Here's why #rstats users should be happy about Rstudio changing its name to Posit. 🧵
1⃣ It's easier to sell Posit products to your organization. Even though Rstudio Teams is a really good development ecosystem for Python work, it's very hard to express that because Rstudio's brand association is mostly R.
As a result it's going to be easier for R users to justify purchasing the products because it becomes a lot clearer that its not an investment in a particular technology.
2⃣ It's going to make R better. Major advances in R are going to come from cross-language projects like Arrow. RStudio is one of the best places to foster those initiatives, and having more Python and Julia customers helps with funding and motivating those those initiatives.
3⃣ It's going to make Python better. I don't really use Python, but that's mostly because I don't find it to be a productive language. It's missing a lot of the tools I like, and I find the developer experience much worse (hello dependencies)
A big part of this is that there's not really an organization that can provide sustained funding of user-friendly Python data science libraries.
If Posit can succeed in selling into more Python orgs, they can hire more open source developers to provide the same kind of long-term development of those libraries.
This will make it easier to be an R user at most organizations because your R knowledge will be more applicable to Python codebases and it'll be easier to get involved in those codebases
For example there's a team at Socure with a perfect Shiny use-case, but no R developers. I can probably help them get started using Shiny-for-Python, even though I can't really help them with something like Streamlit.
4⃣ It'll speed up adoption of #julialang. Julia has (IMO) the best fundamentals for data science work, but as a relatively new language it needs better tooling and infrastructure. I bet you're going to see much better Julia-R interoperability over the next year.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) Researchers often pick a general prior for vitamin D based on all vitamin D trials. There are many failed vitamin D trials for things like cancer, diabetes, or all cause mortality.
This doesn't make sense to me because we should pick out prior based on similar diseases. Covid is a respiratory virus and trials of vitamin D in the respiratory context have shown a modest benefit.
This is an open label study of 584 Brazillian Covid patients. Study participants took either hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide or ivermectin and none (!!) of them went to the hospital or died.
Now there's certainly something wrong with this study. 16% of Brazillian Covid patients go to the hospital so the odds of finding one drug that eliminates hospitalization are small; the odds of finding three in one trial are basically zero.
The reason I'm tweeting about this is that 80% of the patients in the trial were given vitamin D according to clinical abnormalities. I wrote to the author to ask what those were and what dose was given. Could vitamin D confound a study this badly?