jme3

6 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by jme3 14y ago

   I never cease to be amazed at how people who work with data large enough to make tools like plyr slow assume that everyone works with data like that. I have been using R daily for 7-8 years now and have only occasionally turned to somethig
2. 2.▲
   by jme3 14y ago

   This pretty much perfectly illustrates my comment below, pointing out that these sorts of recommendations are entirely subjective and useless. Many of your points are quite subjective. I could do the same thing with Matlab. For instance, I
3. 3.▲
   by jme3 14y ago

   You shouldn't, necessarily. I use R almost exclusively and I absolutely love it. But people can get a little carried away with picking and recommending the "best" language for particular task. If you feel very comfortable and skilled in Mat
4. 4.▲
   by jme3 14y ago

   Given your clarification... The two methodologies can give somewhat different results, but not as often as you might think, and the differences aren't as large as you might think. In my experience, the instances where you get radically diff
5. 5.▲
   by jme3 14y ago

   The point of Gelman's reply is that the comic is actually comparing a Bayesian to an absurdly incompetent Frequentist, so there' really no conflict. No (modestly intelligent) Frequentist would mis-apply this methodology in this circumstance
6. 6.▲
   by jme3 14y ago

   I don't see how, really. Gelman himself is a (rather famous) Bayesian, and if you read the comments, you'll see that Randall himself pops up and basically cedes Gelman's point.