[HN Gopher] A better way to divide the pie ___________________________________________________________________ A better way to divide the pie Author : geox Score : 58 points Date : 2022-03-20 16:07 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (insights.som.yale.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (insights.som.yale.edu) | hackernewds wrote: | Employee compensation would hilariously soar so much if this were | the model. Currently employees in reality, are provided 0.00001% | of the company. | the_lonely_road wrote: | Salary is often the single largest expense on the income | statement, and especially so for service based companies. This | expense will frequently massively outstrip the profit line | item. So no employees are not getting 0.000001% of these | companies, they are in fact getting the majority of the money | flowing through these companies. | | You are noting that the employee line item is split up amongst | 50,000 employees and the smaller profit number is behind split | up among 50 owners. So an individual owner makes massively more | money than an individual employee but missing that employees as | a class are still getting more of the money than the owners. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > Currently employees in reality, are provided 0.00001% of the | company. | | 0.00001% of Amazon's entire revenue (not profit, but revenue) | last year would be about $14,000. | | Fortunately, every one of their full time employees is paid | more than that. Entry level engineers make 10X that amount and | the best engineers make 50X that or more. | | At some of the most highly paid companies like Uber, paying | employees according to the value they create would actually | make salaries go _down_ in every scenario, because the company | is still fueled by investor funds and can 't self-sustain on | revenue alone. | | After round-tripping from IC to manager and back a couple | times, I've come to realize that the value given to engineers | especially is extremely high. Many initiatives in the tech | industry don't ever turn a profit for the company or investors, | yet we get paid six figures all the same. | | If anything, I would expect such a hypothetical initiative to | redistribute more of the wealth _away_ from engineers like us | and toward people like the customer support team who are fixing | all of the problems created by products that don 't work quite | right. The person on the phone with grandma walking them | through a support issue arguably contributes more to the LTV of | that customer than anyone else. | | Stepping outside of tech, I think people imagine profits to be | much higher than they are in reality. Grocery stores are a | common example of a business that has very narrow profit | margins (some times a couple percent) that don't actually have | large amounts of leftover profit to distribute to employees. | | Regardless, it's all hypothetical. The employment market is | supply and demand, and that's why engineers are paid so highly. | End of story. | beowulfey wrote: | I was trying to think of an alternative example; the initial | condition (the fallback) seems kind of contrived. | | So let's say there's some investment opportunity where someone | has $4,000 to put in and I have $2,000. The investment requires | $6000, so neither of us can access it alone. If we agree to | invest, let's say the value is guaranteed to increase, in this | example by 200% to $12,000. The power analysis way of | distributing that increase would be that the other person gets | $8000 and I get $4000. Using this pizza analysis, it would | instead be distributed as $7000 and $5000 -- splitting the | increase of $6000 equally. | | It's an interesting concept. Certainly I, with only $2000, would | be more inclined to contribute. And the other party would | certainly benefit more than if we had decided to not go through | with it at all. | | I think it comes down to how much the person with the weaker | power is likely to _want_ to contribute. It 's a good way to | convince them if the power is fairly offset, but when they are | close it's not really necessary to convince them. | | I think this is partially touched on in the article itself, and | it makes sense. It comes down to what _seems_ fair to the parties | involved! | paxys wrote: | I actually think the method proposed in the article works | perfectly in this case as well. | | If you found a magic investment that was _guaranteed_ to return | 200%, but were some money short so couldn 't invest at all, if | I made up the difference and said we had to split the gains | evenly it would still be in your best interests to say yes. | | Of course the obvious response is that investments aren't | guaranteed to return money. Going by this method, the losses | would be "split" evenly as well rather than in proportion. So | if the company could only return 50% of the initial investment, | you would claim extra money towards your principal, thus | reducing your overall risk at the expense of the person who | invested less