@besttd.bsky.social
MD, resident in clinical virology with a passion for science.
Dilatant in stats, code, history of science.
Fell into a rabbit hole on SO in 2019 thanks to excellent replies by @f2harrell.bsky.social and @wkhuber.bsky.social that I'm still digging into.
Dilatant in stats, code, history of science.
Fell into a rabbit hole on SO in 2019 thanks to excellent replies by @f2harrell.bsky.social and @wkhuber.bsky.social that I'm still digging into.
By pure luck, I encountered this very early and never had to go through the motions of ANOVA, ANCOVA, etc.
It's glm(m) all the way down with honorable mention of @f2harrell.bsky.social "favorite" proportional odds logistic regression.
It's glm(m) all the way down with honorable mention of @f2harrell.bsky.social "favorite" proportional odds logistic regression.
Putting together a weekly book club for "Regression and Other Stories" (reply if interested!) and this page, "Common statistical tests are linear models," is a key motivation. If you git gud at regression, so much else comes along for free.
lindeloev.github.io/tests-as-lin...
#statsky
lindeloev.github.io/tests-as-lin...
#statsky
Common statistical tests are linear models (or: how to teach stats)
lindeloev.github.io
December 14, 2025 at 2:10 PM
By pure luck, I encountered this very early and never had to go through the motions of ANOVA, ANCOVA, etc.
It's glm(m) all the way down with honorable mention of @f2harrell.bsky.social "favorite" proportional odds logistic regression.
It's glm(m) all the way down with honorable mention of @f2harrell.bsky.social "favorite" proportional odds logistic regression.
Reposted
And they want to take TikTok away from kids.
December 14, 2025 at 2:25 AM
And they want to take TikTok away from kids.
Lazy Sunday thought:
Is there an angle from which one could narrate an accidental (?) alliance between frequentism (especially Neyman-Pearson-Hypothesis-Testing) and the Popperian focus on falsification/fallibility (and in general deduction)?
1/4
Is there an angle from which one could narrate an accidental (?) alliance between frequentism (especially Neyman-Pearson-Hypothesis-Testing) and the Popperian focus on falsification/fallibility (and in general deduction)?
1/4
November 30, 2025 at 1:29 PM
Lazy Sunday thought:
Is there an angle from which one could narrate an accidental (?) alliance between frequentism (especially Neyman-Pearson-Hypothesis-Testing) and the Popperian focus on falsification/fallibility (and in general deduction)?
1/4
Is there an angle from which one could narrate an accidental (?) alliance between frequentism (especially Neyman-Pearson-Hypothesis-Testing) and the Popperian focus on falsification/fallibility (and in general deduction)?
1/4
Reposted
To mark Proof being an FT Book of the Year, I’m giving away 2 copies in run up to Xmas – prize will go to the quirkiest, funniest, or most interesting Christmas-related science.
Comment below – most likes by 8th Dec wins (Europe/US only).
To kick things off, here's Galton's 1906 Nature letter:
Comment below – most likes by 8th Dec wins (Europe/US only).
To kick things off, here's Galton's 1906 Nature letter:
November 27, 2025 at 9:29 AM
To mark Proof being an FT Book of the Year, I’m giving away 2 copies in run up to Xmas – prize will go to the quirkiest, funniest, or most interesting Christmas-related science.
Comment below – most likes by 8th Dec wins (Europe/US only).
To kick things off, here's Galton's 1906 Nature letter:
Comment below – most likes by 8th Dec wins (Europe/US only).
To kick things off, here's Galton's 1906 Nature letter: