3 ms·
> If you misread it, it is not the company's fault. They have provided factual information. That’s really not a fair argument given advertising and marketing t
by bmitc 5y ago
> If you misread it, it is not the company's fault. They have provided factual information.
That’s really not a fair argument given advertising and marketing theory and schemes.
Who knows about this particular case since we don’t know if the 0.10% needed to be compared to other rates like 0.08%, where the formatting would maybe make more sense. But it’s not beyond imagination that someone could try to hook a customer with numbers. It’s done all the time with the whole $8.99 thing.
- dylan604 5y agoThat's funny timing, as I just mentioned the other day on here that the $.99 vs $1.00 thing was a marketing tactic. However, someone countered that it is a remnant from the old days of forcing the clerk to ring out the customer at the register to make correct change. This was to help avoid the temptation of pocketing the exact dollar amount. A pricing practice that has essentially just stuck around, and possibly repurposed???? Either way, I've learned basic maths. .1 == .10. I would be willing to guess that the average public would not think that .10 > .1, and that this whole confusion is really only for developers that have started using decimal notation in versions where .10 > .1 is true.
- hermitdev 5y agoAs an engineer, the trailing 0 is significant: it indicates with what precision it was rounded to. [0.5, .15) could become .1, with 1 significant digit, but not .10 with 2 significant digits. Doubtful it matters in this case, but that extra zero can convey extra meaning.