Nope, pedantic is also focusing on taking something literally, when it's an obvious device to make a point.

>The fact this is your takeaway, even after I used numeric values to explain the overpromise of the headline... wow

I covered the overpromise and even explained why it's still a big enough development. This part was making another point that also went wooooosh (about how such findings rarely materialize to treatment, and people shouldn't get their hopes high from headlines to begin with, even IF the finding they write about covers all or most of the cases and not just 55% of 38% of them - and that this is a general rule, even if in this case one can just trivially try the treatment themselves without waiting for a new drug).

I mean, one has to spell it out, and it still IS pedantically misread.

> why it's still a big enough development.

It seems we agree: the hyperbolic, misleading headline wasn't necessary.

I appreciate our interaction as a reminder that even numbers do not clearly communicate information to everyone. This will help me to remember I should exercise caution in what I write to make the point abundantly clear.

I would never want to put end users in situations where they might harm themselves by taking a pill daily based on a poorly worded headline on a tech website. Good luck to you and your new aspirin regimen, though!