money. | silisili wrote: | This example system starts falling apart as the amounts shift. | If one party has 5999, and the other 1 dollar, is that type of | split still fair? It would never benefit anyone to be the | higher of the contributors, a system of everyone looking for | suckers. | beowulfey wrote: | No, of course not. That's why I pointed out that at the end | of the day it comes down to what _seems_ fair, and what the | two parties are willing to negotiate. | tromp wrote: | > let's say the value is guaranteed to increase, in this | example by 200% to $12,000. | | Still kind of contrived:-( | awestruckshoe wrote: | Thanks for the more concrete example--the pizza situation in | the article seemed really contrived and unintuitive to me! One | question this leaves me with and I don't think the article | addresses is what happens when losses are sustained when | collaborating. Your stock example provides a good basis for an | exploration of this question. | | Say A puts $4000 in and B puts $2000 in with the expectation | that they will double their money, but instead they lose it | all. By the procedure outlined in article, the "pie" worth | -$6000 would be evenly distributed, meaning both A and B would | have to pay $3000. So A ends up with $1000 and B ends up with | -$1000. This seems especially punitive to B, and they end up in | a worse place than they would have with what the article calls | the "power" arrangement, under which they would have $0 after | losing only $2000 instead of $3000. | | I'm curious about how many weaker parties continue to favor the | "pie" method when losses are divided the same way as gains---my | intuition is that a "pie"-style deal is typically reached only | when there is an almost-certain probability of gain, but I'm | curious about how negotiators actually behave! | HWR_14 wrote: | There is a whole subcategory of behavioral economics that can | be summed up as "people treat potential losses and potential | gains _very_ differently ". But what you're saying isn't the | example that is being presented. You have A and B being equal | partners with a loan from A to B of $1000. That's different | from the kind of ultimatum style (with 100% certainty) game | that is proposed. | | I would say a better example is that A owns 66% of a startup | and B owns 33%. They decide to sell the tech for X dollars. | However, they are offered a 2X buyout if both of them agree | to work for 3 years at the acquiring company. There's no | "partial" offer though, it's both partners or neither. How is | the 2X split up? | | The contrived example fails because of the 33% and 66% | wouldn't be assigned randomly. | eps wrote: | If I were the $4000 person, I would reject the 7/5 split as | unfair, because, conventionally, the expectation is that the | return is proportional to the participation. | | Consider an extreme sceanrio - $5990 and $1. As per the article | the return should be $8999 and $3001. That's not going to fly | in the real world. | UnquietTinkerer wrote: | This is a good line of questioning. I believe that the | difference between the two situations is that the pizza deal is | implied to be just for Alice and Bob. If either walks away then | the deal is totally sunk, so they both have equal "leverage" | over the deal. | | When you frame it as an investment question, the implication is | that if either person walks away then they can be replaced by a | third party who is willing to stake the cash. Since it is | easier to replace someone when their stake is lower, the person | putting up the $2k has less leverage in this case. | | If you explicitly limited the investment to two specific people | (imagine a crazy term in a will or something), then I think | you'd end up back with a $7k/$5k split. | beowulfey wrote: | Definitely agree, a big part of this is also how badly the | person putting more into it needs that other partner. | [deleted] | wyager wrote: | Duh. The hard part is that negotiators will lie to make it seem | like the difference is smaller than it is. | hammock wrote: | There is a whole book about this? The dark slices are each | party's BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement, from | Getting to Yes). Makes perfect sense that the negotiation is over | the remaining pie | stavros wrote: | The point is that the remaining pie should be split evenly | between the two parties, because they both have equal power in | creating it. | hammock wrote: | In the simplistic example it could be argued that they have | equal power. In a real scenario they likely don't. | | In a real scenario, the dark slices may or may not be | irrelevant; Bob must also consider making a deal with | Charlie, who was left out of the example and has 6 dark | slices of his own, or with David, who has 3 dark slices. | | There is also the pizzeria across the street to consider | which gives Alice and Bob each 3 dark slices. | tomcatfish wrote: | Another formulation (unless I misread the article and it's the | same thing here) is the Shapley Value [^sv], where you divide up | the extra spoils according to the value added by each agent. This | works pretty nicely with high numbers of agents too, as well as | makes sure it's in everyone's interest to join your sharing | scheme even if they're not already in it. | | [^sv]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley_value | reggieband wrote: | One thing I learned in a class on negotiation was that many | people look at negotiation as a one-time thing. Examples like | buying a car happen for most buyers once every 5 to 10 years. It | is also a negotiation that most often happens with a new sales | agent / sales manager combo for every transaction. | | However, a large number of negotiations in business happen with | the same group of people over and over again. The example was a | set of directors in a large org negotiating over budget. That | kind of thing might happen every single business quarter between | a stable set of peers. | | Whenever I see strategies like these I consider those two cases | since they have influence on how negotiations are done. In the | car-sales case, there is an incentive to get the most out of the | individual negotiation since you almost certainly will never see | each other again. In the business case you are incentivized to | prioritize the relationship with your peers over any individual | negotiation. | | So I don't agree with the simplistic conclusion in the article. | It seems to only consider fairness within the context of a single | transaction/negotiation. It does not consider what happens when | this strategy is repeated between actors across multiple | negotiations. | WinterMount223 wrote: | This is throughly discussed in game theory. Single games, | finitely repeated games, infinitely repeated games. | gpsx wrote: | I like the way you say that. I was going to say that Ann can | push to split the pizza 7-5 if it is OK that she is being an | a@#hole. If not, she should split it 6-6. | | I think the author makes a good point in the article, but he | should have at least mentioned future ramifications. | svilen_dobrev wrote: | this reminded me of: Evolution of trust | | https://ncase.me/trust/ | jka wrote: | > One thing I learned in a class on negotiation was that many | people look at negotiation as a one-time thing. Examples like | buying a car happen for most buyers once every 5 to 10 years. | It is also a negotiation that most often happens with a new | sales agent / sales manager combo for every transaction. | | You may have been implying this already, but just to reinforce | the message: it's an asymmetric event frequency. | | For the buyer, it occurs once every few years. For the seller, | it's occurring on a weekly or perhaps daily basis. | | That means that the seller is fairly likely to know most of the | common weaknesses and opportunities for buyers, and the ways in | which those buyers communicate (or fail to communicate) them. | Sellers can choose to do what they want with that information | advantage. | | To me the question is a broader one: why are Alice and Bob | accepting to enter into some byzantine challenge where they | have to co-operate in order to receive a larger amount of | pizza? And why is there an entire book for sale on the topic, | when at first-glance it seems to closely (~80%) resemble what | can be defined as the prisoners' dilemma within a paragraph? | | I think Alice and Bob should publish the ridiculous situation | they've been faced with at the pizza restaurant and find | somewhere else to go to eat, and I don't think they require a | book to teach them that. | vineyardmike wrote: | I can't quite tell if you're missing the point. The pizza | analogy is just some simple case that's easy to explain in a | paragraph. The book is on negotiations, so they need some | easy case to negotiate. | | I've had to negotiate for my team at work before and one | common thing I hear at private discussions with other parties | when in planning for the meetings is that it's backwards and | toxic to have business politics and they want to leave the | team over it. this feels like you're take - and it misses the | point that today, you have to accomplish some task. Even if | you're against politics at work, you're beholden to them once | they start. Tomorrow is for deciding if you should accept | reality or make changes. And some things aren't likely to go | away. | jka wrote: | Generally I think my perspective on the issue is that a lot | has been written already, and that people have a tendency | to rewrite and bring-to-market content that is a rehash of | existing knowledge, as opposed to gathering people together | towards consensus (and expansion, and critique) of existing | best-known information. Perhaps writing books is an | expression of that; and perhaps my frustration is because I | wonder whether we could do better in the digital age. | | In the context of workplace politics: again, these are all | patterns that have been repeated for generations. Perhaps | it's possible to document and make those patterns public, | and then help people to view and decide upon the kind of | workplace(s) they'd like to contribute to. