I am well aware of that, but, as I pointed out in my previous post, when X is ipso facto true, X is already affirmed as strongly and as unconditionally as is possible.
What groby_p wrote is this: "Physical controls aren't just ipso facto better, there's decades of studies to support that." In the first (independent) clause, groby_p asserts that physical controls are superior as a direct consequence of being physical controls (when one says something is 'not just' true, one is saying (ipso facto!) that it is true.) This, however, is empirically false - a badly-designed physical control can be at least as bad as a touch control (and for an example of how it could be dangerously worse than a touch control, take the fuel selector valve in the airplane John Denver crashed, which was difficult to operate in flight without accidentally applying full rudder.) [1]
The dependent clause claims that decades of studies justify the ipso facto claim, but they do not: they strongly support the somewhat lesser (but highly significant) claim that well-designed physical controls are superior (at least in most cases.) This is something I agree with, and nothing I have written suggests otherwise.
As I have pointed out ways in which some physical controls on today's cars are so poorly designed as to have the same significant problems as touch controls, I don't think this is a pedantic point.
What groby_p wrote is this: "Physical controls aren't just ipso facto better, there's decades of studies to support that." In the first (independent) clause, groby_p asserts that physical controls are superior as a direct consequence of being physical controls (when one says something is 'not just' true, one is saying (ipso facto!) that it is true.) This, however, is empirically false - a badly-designed physical control can be at least as bad as a touch control (and for an example of how it could be dangerously worse than a touch control, take the fuel selector valve in the airplane John Denver crashed, which was difficult to operate in flight without accidentally applying full rudder.) [1]
The dependent clause claims that decades of studies justify the ipso facto claim, but they do not: they strongly support the somewhat lesser (but highly significant) claim that well-designed physical controls are superior (at least in most cases.) This is something I agree with, and nothing I have written suggests otherwise.
As I have pointed out ways in which some physical controls on today's cars are so poorly designed as to have the same significant problems as touch controls, I don't think this is a pedantic point.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Denver#Death