Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

The lack of context in the original deal is such that it might make sense to call Alice an "a@#hole" for not agreeing to 50/50, but I don't thinks that's the case in any real-world example of this.

Why was Alice being offered 4 and Bob 2? Perhaps Alice had done twice as much work as Bob to get the original pizza. Perhaps she had invested twice as many resources. In that case, why would the "fair" deal be one in which Bob is suddenly getting the same compensation as Alice?

The solution outlined in the article makes more sense.

The pizza parlor owner is simply invented as an all-powerful force in the universe, with the capability to decide on the fallback positions. It is totally unclear to me what real-world scenario this is supposed to refer to.

There are many scenarios where joining forces results in higher returns. If my investment is larger, how should we split the profit?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com