Science has already proven “hanger,” what happens get when you combine hunger and anger, and being “hangry,” when someone is so hungry that they get angry, is real. It’s no wonder a study has proven judges will rule favorably in court if a case is presented to them a. Early in the morning. b. Immediately after lunch. 

The study was just cited in Bank of America Merrill Lynch's report about artificial intelligence, because as you know, robots are taking over the world (Or are they?)  The study, from a 2011 research paper by Shai Danzigera, Jonathan Levavb, and Liora Avnaim-Pessoa, concluded Israeli judges were 65 percent more lenient in their rulings at the beginning of the day and after breaks such as lunch. That percentage decreases to 0 until another break. Bank of America Merill Lynch wrote: 

“One major advantage of robots is the elimination of human biases. Researcher Shai Danziger showed that Israeli judges’ percentage of favourable rulings jumps to ~65% after meal breaks, and declines gradually to 0 leaning into the next break. Many occupations, including medical diagnostics and fraud detection would all require impartial decision making, as well as the ability to detect trends in large data sets. The comparable advantage of an unbiased algorithmic solutions is currently tested in several fields today.”

In conclusion: robots don't eat so they won't get hungry, meaning they won't get "hangry" or "tired," leading to these biased decisions. Here's a chart of the findings below:

[via Business Insider]