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > Whenever I see strategies like these I consider those two | cases since they have influence on how negotiations are done. | In the car-sales case, there is an incentive to get the most | out of the individual negotiation since you almost certainly | will never see each other again. In the business case you are | incentivized to prioritize the relationship with your peers | over any individual negotiation. | | Very insightful point. | | The biggest salary negotiation mistake I see is when people | assume the negotiation is of the first type (one-off, never see | people again) instead of the latter type (part of an ongoing | relationship). | | If a company works hard to minimize someone's compensation | expectations and convince them to accept below-market salary, | they're going to pay for it later when the person wises up and | leaves for something better. This scenario is well-known. | | The less discussed scenario is when a candidate aggressively | negotiates a very above-average compensation but subsequently | performs in a below-average manner. This is one of the most | common complaint scenarios in a private manager forum that I'm | part of: Managers who get wowed by people with excellent | interviewing and self-selling skills who end up underperforming | their lesser-paid peers later. It generates a lot of guilt and | anxiety for managers when they realize they've been duped into | inverting the contribution:reward relationship in their | compensation structure. | | These people are the first to go in any downsizing, reorgs, and | layoffs (and rightly so), but they're often great at talking | their way into the next highly paid job almost immediately. | This is one of the main reasons experienced managers will go | extra deep on reference checks for people with job-hopper | resumes. | antisthenes wrote: | > The biggest salary negotiation mistake I see is when people | assume the negotiation is of the first type (one-off, never | see people again) instead of the latter type (part of an | ongoing relationship). | | That depends what you're negotiating. As a counterexample, if | you negotiate a big raise upfront for your promotion and then | "coast" for 5-10 years, you're still better off than | negotiating a series of smaller raises every 2 years, because | you forego the overhead of multiple negotiations. Personally, | I'd rather just focus on the work. | | Negotiation is costly if you're not good at it. It's easier | to justify your value once, than multiple times. Due to | anchoring, and people getting used to the increased output | you bring, it will become harder and harder to negotiate as | you go further. | | Better to do it once, but do it right. | rkk3 wrote: | > The less discussed scenario is when a candidate | aggressively negotiates a very above-average compensation but | subsequently performs in a below-average manner. This is one | of the most common complaint scenarios in a private manager | forum that I'm part of: Managers who get wowed by people with | excellent interviewing and self-selling skills who end up | underperforming their lesser-paid peers later. It generates a | lot of guilt and anxiety for managers when they realize | they've been duped into inverting the contribution:reward | relationship in their compensation structure. | | Isn't this more a failure of the management? What can justify | having wide disparities in starting comp for the same role? | Seems like the striving candidate should be bumped up a level | & you just hold them accountable to the higher bar, rather | than evaluating their performance based on comp. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | That's the point - If you bring someone in at the wrong | level (higher comp = higher level) then you have a major | problem. | | Compensation does vary within a role, though. Even at | organizations that publicly share salary info there is | often a wide range within each band and the salary bands | may overlap. | | Paying everyone in perfect lock-step with each other sounds | great in theory, but you end up either paying significantly | more than you need to or locking yourself out of otherwise | great hires that were just a few thousand short of your | fixed salary. Obviously, not everyone within a role | performs exactly the same. | sharkjacobs wrote: | this is game theory 101 too. The prisoner's dilemma is a simple | game, like tic tac toe, and the only correct move is to betray | the other player every time. But repeated prisoners dilemma is | a much more complicated game about trying to get as much out of | your opponent as possible without breaking down cooperation | altogether. | zasdffaa wrote: | [deleted] | chociej wrote: | Did anyone think to ask "who's hungrier?" | littlecosmic wrote: | As you say, Alice is not in desperate need of pizza, so she'll | just wait for a deal that gives her the most. The power to say | no to deals is the true advantage of greater