Exactly. What's fake is it being live, which is clearly done as clickbait. But the video is real (taken by astronaut Terry Virts using a GoPro during US EVA #30 on February 25, 2015) and absolutely incredible, well worth a watch. Just don't do it from pages saying it's live: let's not give them watches.

"key members of the House Judiciary Committee still don't understand how the internet works"

Easy: it's like a series of tubes.

I too agree that the fact that the mean can be strongly influenced by abnormally large (small) values implies comparing the *average* price paid is not that meaningful. As the previous poster commented, the *median* is a much more meaningful statistic in cases such as this.

Based on this reasoning, I emailed the Humble Bundle support team asking whether they could calculate the median on the numbers. They just answered:

"During a bundle we're usually far too busy to work with the data in real time, but we usually release a data analysis after we're done. So, hang in there or take a look around at previous information we've released such as this speech:

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014437/The-Humble-Indie

Thank you for your continued support"

So it seems we'll have to wait until the Bundle is over (not much left now) and they tally and analyse the results. I still predict the Linux median will be the highest.

Just out of mathematical curiosity: is it possible to estimate the median for each group somehow, based on the information available (average for each group, numbers in each group, total amount paid by all groups)?

While your're correct that it's possible, somehow I think it's not what was actually done. I'm no expert on computer effects, but it appears to me that it's much more likely that the particles were created with an upward velocity component and then subject to only the force of gravity. I teach basic physics at a university and it's a common mistake to speak of "force" when one really means "velocity" or "momentum". Phrases such as "the object impacted the ground with great force" are common among students. While you *can* talk of a force in that situation (and that force certainly has a relation to the object's velocity), the concept the speaker usually means is velocity or momentum, not force.

Impressive as his graphics may be, it seems the author fails at basic physics:

"Fireworks, mmmm. I started with a regular physics simulation where a particle has an upward force applied at birth, sending it upward while gravity pulls it back down resulting in a parabola"

Didn't he mean "where a particle has an upward VELOCITY applied at birth"?

More reactions: possible mistakes in the proof are commented:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/08/hp-labs-researcher-p-is-not-np.html#more

R.J. Lipton discusses his initial reaction to the proof in his blog:

http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/a-proof-that-p-is-not-equal-to-np/