[jhall1468]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks significant digits in any way informs error rate, and it's a little hyperbolic to suggest 4 significant digits with a whole number error rate, when they did 1 significant digit with a ~3% to ?% error rate.

[aeternus]

>I'm not sure why anyone thinks significant digits in any way informs error rate

In the majority of technical fields the standard is to round the result so that the significant digits do correspond to error rate.

https://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/data_analysis/error...

[jhall1468]

I'd expect that in academia for the most part. But this is a consumer product, so they aren't going to follow technical fields, and my hunch is that's for marketing reasons (it looks more authentic).

But even then, rounding to the error rate is a standard practice, but it certainly does mean it's wrong or even unethical, it's just pointless not to. Unless of course your motivation is driven by marketing/sales.

[godelski]

> it looks more authentic

One might call that deception