so you'll essentially get terminal understeer especially with the previously 'standard practice' alignment that recommended more rear camber vs. front. I hope those dark ages are over

The OEM alignment numbers with more rear camber than in front, are designed to induce a bit of understeer. Lawyers ultimately dictate the OEM alignment, not the clever engineeers that designed the suspension. The actual suspension geometry is designed to require greater front than rear camber. The SuperMiata Street Alignment will generally result in no increase in tire wear over OEM and possibly a reduction in tire wear if you occasionally load the tires to maximum cornering forces.

For the intrepid number-crunchers, I encourage you to look at the NA camber calculator linked from the FCM website. In particular what jumped out at me some time ago was the final dynamic camber at full bump (outside tires). Here are a few examples:

Start with 13.25/13.5" ride heights, and -1.0/-1.5, what many people typically do (a 'Lanny' alignment). If you look at the dynamic camber at 10.0" ride height f/r (about where a car will end up using FCM bump stops to maximize suspension travel), you'll get -4.7/-5.5. What started out as a 0.5 deg rear bias increases to a 0.8 bias at full bump - the rear camber has increased faster than the front, which means there will be a bias toward understeer at the limit.

Okay, say you reduce the camber bias. For the same ride height, start with the same camber values front/rear (-1.0/-1.0) gives -4.7/-5.0, less rear than before but still a tendency to push due to the camber contribution to the car's handling.