I think that's right. The only way you can choose the second best (and know it) is if the best occurs in the first 36% and the second best candidate is the very

I think that's right. The only way you can choose the second best (and know it) is if the best occurs in the first 36% and the second best candidate is the very last one (if the best occurs in the first 36%, you'll always end up with the very last candidate, since nobody will satisfy the criterion of being the best so far). You can unknowingly happen to choose the second best if the best candidate occurs among those you never consider because the second best is the best 'so far' when you get to them. But the way it's described in the article is incorrect, as far as I can tell.