I dispute this > This was relevant on typewriters, but of course is not relevant on computers, which have no inked bits to jam. You are saying that QWERTY is

I dispute this > This was relevant on typewriters, but of course is not relevant on computers, which have no inked bits to jam. You are saying that QWERTY is inferior to other potential layouts. You are concluding that since QWERTY was made for jams and we don't have jams we can have better layouts, but the other layouts have not shown to be of any measurable benefit.