> Who says that has been the limit of classical statistics. The professors writing the grants. No not the limit of statistical methods per se but the limit of

> Who says that has been the limit of classical statistics. The professors writing the grants. No not the limit of statistical methods per se but the limit of what they want to consider. Yeah I used to get involved in the review on rare occasions. > You clearly have no experience in the field if this is what you think statistics is. Does 18 years count ? I may be wrong about this but you sound like a newish grad student in statistics. If that is true I go back a bit more than you do and know about the state of affairs at the stats departments, their funding/projects/budget woes. I feel glad that the statistics departments got shaken a bit by ML and datamining for statistics to try and become relevant again. If you follow the link in my parent comment you will see a vigorous argument (presumably by a student of statistics) that there is no reason why statistical packages even need to support 64 bits. This kind of thinking was pervasive, thankfully things are a bit better now and that would not have happened on its own.