u/Jestizzo

I've been reading a couple of different statistics textbooks (mostly about regression), and I've noticed that while the theory is mostly the same between them, some of them tend to give different kinds of practical advice. For example, I was reading Regression and Other Stories, by Gelman et al., and it seems like he's just come up with stuff I've never heard of.

In the section on hypothesis testing, he writes about how he doesn't like "type 1" and "type 2" errors, and instead uses "type magnitude" and "type sign" errors. I have never heard of these types of errors, and it almost feels like Gelman is just making it up. He makes some arguments in their favor that seem reasonable, but I'm a bit uneasy accepting advice about something when nobody else I've ever spoken to or read has ever so much as mentioned it (something as huge as Kutner et al's Linear Models textbook never mentions this). And yeah, I know that Gelman is more Bayesian than classical, but my impression is that a lot of statistics is based off of rules of thumb that have been accepted because of years of successful application.

Gelman is just one example, but I hear about all kinds of other "rules" like this that I've never seen in any book. When I search a problem online, I'll get a stackexchange thread about how one type of statistical test is better than another, based on some reasoning I've never heard of ("Welch's test is more powerful for this kind of data, see this simulation").

Even if these approaches are reasonable, I'd like to apply practices that don't require me to take it on faith that an author somehow knows better than decades' worth of practical experience. Of course, they could be right, but the last thing I want is to have to justify to an angry employer why my analysis was wrong, and having to explain that instead of using a tried-and-true method, I followed an ad-hoc practice that someone only came up with a few years ago. Should I just stick to classical textbooks or something, or am I just being too pretentious about it?

Hello, I'm pretty new to Yugioh. My only experience is some practice vs AI in master duel, and occasional ranked matched here and there. I've noticed that any time I see discussion about Yugioh, it's always about tiered meta decks - stuff like Dracotail, K9, Kewl Tune, etc. The impression I'm getting of the game is that archetypes get power crept out on a yearly (or monthly) basis, so that archetypes from last year are much, much worse today. But there's way more archetypes besides just the ones from this year, or last year (maybe something like Nemleria or Floowandereeze or Artmage). If I were to go to a locals (or play a bit more on Master Duel's ladder), would I encounter these older or less popular decks? Or do people all just show up with tiered decks?