That gorgeous black to white contrast! Reminds me of L. marinus.

I have one but it's much more stats oriented than eco (a little of that too though). Also, I can get my hands on others but need to be discreet. Can I email you?

To be fair, it's "lazy" because it's a theorem that requires a proof but often people just take it as definition. Casella and Berger were famously unhappy with the phrase LOTUS, taking a shot at Ross - who introduced the term - in their Statistical Inference text.

Would be interesting to formally quantify that though.

Yes, Spearman is not immune. It is quite literally a Pearson correlation on the rank data. But the deleterious effects are undoubtedly greatly mitigated because transforming data into ranks makes everything look more uniform, and uniform marginals will span the full theoretical -1 to +1 range.

It's been 10 years for me and I still can't bring myself to chuck them. Someday!

Haha, yes, that happens to me too! 😆 I think serious statisticians can make good arguments for most paradigms. But when it comes to non-statistician scientists appropriately applying them, I think the Fisherian approach is the most foolproof.

Science, unlike politics, is not about making binary decisions. It's about weighing available evidence and updating plausible beliefs. Those are continuous actions, not discrete.

That's a good post. I still think the Neyman-Pearson framework completely misses how science is typically done. Rarely do we believe a hypothesis by default. We just have one that aligns best with the evidence or absence thereof.

Building height continues to be the strongest predictor of nesting propensity for GWGUs.

Welcome! Looking forward to some gull content. 🌊🐥

I'm glad to see you and your family are all safe.