I don't quite agree with this. Mostly true, in simple terms, but not 100%.
The brakes can't stop the car faster than the tyres allow, BUT the whole brake/suspension/wheel/tyre system affects how much stopping force the tyre(s) can exert.
For one-thing, look at how weight transfer affects the braking. If you give it 100% braking, before the weight transfer, the wheels will lock (or ABS kicks in) and stopping distance increases. Match the braking to the weight transfer, and you can apply much more braking force and stop in a shorted distance, with the same tyres.
Changing the brakes affects that initial bite period, changing the way the brakes interact with the suspension/tires etc.
Changing the suspension affects the weight-transfer which affects the transition period, and the maximum force available.
Anyone ridden a motorbike will be intimately aware of how the brakes/suspension/tyres all interact to affect the braking performance. Especially at the limit.
Cars don't have the same degree of dynamic behavior, BUT it's not negligible.
But brake bias is already tuned for that, from the factory, by the manufacturer for the stock braking system.
For a street car the factory tune is pretty much ideal, because you're going to be stopping in a lot of different conditions- so that tune gets you very close to "perfect" in the most conditions, and "safe" in all of them.
You can (and many do) actually make stopping distance WORSE by "upgrading" the brakes in a way that doesn't understand the factory bias... but you don't have much (safe) room to make it any better this way.
Consider this chart for example-
https://www.brakes-shop.com/media/wysiwyg/Content/brake-bias-7.jpg
Between OEM (which almost always front biased) to "optimally tuned" which is only very slightly less so, to "approaching unstable braking" which is again slightly less so, there's VERY little difference in actual stopping distance... but if you go significantly more in either direction braking distance (and stability especially moving toward rear bias) get significantly worse.
Now, if you're building a track car, that's only ever driven in specific known conditions, and braking in specific known ways, you can tune a little nearer the bleeding edge... but for "regular" use not so much.
As evidence I present basically every major aftermarket brake manufacturer, who if their "big brake kits" could
actually, safely, reliably, and measurably stop your car shorter in normal use would be screaming such from the rooftops.
Instead folks like Stoptech and Brembo are actually fairly honest about this and clearly tell you no, your car won't stop any shorter than with factory brakes with their upgraded brakes on the vehicle in street conditions.... (though stoptech in particular has a whitepaper about how upgrades can actually make your braking worse if you upgrade kit isn't considering proper proportioning to match what the factory ABS system is expecting).
Funny story though- the author of the GRM Pulp Friction article addresses your exact concern in a follow-up article....
Brake Bias And Performance
He's basically saying same as I am above, but with lots more math and physics if interested.... and giving pointers too to those who are only tracking the car in very specific conditions about how they might go about chasing down that extra 0.5% of bias benefit for those conditions.
He also later mentions that if you add ABS to the equation this is even less a factor and there's even less of a fringe of a difference to try and do anything about, especially on a street vehicle, to the point all you're really gaining even way out at the bleeding edge is reducing wear for ABS cycling, not really stopping shorter.