Tag: now i know

Categories
Economics

Dan from Now I Know explains The Decoy Effect

An explanation of the “decoy effect”:

> In 2007, the Washington Post covered a situation on which the above is based, postulated by a marketing professor from Duke University named Joel Huber. Professor Huber assembled two groups of people to test the effect of this seemingly irrelevant choice. The first of Huber’s groups were, like the example above, given two choices — the nearby 3-star restaurant and the further 5-star restaurant, and they split based on preference. Some, as above, wished a quicker fix to their hunger while others wanted a higher quality dining experience.

> The members of the second group were given three choices, including the 4-star eatery much further away. What Huber found was that this logically irrelevant option was anything but. As the Post reported, “people now gravitated toward the five-star choice, since it was better and closer than the third candidate. (The three-star restaurant was closer, but not as good as the new candidate.)” And in a different test, when the second group was given a a two-star restaurant which was closer than the 5-star one but farther than the 3-star option, “many people now chose the three-star restaurant, because it beat the new option on convenience and quality. (The five-star restaurant outdid this third candidate on only one measure, quality.)” Basically: the obviously-lesser option made one of the “real” choices seem suddenly better.

Something to keep in mind next time I am trying to suggest where to eat.[^f1419]

[^f1419]: I say while holding my 32GB iPhone.

Categories
Entertainment Law

The Legal System Used to be So Cool

From the excellent [Now I Know](http://nowiknow.com) newsletter:

> But Thornton had an antiquated legal trick up his sleeve too, and threw down the gauntlet — literally. Thornton, while entering his plea before the court, put on a pair of leather gauntlets (perhaps like these?) and tossed another on the ground toward William Ashford’s feet. The accused murderer was challenging his alleged victim’s brother to a duel — because the law allowed him to.

> Thornton was invoking his right to a trial by battle, a custom stemming from the Normans nearly a millennium earlier. It was simple: someone accused of a crime and not obviously guilty – Wikipedia says ”in the absence of witnesses or a confession” — could settle the matter by duking it out against his accuser. The theory was that the Almighty would ensure that the outcome be the one in line with the goals of a just society — after a lot of bruises, bleeding, and broken bones, of course. And while trial by battle (also called “trial by comabt”) disappeared almost entirely (in Europe, at least) by the 16th century — humanity concluded that incorporeal beings tend not to meddle in the affairs with mere mortals, at least not in cases like these — Parliament never got around to actually revoking the law. So the Ashford v Thornton court allowed it.

I wonder how this could be applied to software copyright disputes? Maybe a game of Mario Kart?

Categories
Internet

The Accidental History of Chocolate Chip Cookies

> But while seemingly straightforward, the recipe turns out to be anything but — historically speaking, that is. After all, why would someone ever think to put chunks of semi-sweet chocolate into cookie dough? In retrospect, it makes sense — delicious sense — but who knew? As it turns out, before 1930, no one. The creation of these gooey masterpieces was an accident — the true story of which is still in debate.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. Also, I’m hungry for chocolate chip cookies.