> And I stated that you're wrong.

And I countered every one of your arguments, and you never responded to any of them. Your statement means literally nothing.

> Don't deny the experience of other people, it is as real as yours.

It's an extremely well-known fact of human psychology that human experience and subjective perception are extremely skewed and unreliable. I encourage you to peruse the list of cognitive biases on Wikipedia[1] as you clearly aren't familiar with them.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter that the experience of other humans is as real as mine, because we're not discussing something subjective like what flavor of ice cream tastes best - we're discussing objective topics - namely, efficiency and ergonomics.

> It is optimal for me

It is not optimal for you. Your subjective perception is not an indicator of optimality, which is an objective measurement.

> being able to fit more stuff on screen is harmful

False. Having a larger screen does not require you to put more stuff on it, and allows your eyes and brain to not work as hard to see things than on a tiny screen.

> To take it to extreme, some people would drug themselves to be more efficient in short term, so what?

I don't see how that's relevant? I neither said nor implied that anyone should pursue maximum efficiency at the cost of their own health, and that's not related to anything we've discussed so far. I'm just stating that phones are both less efficient and less healthy for you than desktops - that's it.

> productive (or efficient if you like) because I can do it anywhere

You're substituting your own definition of "efficient" for mine, the one we were originally using. Bad form.

The definition of "efficient" being used in this comment thread is, roughly, "work done per unit time":

> Things like "writing PHP/Python programs" and "document editing", while things that you can do on a pocket-sized laptop, are much better to do on a real laptop or desktop. A tiny PC will strain your eyes, decrease your reading, typing and interaction speed, hurt your neck, and react slowly relative to a full computer - regardless of whether you're using a soft-keyboard or a physical (but tiny) hardware keyboard.

...and for that definition, no, you will not be more productive "on the go" with your tiny phone than I will be at my desktop with my multi-monitor setup and full-sized mechanical keyboard.

If you want to use your own definition, find someplace where it's relevant.

> because fresh air, improved blood flow, and everything else helps me maintain the health that underlies that whole efficiency business you are discussing

Is there some law of physics that prevents me from standing up from my normal desk to get up and walk outside, or even set up a treadmill desk outside with my desktop? No? Then why are you bringing it up?

Regardless, the claim that those things will somehow overcome a massive difference in CPU performance, productivity software, screen real estate, and input mechanisms is somewhere between "absurd" and "insane". I know people that have lived horribly unhealthy lives for decades and can still easily out-perform someone on a phone. (I shouldn't have to say this, but apparently I do: I'm not advocating for this, merely pointing out that your claim isn't backed by reality)

Your comment is composed entirely of ridiculous claims, denials of basic mechanics of human cognition, and logical fallacies. Notably missing from it are responses to the points that I made.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Egoce...