Thank you for that awareness. I didn't look at the source before jumping to conclusions. :) Still, that is mightly close to 2x, and a little bit of rounding

Thank you for that awareness. I didn't look at the source before jumping to conclusions. :) Still, that is mightly close to 2x, and a little bit of rounding would have made the message clearer (and likely stayed within the error bars of the original paper (which I did not read))