chargeback is the most under-discussed thing in c/sideeffects
Confession thread, sort of.
I went from 2.5mg to 1.0mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 21 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway.
So now I have constipation I did not need and a data point I cannot interpret. Two lessons in one.
Posting it in the hope that somebody at week 81 reads it before doing the same thing.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
Strongly agree. Escrow is non-negotiable for groups.
Small correction: the trial was 15 weeks, not 12. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
[deleted]
Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.
chargeback rights are network: zero
escrow for group buys is standard, use it
network selection matters, wrong chain is the expensive typo
This is correct. Gas fees are real costs.
The discount was 95.1% but gas ate half of it. Still worth it but the math matters.
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
USDC exists on 18 networks, vendor credits are network-specific
Gas was gas fees on Polygon so I used WXT instead. Confirmation in 19 blocks, vendor credited, done.
Did you check confirmation speed on that chain?
network selection matters, wrong chain is the expensive typo
Did you check confirmation speed on that chain?
What was the gas and did it matter?
escrow for group buys is standard, use it
- 1The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a…7 comments in this branch · started by u/hassan_nilsen