Reading that paper, I feel like a dog being shown a card trick ... but gjm hypothesises a reporter being told "almost 10% more" (upper bound of likely selection coefficient ~0.97 edit: ~0.097) and hearing "almost ten times more". This is alarmingly plausible.
Correction: 0.097, not 0.97.
This is the bimonthly 'What are you working On?' thread. Previous threads are here. So here's the question:
What are you working on?
Here are some guidelines: