@grandelobaosamu
wake up babe, very normal just posted
@erenjaegersrightbicep63
Man inferential stat don't get no more intuitive than this :)) I used many of your explanations to draft the methodology section of my Bachelors thesis, and I'm reallyy confident that I'll ace the defence having watched your content. Thank you so much for your hard work!! Would really love to see more Bayesian and Causal Inference content in the future.
@somteezle1348
Keep them coming man!
@consumeentertainment9310
It's weird that your videos are free. Appreciate your content and jokes!! 🤣🤣
@xkdxkdxkd9
Thanks hero!!! Had been having troubles understanding the intuitive concept and this cleared it up!!!
@MKhan-zo8xo
this is mana from heaven, great work!
@Rdffuguihug
Thanks! Please consider covering more complex topics.
@OmnivorousPancake
Love your channel dude, watched nearly all the videos in a couple of days and finally many things started to make sense! Can you make a video about Bayesian and Frequentist paradigms, their differences and commons?
@santiagodm3483
The fact that we don't know that our hypothesis are actually true is one of the reasons we should i encourage replication in the journals in order to be more sure about what we know.
@erikross-rnnow5517
Cool video, I think CI's are super hard to get intuitively as a beginner, especially the differences between two sided and one sided. I would love a deeper dive into onesided CI and when those come up IRL
@bcs1793
Could you clarify what is the difference between level for Pearson-Neyman and significance level for Fisher?
@aangelo
Great video! I noticed one typo: you write H_0 when you speak about the alternative, approximately between the 88s and 102s.
@nickleland2131
Is that... animal crossing music in the background?? Phenomenal video as always!
@vrl9037
Where were you during my degree bro 😂 These videoes are so good
@santiagodm3483
We went bayesian in 7:51🙈🙈.
@RagaarAshnod
Didn't receive a notification from YouTube :c
@xenonmob
The "translation" at 7:51 is absolutely the incorrect interpretation of a confidence interval. I'm surprised you subscribe to this very common misconception.
@psl_schaefer
Maybe this is being too particular, but at around https://youtu.be/eaB6SmKJFrk?t=255 you say that the left point is for very "low differences", whereas I would rather say for "very negative differences". I.e. intuitively low difference implies for me low absolute difference. Anyway, thanks for making those videos :)
@LordDockerton
How do I give you money?
@very-normal