Well, I only know how it tends to work in China, where the traditional calendar is used for cultural events such as festivals, while the Gregorian calendar is used for just about everything else, including domestic business. I assumed it’s the same in most modern cultures with a different traditional calendar, but maybe I’m wrong.

Is it? I know some cultures have a traditional lunar calendar, but I didn’t know there were many that didn’t also use the Gregorian calendar for business.

Which cultures have the seven day week without the solar year?

Not quite the same, since in my scenario the player loses everything after a loss while in the St. Petersburg Paradox it seems they keep their winnings. But it does seem relevant in explaining that expected value isn’t everything.

I’m looking at the game as a whole. The player has a 1 in 8 chance of winning 3 rounds overall.

But the odds of the player managing to do so are proportionate. In theory, if 8 players each decide to go for three rounds, one of them will win, but the losings from the other 7 will pay for that player’s winnings.

You’re right that the house is performing a Martingale strategy. That’s a good insight. That may actually be the source of the house advantage. The scenario is ideal for a Martingale strategy to work.

Well, they have to start over with a $1 bet.

I don’t know if that applies to this scenario. In this game, the player is always in the lead until they aren’t, but I don’t see how that works in their favor.

You’re saying that the player pays a dollar each time they decide to “double-or-nothing”? I was thinking they’d only be risking the dollar they bet to start the game.

That change in the ruleset would definitely tilt the odds in the house’s favor.

Right, and as the chain continues, the probability of the player maintaining their streak becomes infinitesimal. But the potential payout scales at the same rate.

If the player goes for 3 rounds, they only have a 1/8 chance of winning… but they’ll get 8 times their initial bet. So it’s technically a fair game, right?

That’s not true. The Hoover Dam contributes to Vegas’s power supply, but it’s nowhere near “almost entirely powered” by the dam, except in Fallout: New Vegas.

deleted by creator

What I can find all say seem to say more or less the same things about every candidate.

The US, but why? How does the answer differ in different countries?

Couldn’t you just add a comment that says that if the variable is false, then the person is sitting?

Or if the programming language supports it, you could add a getter called is_person_sitting that returns !is_person_standing.

I’m going to say outdoor.

The “door” part doesn’t really have any significance. No one would say camping under the open sky is an indoor activity, even if there’s a fence with a door around the campsite.

I think it makes more sense for the deciding factor be whether you’re in a controlled or uncontrolled environment. And while part of the cave might be controlled if there’s an artificial entryway or home, that’s not what you’re there to see.

It’s an interesting interpretation for sure. I could believe it more easily if he was shown to not care about the consequences of his actions rather than being ignorant of them.

Maybe you’re right, except that in addition to having trouble communicating, he also has trouble reading social situations and understanding what others want from him. He is, as you say, very capable of solving problems that don’t involve people.

Hm, he still does “dumb” things though. Trying to strain a canned peach through a sweaty sock to make a drink. Getting lost in China. Not understanding the political implications of rescuing Chairman Mao. Calling the Vietnam war “a bunch of shit” while representing the US military (it’d be one thing if it was intentional, but he didn’t seem to understand what the consequences would be.) Telling Jenny that Lieutenant Dan could use the bathroom without help rather than asking her for a container that’s not his hat. Kidnapping Raquel Welch.

I guess a lot of those things could be explained away one way or another. Your take on the character is definitely an interesting one, but I thought of him as more of a savant type who was capable of learning specific things extremely well, but was generally unintelligent. Though more intelligent than some give him credit for.

It’s been a long time since I read the book, but that’s not how I remember it at all. He was gifted mathematically, but deficient in general. He caused trouble a number of times by misreading situations and not doing what was expected of him.

He was smarter than people assumed, but I got the impression he was still impaired overall. Maybe that was the movie affecting my perception of the character.

But that’s true, isn’t it? Putting aside volume and shape.

I thought that until just now.