[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25430774

Right, my point is that those costs are essentially fixed w.r.t miles driven, not that you wouldn't need those things. If you drive 36000 miles a year as a Lyft driver your car payment is still the same as someone who drives 12000 miles a year, whereas the author's model assumes the payment would be 3x as much. And re insurance, I know insurance companies take mileage into account in determining insurance premium, but it's certainly not the only thing in the formula.

Doesn't that $9100 a year median include a bunch of fixed costs (or at least costs that wouldn't grow linearly with the mileage driven)? e.g., the lease/cost of car itself, insurance, etc. I'm not saying this would take the profitability of being a Lyft driver from pretty terrible to great, but it does seem like a pretty significant oversight.

In matlab/octave you can write an empty range as a(i:i-1). Not to say that that's at all elegant or aesthetically appealing, but it does work. But I 100% agree with the sentiment; one of my favorite things about using NumPy rather than matlab in my research code is the vastly superior indexing, in large part due to the fact that it's 0-based. matlab's indexing really is painful and off-by-one-error prone for doing anything other than a(1:n).

Scenario B: The setup is (1) lose $100 (current state is -$100, 0 tickets). The choices are the same as above.

The final 'state' at the end of each setup is the same, and the choices are the same, so the argument is that a rational actor would make the same choice in both situations. Maybe there's an argument that the state should include more than just $ and tickets though?

[1] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-social-network/

[2] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jobs/

Based on the bot's code [1], it looks like all they ask for is a phone number and an email address. It might be a good idea to at least require a captcha, if not a credit card deposit of a few bucks.

[1] https://gist.github.com/diogomonica/6076911

I've never felt compelled to be more careless after taking a vaccine (I'm not even sure what I'd do differently if I did); I just get vaccines to minimize the expected number of times I get a disease in my lifetime.

[1] http://www.webmd.com/vaccines/how-effective-is-flu-vaccine

I would have expected it would be quite minimal compared to the work involved in developing the game itself, but I guess I must be wrong if there are "many" Windows-only OpenGL games.

Maybe they're not effective punishment or rehabilitation, but I would certainly say they're an effective deterrent. They might not be a punishment for anyone in there, but they could still be (and at least in my case, certainly are) seen as a punishment for some people who aren't in there. I would bet that a prison sentence is a much better deterrent than, say, volunteer hours or a fine. Whether deterring bank robberies is a valuable enough goal is a matter of opinion I suppose.

Obviously this is all conjecture, if someone can pull up a study showing that prison sentences don't have any deterrent effect over other forms of punishment then I'd accept that I'm wrong... But I'd be somewhat shocked if that were the case.

Under this theory, polls/predictions can't actually skew the result in either direction [1], they can only increase or decrease the total turnout (highest turnout when polls say 50%, lowest turnout when they say 0%/100%). In reality this probably isn't actually true, but we can't say for sure whether or not polls do affect election outcomes, and in which direction, unless there's empirical evidence. I don't even have a guess for which direction it would go (whether you want your supporters to be "concerned" or "optimistic") - I could see either being true.

[1] Edit: I should note that this assumes that each poll/prediction is listened to and taken seriously equally by both sides of the electorate, which almost certainly isn't true. Which actually brings up something kind of interesting - it could be that with all of its "Romney will win in a landslide" talk, Fox News actually hurt Romney's chances because most Fox News viewers are Romney supporters (but they could have done the same amount of damage to Romney's chances by saying "Obama will win in a landslide" - the best way for them to help Romney might be to say that the election is exactly tied). And I suppose it would also lead to a justification for the idea that Nate Silver has a liberal bias, using his relatively "wishy-washy" predictions to energize his mostly young and liberal audience to get out and vote. It seems that I've gone too far with this and started arguing against myself...

I think my point still stands though: this doesn't showcase NPR's neutrality - perhaps they are in fact biased toward Obama and just lie more strategically than most Republican pundits. (Certainly not accusing them of that, only saying that I don't think we can glean much from the fact that they gave Romney higher numbers than he deserves.)