[0kl]

I agree with you here entirely. I don’t really see how this is transformative compared to any chorded typing system.

The specific op I was replying to was saying

> …and 0.5% actual typing, I think I am quite safe with my good 'ol QWERTY.

And there were a host of similar comments initially.

100% on fighting snake oil. 0% on pushing back against people trying new things that might improve the status quo

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Ah yeah, that's fair. I could defend that as cost/benefit analysis, but I'm with you - let's push the limits and worry about utility evaluation later! (I literally have a chording keyboard on my desk right now, so I'm quite serious when I say I want to push the limits:])

[0kl]

What hardware/software are you using? I’ve looked into it a few times, but the cost benefit hasn’t been there for me for doing the research without knowing anything about it yet.

Do you code with it as well, or is it primarily chat/browsing/etc?

[usrbinbash]

Hi, "specific op" here. I'd be interesting in knowing how what I wrote above is a "pushback against any attempts at improving the status quo".

I said I spend not a lot of time typing. Therefore, a device that is aimed at improving typing speed, has a low impact on my productivity.

[0kl]

I might have read too much into your use of the term “safe” as being indicative that there was some danger or concern.

I agree with this sentiment: > I said I spend not a lot of time typing. Therefore, a device that is aimed at improving typing speed, has a low impact on my productivity.

Though, setting aside that efficiency =/= effectiveness/productivity, I think the spirit of the article is that if a coworker is typing a lot, that may claim that their efficiency has increased greatly, not that every single person will see equal improvements.

FWIW: this is being typed with two thumbs on an iPhone because that’s as efficient as _I_ need to be right now ;)