That said, working with highly-bespoke R packages made life crazy, and I'm thankful that post-graduation ggplot2 was an option for R data visualization and the development of the rest of the tidyverse packages after I graduated let me use R now in a much less messy manner.
They underpin most of which is practical in maths, or so it seems to me.
What does the author gain from this statement? Now, if I were to be interested in this book, I would now be not interested and would encourage others to avoid it.
I didn't read it as rude. Rather a "hey you better know what you're signing up for here".
If you don’t meet the prerequisites, you should avoid the material. Not because the author has stated the obvious, but because you’re not prepared for it. If you’d like you can interpret it as rudeness, but really it’s intended to help people save time instead of waste it.
The first thing I do when I open a new textbook is flip to the preface material to see what the prerequisites are and how firm they are. Sometimes “passing familiarity” is enough, sometimes “mathematical maturity” is enough. But there are many treatments where that is not the case, and it’s better for everyone who’s serious about the material to be upfront about it.
There's no problem with telling a reader they are not ready for a text - in fact, it can save them time. The way in which you do it though can encourage or discourage a student.
From the title, I'm very interested in the topic since a portion of my job is some form of data analysis and aggregation.
However, it's been 15 years since my Linear Algebra course and I haven't done Multivariate Calculus since high school, which even then was just a very basic introduction to the topic. I'm too far removed from that level of math at this point in my life. Further, the data I'm looking at doesn't often lend itself toward linear regressions or mathematical analysis. At least, not in a meaningful sense. It's rare that even a simple standard deviation is even particularly useful.
I appreciate that the author tells me up front the type of paper being presented isn't the type of paper I'm interested in reading even though.
That's not very rational. That your feelings are hurt has no impact on how good or bad the book is.
That is a great example of a previous conversation about feelings here on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16384453
Don't need to be rational. Human beings aren't rational.
> That your feelings are hurt has no impact on how good or bad the book is.
It could be a great book, but if somebody is rude then (some are suggesting that the comment is tongue-in-cheek but meh) I don't really need to engage with that person. There are plenty of great books that cover this material so I would just suggest others to look elsewhere instead. Ultimately - I don't reward poor behavior. There are very few people who could make a significant enough contribution that I would give a pass on rude behavior towards others, particularly if they are condescending or mean for no reason.
I also found it peculiar that you would believe that my feelings would be hurt. Why would they be? I just found out about this particular book and have no emotional attachment to it, nor the author whatsoever. Maybe you're defensive because you believe the book is good and worthy of being read despite the author's rudeness? That would certainly better explain your need to attempt to attack my "rationality" and suggest that my "feelings were hurt" alongside posting a link that wasn't worth reading.
Some are more than others.
> Why would they be?
I don't know why they would be, but the fact that you say "that's so rude I'm not reading your book" is clear indication that they are.
> Maybe you're defensive because (blablabla)
What the hell are you talking about? I was just pointing out that you were letting your emotions interfering with making good decisions. I was doing this for your benefit. If you don't care about that fact, I don't either. Now, have a nice life!
On a similar note, when the commenter said what you’re saying isn’t rational, you took the opportunity to point out that humans as a species aren’t rational. That feels like you’re deliberately missing the point, but in case you’re not, here’s that point restated: It doesn’t make sense for you to call an author rude when the author is matter of factly informing the reader of the necessary prerequisites.
For what it’s worth, it’s apparent that the other commenters who responded to you, myself included, agree with the substantive meaning you’re attacking so literally.
For whatever it’s worth, he seems to be a dedicated teacher who posts self criticisms of his courses publicly online. The course this book is based on has grown quite successful as well.
I’m not sure if you’re just trolling, but encouraging others to avoid this book might be a mistake. It’s quite good.
Sir Francis Galton demonstrated the idea of regression to the mean by inventing linear "regression." He plotted the heights of children vs the heights of their parents and showed that very tall parents have children who are not as tall.
The fact that we call linear regression "regression" has nothing to do with reverting to the mean other than, coincidentally, linear regression was first used to illustrate the concept.
"This is a draft textbook on data analysis methods, intended for a one-semester course for advance undergraduate students who have already taken classes in probability, mathematical statistics, and linear regression. It began as the lecture notes for 36-402 at Carnegie Mellon University."