Restrooms are 236 meters from the sign. Not one meter more, not one less. How farther away is the restaurant? Look, then calculate: 365m-236m=129m. And the policeman? He is 628m from here (but the direction he intimates is not the one we are prepared to go. He seems authoritative, though). Ah, looking more carefully, it looks as if the Management office, the Mosque and the Policeman are all at the same distance – presumably in the same compound? That would have been good to know beforehand.

There are two types of costs involved in this interesting representation. The first we just presented: precise information is good (true, honest) but it may be difficult to assess, to compare and may hide patterns (such as the identical distance of Management, Police and Mosque. Well, it is so unlikely they are equidistant from here? Do the three offices coincide in space?)

The second cost is related to the omnipresence of our relevance daemon inside. Typically, and reasonably, distances are provided in approximations (see also Fahrenheint Responsibility). There must be a reason, the daemon surmises, for them being expressed in precise quantities. Suppose I told you, commenting upon skiing results, that three Italians were among the first ten. You do not thereby have an idea of the precise result of any of them. But suppose I tell you that three Italians were among the first eleven. Then you are entitled to at least prima facie conclude that one of them was the eleventh. Precision generates expectations and questions.