wealth. | NAR8789 wrote: | This reminds me of how I used to split rents with my roommates: | Identify surplus value, and split that value evenly. | | 0. Given a prospective rental house. (And therefore a known set | of rooms and a known total rent) | | 1. Each person "bids" by pricing every room in the house. Goal: | each person should be looking for "break-even" pricing. Try to | price such that all the rooms feel "equally good" at your given | prices. | | 2. Just one restriction on the pricing: each bidder's room-prices | must sum to the house's monthly rent. | | 3. Reveal all bids. | | 4. Choose the room-assignment that yields the highest total | price. Because of the restriction in [2], we're guaranteed a | surplus over the true total rent. (Unless everyone somehow put in | identical bids) | | 5. Split the surplus evenly. Everyone gets a room at the price | they bid for that room, minus 1/nth of the surplus. Effectively, | everyone gets an identical surprise discount. | | We lived together for over 10 years, through 5 different rentals. | We split up when it came time to start families and buy houses. | exo-pla-net wrote: | 0: Total rent is $10, for ten rooms, to be split among ten | people. | | 1: One person who really wants a certain room bids $10 on it, | and he assigns $0 to the nine other rooms. His roommates bid a | neutral $1 on all rooms. | | ... | | 4: The person gaming the system gets his special room. | | 5: The surplus is $10 + 9*$1 - $10 = $9. Split evenly, $0.90. | | Thus, the gamer pays $9.10 for his special room, and everyone | else pays $0.10 for their rooms. | | He has clearly made a terrible mistake. He's covering the cost | of the entire rental nearly by himself. | | Next time, he bids $1 + one gummy bear on his special room, and | he bids $1 on the other rooms. He imagines that now he'll | merely have to buy one gummy bear every month, split it in ten, | and give everyone a slice. He's outwitted his roommates, he | thinks. | | However, much to his dismay, he overlooked that one of the | rooms in this next rental was underground. Furthermore, the | room was next to a leaky sceptic tank. Everyone else bid $0 on | it. The gamer handily wins the sewage room, instead of his | special room, and he hardly gets any discount for putting up | with it. Oops, foiled again. | | All of this is to say, your system seems robust. There's danger | in over and underbidding on your assessment of a room's value. | You want to be very careful in deciding how much a room is | worth to you. I think I'll use this system for renting Airbnb's | with friends in the future. Thanks! | thenerdhead wrote: | I've always come to the same conclusion that "tit-for-tat" | strategies are the simplest and most effective. | | You agree to cooperate at the start. Then you follow whatever | choice your opposition made the previous move. The even better | approach is to add in generosity randomly as a means to "forgive" | misunderstandings. | | Maybe just me, but this article seems to add more complexity to | the problem. | gnicholas wrote: | I'd be curious how many people were surprised to be greeted by a | picture of a pizza after clicking a link that refers to dividing | pies. | | I'm from California, where "pie" refers exclusively to the | dessert variety. I expected the article wouldn't be specifically | about pies, but rather about negotiation in general. | | Did anyone (from areas where "pie" can mean pizza) think that | this was going to be an article in which pizzas were used to | illustrate the point? | [deleted] | joshuajomiller wrote: | This is not a new idea. It was written about thousands of years | ago in the talmud: | http://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2016/9/27/b... | rishabhjain1198 wrote: | Absolutely incredible! I haven't felt the feeling of insight | after just reading 3 paragraphs in a long time. | ulucs wrote: | So... Uhh... Just Nash bargaining? Or Shapley values result in | the same outcome too in this case. | gondo wrote: | Reading the title, I thought this will be about a fair splitting | of home cooked pie (or any dish). My go-to method for this is to | divide the responsibilities. One party cuts (or decides where to | cut in the case children are involved), the other party picks. | Does anyone use a better, fairer method? | papandada wrote: | For 2 people that's fair. It only gets a bit more complicated | with more people or other variations. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envy-free_cake-cutting | 11235813213455 wrote: | Reminds me of https://www.google.com/doodles/celebrating-pizza | m3kw9 wrote: | This example seem like a lesson for bob on how to not get screwed | by Alice's seemingly higher leverage by focusing on what is | actually at stake to negotiate, the 6 extra slices. And also | recognize Alice does not actually have more leverage just because | the fallback is to her advantage, she would still have lost out | up to 6 slices, making any type of deal would be better for her. | delgaudm wrote: | Perhaps I got lost in the explanation, or the example is overly | simplified, but isn't this just "splitting the difference"? | nerdponx wrote: | The example is overly simplified. | | Imagine if it was a 24-slice pizza. The argument is that the | "original" 6 slices should be divided according to the original | preferences of 4 and 2, and the "extra" 18 slices should be | divided evenly into 9 and 9. | karmakaze wrote: | I imagine in many contexts, the more 'relative status-quo' | outcome to the original would be 4+4 to 2+2, double-or-no- | change. Bob wanting more than to double could be spiteful | bargaining power which Alice could answer with spite. | HWR_14 wrote: | I saw it in the article and literally thought it was a | straw man. I believed the author was arguing against a 6-6 | division and introduced a more unbalanced shift to try to | make their position seem reasonable. | | You're the first person I've seen suggest that this is a | thing and I'm kind of shocked. What reasoning would there | be for unequal division of the additional slices in _A 's_ | favor? | HWR_14 wrote: | No. Splitting the difference could be a term invented to | describe this, but it already has a different meaning. It's use | is if I offer you two slices and you counter with a demand for | six slices, then "splitting the difference" just refers to | using the average value of four. | tromp wrote: | It is splitting the difference between Alice offering to take | the whole negotiation pie at 10-2 and Bob counter offering to | take the whole negotiation pie himself at 4-8. | HWR_14 wrote: | Yes, if each originally maximally said "I want all 6 new | slices" then it would be splitting the difference in their | asks. However, in the case where Bob counters with an offer | to split 6-6, it is no longer splitting the difference. | hackernewds wrote: | Now it has been bastardized by "Never Split the Difference" | which is what you now hear from a desperate car salesman now | HWR_14 wrote: | How would a desperate car salesman use that phrase? | nhod wrote: | "Never Split the Difference" is also the name of an | outstanding book by Chris Voss, the former head of FBI | hostage negotiation. For shorthand, Voss refers to all biz | school rational-actor negotiation theory (as espoused by | the parent post, for example) as "splitting the | difference." | | He holds that such theory is useful to know in general, but | that real-world negotiations are carried out by emotional, | irrational humans. As a result, these rational theories | often break down in the face of hubris, anger, fear, love, | shame, etc, and as such, relying solely on these theories | will not get you the results you want. Thus, you should | "never split the difference." | | Instead, he then goes on to suggest a whole variety of ways | one can achieve better negotiation results, starting with | the most obvious: really, truly listening to the needs of | the other. The book is fascinating. Highly recommended. | zw123456 wrote: | maybe a little off topic, but.... | https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/10/14/yales-endowment-re... | | I am thinking maybe t yale could spend a little time on finding a | fairer way of slicing up that pie? It seems like they could | easily educate a lot more people who cannot afford their tuition. | And I am not just picking on Yale, Harvard and a lot of others | could add to a fund, what if all those schools with multi- | billions dollar endowments could give half of it to fund the | education of anyone who wants it? | | This is not a meant to be a rant just a humble suggestion that | occurred to me when they were talking about giving away half a | pizza. | HWR_14 wrote: | Education doesn't scale. Great professors don't scale. The | endowment _is_ used for funding the tuition of people who | cannot afford it. | | And, to the degree it does scale (Edx, coursera) well endowed | universities were at the forefront of putting classes online. | zw123456 wrote: | OK, so if I am understanding your point correctly, education | does and doesn't scale, and big universities with huge | endowments have done enough because they put classes online | and subsidizes tuition for a small number of lucky people. | So, it's OK for them to hold onto $42B endowment fund, for... | something? | HWR_14 wrote: | Some parts of education scale, some parts don't (see | Customer Service and 100 other examples). Universities are | doing a good job using tech to scale when they can. It's | unreasonable to expect in person attendance to be able to | even double and maintain close to the same quality. | | Yale give a scholarship for any students, with any part in | between the expected family contribution and full cost of | tuition/room/board/books/activity fees/small spending | stipend. More than half of Yale students get such a | scholarship and the average value of that scholarship is | higher than tuition and books alone would be, meaning most | students are only paying for housing and food. (Okay, it's | an average and an average, so it's possible only like 40% | of people are having their entire tuition covered, but also | their entire room and board and another 17% are getting a | dollar.) | | But, yes. In general you summarized my points correctly. | But I take issue to "small number of lucky people". And, of | course, with the sarcasm clearly coming from your post. | gondo wrote: | The naive 6:6 split tries to compensate for the original | unfairness. In real life, starting positions are mostly hidden | and therefore this problem is avoided. | [deleted] | est31 wrote: | The base case, in which Alice and Bob don't reach an agreement, | has a specific name: BATNA. