![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Numbers matter
Apr. 24th, 2009 02:51 pmGawd, I get back to just into the black for the month, and then hit a single Buy-in deficit at $200 (KK v AA all-in pf against an Australian at 7am, so there's no way I'm going to lay it down). Got back to $40 down on that session but then spunked it away again. Dropped to $100 Buy In and promptly dropped another $300. That adds up to a monkey deficit by noon. Hardly an auspicious start to the weekend.
++++++++++++++
There was a great story tucked away yesterday in a release put out by the California Department of Insurance. I don't normally repeat stories that I run in my (professional) publication, but this one merits it.
You may remember a year or so ago I received a press release containing the phrase "114% higher". I checked the document on which the release was based and saw (as I expected) that the actual phrase was "114% of". So I phoned the guy up and said:
"You say here it's 114% higher".
"Yes, that's what the document says"
"Well I've just read it, and it says '114% of'"
"Yes".
"Hmm, ok, so how much is 14% higher, and does that differ from 114% higher?"
"Oh, yes, I see."
Corrected release issued five minutes later.
Now, the thing about stuff like this is that twat-faces say behind the back of their hands, "Pedant, it was obvious what we meant", and no matter how much you scream that this kind of thing is important to get right, it's not that often that real events rather than theoretical or hypothetical ones bear you out.
Step forward AIG, yes, the company that burns money faster than Formula One.
Last November there was a bad forest fire in California, near Los Angeles. Of the 485 mobile homes destroyed in the fire, about 370 were insured by a niche insurer that is a subsidiary of AIG. Said niche insurer put, in its policy wording, (well, I haven't actually seen the policy, but they must have, because they have backed down on the matter and paid the full sums claimed), that in the event of a "total loss", policyholders were entitled to (depending on the policy) an "additional" 110% or 125% cover.
When the fires hit, AIG wrote to policyholders that what was obviously meant was that the insurer would pay an additional 10% or 25%.
Five people complained to California Department of Insurance. Said CDI presumably said to the AIG subsidiary what I would have said, that being, if you meant an additional 10%, then you should have written 10% rather than 110% in the policy wording.
So, a simple misunderstanding of how percentages work, an assumption that these things don't really matter, has cost AIG, wait for it, about $37 million dollars Each destroyed mobile home (all 370 of them) is now covered for an average of $210,000, rather than $110,000.
The next time your boss thinks of employing someone who doesn't know how the English language works (or how percentages work) and doesn't think that it matters that much, just quote that example at them. Indeed, I would have as a questionin any interview. "How much is 200% more? Twice as much or three times as much?" Hell, you give them a 50% chance of being right....
___________
++++++++++++++
There was a great story tucked away yesterday in a release put out by the California Department of Insurance. I don't normally repeat stories that I run in my (professional) publication, but this one merits it.
You may remember a year or so ago I received a press release containing the phrase "114% higher". I checked the document on which the release was based and saw (as I expected) that the actual phrase was "114% of". So I phoned the guy up and said:
"You say here it's 114% higher".
"Yes, that's what the document says"
"Well I've just read it, and it says '114% of'"
"Yes".
"Hmm, ok, so how much is 14% higher, and does that differ from 114% higher?"
"Oh, yes, I see."
Corrected release issued five minutes later.
Now, the thing about stuff like this is that twat-faces say behind the back of their hands, "Pedant, it was obvious what we meant", and no matter how much you scream that this kind of thing is important to get right, it's not that often that real events rather than theoretical or hypothetical ones bear you out.
Step forward AIG, yes, the company that burns money faster than Formula One.
Last November there was a bad forest fire in California, near Los Angeles. Of the 485 mobile homes destroyed in the fire, about 370 were insured by a niche insurer that is a subsidiary of AIG. Said niche insurer put, in its policy wording, (well, I haven't actually seen the policy, but they must have, because they have backed down on the matter and paid the full sums claimed), that in the event of a "total loss", policyholders were entitled to (depending on the policy) an "additional" 110% or 125% cover.
When the fires hit, AIG wrote to policyholders that what was obviously meant was that the insurer would pay an additional 10% or 25%.
Five people complained to California Department of Insurance. Said CDI presumably said to the AIG subsidiary what I would have said, that being, if you meant an additional 10%, then you should have written 10% rather than 110% in the policy wording.
So, a simple misunderstanding of how percentages work, an assumption that these things don't really matter, has cost AIG, wait for it, about $37 million dollars Each destroyed mobile home (all 370 of them) is now covered for an average of $210,000, rather than $110,000.
The next time your boss thinks of employing someone who doesn't know how the English language works (or how percentages work) and doesn't think that it matters that much, just quote that example at them. Indeed, I would have as a questionin any interview. "How much is 200% more? Twice as much or three times as much?" Hell, you give them a 50% chance of being right....
___________
