This sounded silly until I remembered that software versioning trips me up just the same.
I always read 1.2.11 as < 1.2.2
I always read 1.2.11 as < 1.2.2
For anyone getting confused that 0.1 == 0.10, then how is that the writer's fault? There are formatting requirements that require a significant digit number of places (scientific notation as an example). I don't know that actually applies to bank marketing material, but it could be a style guide type of thing to keep numbers formatted the same. Either way, it does not change the value of the number. 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.
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.
Doubtful it matters in this case, but that extra zero can convey extra meaning.
They just did 6.9 and the next one will be 7.0.
But this really only works over long periods of time because they only do two releases a year.
It took me a bit to get my head around Linux kernel versioning where the 2nd digit just goes up until they feel like it's time for a new first digit version.