Your comment is mostly addressing what I refer to as &quot;data skews, misuse of stats, and external factors&quot;, and is what the article is about. Yes, those are huge issues, but they have little to do with data size.<p>I&#x27;m confused why you don&#x27;t agree with my phrasing. To be clear, and from your comment I think you already know this, p-value is <i>not</i> a measure of confidence. P-value is a terrible metric that jumbles confidence with effect size. As you get more data you have the ability to properly detect small effect sizes with confidence; hence, the part of my comment you quoted and seem to disagree with? But people who don&#x27;t have experience working with large datasets see a low p-value and often think they have a big effect size with reasonable confidence instead of a small effect size with very high confidence. Chalk this up to a &quot;misuse of stats&quot; :)