Finding an indicative difference in a tiny, yet random sample appears to have accomplished more than the guy yelling "small sample size" - and, which I find ironic - "waste!" here. They managed to add a tiny bit of contrast to a picture that's totally blank, and provide 15 pixels of data, please explain how that's supposed to be worthless?
By the same logic, if I manage to cure an extremely rare type of cancer under certain circumstances when it's detected early on, I get fired for having too little success? I mean, what? Seriously?
By all means, prove them wrong, but stop the yelling. That's even more worthless than any form of pioneering research.
By the same logic, if I manage to cure an extremely rare type of cancer under certain circumstances when it's detected early on, I get fired for having too little success? I mean, what? Seriously?
By all means, prove them wrong, but stop the yelling. That's even more worthless than any form of pioneering research.