The discussed algorithm doesn't match reality though.
The problem as stated, includes (although there may be variants):
"•After evaluating a person you can offer them a job. But if you reject them at that point, you can never come back to them.
•You want to choose the best person in the sample. Every other outcome except choosing the very best person is equally bad."
In reality choosing the 2nd best mate or candidate isn't much worse than choosing the best and is certainly better than choosing the worst (unless you believe in 'the one'?).
And in reality we can go back to rejected candidates / mates.
My understanding of the article is that that is their problem (with the problem) also.
The problem as stated, includes (although there may be variants):
"•After evaluating a person you can offer them a job. But if you reject them at that point, you can never come back to them.
•You want to choose the best person in the sample. Every other outcome except choosing the very best person is equally bad."
In reality choosing the 2nd best mate or candidate isn't much worse than choosing the best and is certainly better than choosing the worst (unless you believe in 'the one'?).
And in reality we can go back to rejected candidates / mates.
My understanding of the article is that that is their problem (with the problem) also.