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiat... | | Also note that it's two humans agreeing on a deal, and the way of | looking at things described in the article might not be shared by | both. If your other party is convinced that 6/6 is the most fair | distribution, it is to your advantage to agree with that notion, | at least if you are Bob. If you are Alice, then you should | absolutely make the case. Of course if the game is repeated and | you don't know the future game's distributions, this might come | back at you, if the roles are switched and the other party goes | into the game with that memory. | huynhhacnguyen wrote: | If we can ignore the utility value of the negotiating pie (e.g. | Alice may not want a 5th slice anyway), it is an interesting | perspective. If only there were more examples and less | explanation. | c1ccccc1 wrote: | In general: Suppose the fallback positions are x slices for | Alice, and y slices for Bob, and they get n slices total if | they reach a deal. Then we can figure out the split by defining | the gain, g, as the additional pieces they get if they reach a | deal. So g=n-(x+y). Then the fair split should be x+g/2 for | Alice and y+g/2 for Bob. | | Another kind of situation is if there are 3 people, Alice, Bob, | and Charlie, with fallbacks x, y, z respectively. Suppose they | all need to reach an agreement to get n slices. Then | g=n-(x+y+z) and Alice, Bob, and Charlie should get x+g/3, | y+g/3, z+g/3 respectively. | | Another possible situation is if there are 3 people, but they | have unequal roles. Alice only needs to make a deal with at | least one of Bob or Charlie, to get n slices. If Bob and | Charlie both agree to the deal, then the total is still n | slices. Intuitively, this would make Bob and Charlie less | important, so they should get less of the gain. The split here | should be x+2g/3 for Alice, y+g/6 for Bob and z+g/6 for | Charlie, if they're all in on the deal. The reasoning there is | that if we're adding games together, then we should also add | the payoffs together. We can make a Alice&(Bob|Charlie) game by | adding together Alice&Bob + Alice&Charlie - Alice&Bob&Charlie. | Similarly, the payoffs should add like this: (g/2, g/2, 0) + | (g/2, 0, g/2) - (g/3, g/3, g/3) = (2g/3, g/6, g/6) | HWR_14 wrote: | It's a modestly interesting point, but it certainly doesn't make | sense in the concept of pizza. The author tries to appeal to | fairness, but where the fallback positions are knowingly arranged | randomly. Therefore, the naive 6-6 solution is just refusing to | adjust for a superior random arrangement in the experiment, which | was unfairly assigned. Therefore, I would expect the naive 6-6 to | be chosen the plurality of them time. | | There's also a question of if there is any value to clam pizza | beyond the initial four slices. That sounds like a lot of food | that reheats poorly. | | Now, if you want to say this applies to something in the real | world as a concept, I would say it's not a novel concept. No one | expects a new employee to capture 100% of the value they add, nor | do people expect the new employee to work for free. | davidmanheim wrote: | Also, why is any pizza ever getting cut into 12 slices? | rootusrootus wrote: | Aside from small pizzas, I generally cut pizzas into 12 | pieces. 8 slices ends up with unwieldy slices, 16 makes for | overly narrow ones. Cut it however you want, of course, but | for most average sized pizzas 12 makes for a nice sized | slice. | NeoTar wrote: | That's very much a cultural thing. An average European | pizza is more of a 'personal' pizza and 8 or 10 inches in | diameter. Twelve slices would be too much. | | I propose the Imperial/English pizza theorem. The optimal | number of slices for a pizza is equal to the size in | inches. | HWR_14 wrote: | A giant pizza cut so that each slice is a full meal | (maybe two if very hungry) is optimal.Eating a slice of | pizza should be enough. | hexane360 wrote: | Unfortunately, that guarantees the arc length of the | slice to be constant (at pi inches), but not the total | area (= d * 1/2 in). I believe this is why larger pizzas | make more sense to cut into squares, as long thin pieces | are harder to slice and to eat. | rootusrootus wrote: | Yeah, that's my exclusion for small pizzas. We only do | personal pizzas for the kids. The rest of the family | shares a larger one (or two, or however many). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-20 23:00 UTC)