I had some print or poster on my wall in my childhood bedroom in Stockholm. For sure no original but reproductions were, as I remember it, readily available when I grew up.
My previous work provided laptop had a touchscreen and I miss it (for the record, the screen didn't fold 180). It was useful about once a week and I completely forgot about it the rest of the time.
Two primary use cases. Sitting on the train with the laptop in my actual lap it was often more convenient to reach for the screen instead of the trackpad, especially when I had someone sitting next to me on the right and I didn't want to stab them in their ribcage with my elbow so I could reach the trackpad. Second use case was often scrolling while reading, for some reason (phone-scrolling-indoctrination I guess) it felt natural to scroll using finger on screen.
The screen was never my primary pointing device but it was always an option. I think it was annoying a handful of times during the two years I had it, you point at something on the screen and end up clicking something.
I wonder about the the service used for the test, never heard of Rapidata but if it's like Amazons mechanical turk och other such services there might be a problem where the respondents simply didn't care about reading the question. If the objective for the respondents were simply "answer this question and get your benefit" vs "answer this question correctly to get your benefit" I have no problem accepting the 71.5% success rate. If getting it right had benefits and getting it wrong had none then I'm (slightly) worried.
He went backwards and started with just collecting an absurd amount of data. Later while talking to a researcher he could confirm years of research with a "simple" search in his database.
Not sure what the selection bias for this report is, perhaps that we care about code and believe in the value of static code analysis. Some interesting results in there either way.
reply