I don&#x27;t know R, but I found a few sites that happily run R code for me.  I find the shape of that curve somehow pretty.  29% clearly can&#x27;t be a hard bound, since we can get 4.8% by assuming no false negatives.  I just wish I understood whether there is anything particularly natural about the number 29, or did they make their distributional assumptions for the same reasons you did: &quot;mainly for illustration&quot;.  If so, then the Nature article was terribly misleading by presenting that number as some kind of &quot;speed of light&quot;-type limit, because that makes p-values look worse than they really are.  It seems that p-values are bad enough without making up more bad stuff about them! :)<p>Anyway, thanks for all your help.  Your ability to dig up references (and pump out R code) at a moment&#x27;s notice makes me think you are someone who knows quite a bit of statistics.  I&#x27;ll happily look at anything else you care to point me to.