clear that there's uncertainty in the number, but it would handle the issue with picking a window size - smaller windows would increase the uncertainty.
So what this fraud does is convince you to give these antibodies a chance when you otherwise wouldn’t have. You should validate them yourself and show they only bind your target before doing an experiment, but now you’re just wasting time and money evaluating something that’s guaranteed to fail.
Antibodies are notoriously unreliable, so you might have to give two or three vendors a try before you get one that works. Now I’m starting to wonder how much of that reputation is due to fraud and not just nature.
reply