Follow-up: What other technical communities get right that we do not posts 121–127

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

Coming back to post #120, 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.

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 #122 rather than contradicting it.

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.

I read post #124 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.