Do you mean that they had only 10% of the impact they were supposed to have? If they had 90% (i.e. almost all) of the planned impact, that's pretty good. There's always small details that were missed.
Also, people who get tested because they need to show proof of a negative test for some purpose would be part of this background rate as well.
Hmm, a very interesting case! Intuitively, I would think the function would be undefined for P. Is it really a "game" at all, when neither player has a decision that has any affect on the game?
I could see "undefined" coming naturally from a division by 0 here, where the denominator has something to do with the difference in the payouts received in some way. Indeed, you probably need some sort of division like that, to make the answer invariant under affine transformation.
Yeah, you can replace "typically" with "often" in both papers, and there's no problem. And presumably his paper didn't actually do the sort of broad analysis you'd need to argue that something held in the majority of cases. So the issue is that the student wasn't being logically rigorous and precise, and the teacher didn't mark down or comment on that. But that really isn't the point of the course.
Huh? Ctrl-f for "complex" only shows up in the comments. The title of the linked SSC post is "Kolmogorov Complicity And The Parable Of Lightning". It's not really related to Kolmogorov Complexity, except for a) being the same Kolmogorov, and b) being a pun on it.
This talks about plane crash deaths, not the number of plane crashes. Under the assumption that the fatality rate of people in a crash remains unchanged, how many people are on each plane won't affect this.
The control group goes up, and then back down. The payments were made in waves, and it doesn't say the exact dates. But it's possible that they were on average made a little bit before a stimulus payment.