this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
781 points (93.6% liked)
memes
14386 readers
2501 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My biggest problem with that "monstrosity" is that it's ortholinear.
You imply that such a thing being "optimal" is absurd, but if you had infinite usable desk space then what, exactly, would be the argument against it? If space is not a consideration then what does it matter if you don't use every key?
Lots of people like smaller keyboards, and that's perfectly fine. I get it as an aesthetic choice, and for many people it may not impact their daily use at all. But you will not convince me that removing the option of having additional keys for binding is a non-zero cost, even if they're not currently being used.
For what it's worth, I never used anything like that monstrosity, but I was quite happy with my G15 for the time that I had it which had 18 additional keys, plus media control, over a typical full size.
So I guess we agree then. Circumstances make something more or less optimal, meaning they are not objectively more optimal in every situation. That was my entire point, nothing more.