Originally Posted by StruckPaper
Are you nuts? I tried to defend you, and yet you admit to making up stuff?
Your gesture in my defense was appreciated. No, I wouldn't call it making up stuff. Those who do the same thing as I do around here are using deductive reasoning—floating a hypothesis and then seeing if it will be supportable or shot down with logic.
Some here are hypothsizing that the effects turned up by this stupid robot test are nothing more than the way Apple's predictive and heuristic touch sensor array is supposed to work. They are countering the simplistic assumptions of the test with a "made up" proposition, since no one really knows
Apple's design in detail. Does what they are suggesting stand or not? With an answer we are actually learning much more than the test intended to show, and more than the various anecdotes about finger flubs or sensor errors could tell us.
I've had to hypothesize a few scenarios about Tim Cook's "excuse" (the famous trade-offs) for not making larger retina screens on handheld devices. I suggested that he was for real, and it was simple logic that they couldn't say they were working on a breakthrough in technology that would allow for a retina iPad mini without tradeoffs. I thought it might be a screen breakthrough, but it turned out to be a new processor they were committed to. Right hypothesis, wrong details. I have a few other examples. Yeah, you have to construct hypotheses because people want to believe the most awful simplistic things.