Touchscreen keyboards are (an adaptation for typing not an exaptation) there's an option to show/hide onscreen keyboard so if the screen has something possibly preferable to offer in a keyboardless state it isn't the best tool for doing what the keyboard does.

If showing the onscreen (touchscreen) keyboard is preferable to hiding the onscreen keyboard only when an offscreen keyboard is not available, then the former is not an improvement upon the latter. It's merely the best way we could come up with to reproduct the functionality of the keybosrd using what we had. We don't even know what keyboards do.

How would one go about replicating the function of the keyboard in a different tool?

how can each of the one words in my things to remember list have as much weight as longer sentences? mneumonic potency not proportionate to language length? over time the potence of single words diminishes and more words are needed to trigger all the meaning

Hoard (false advertiding, mediated media is providing definition then committing a falsehood against it, still while they hold the definition, meaning it is mutable and under their control, according to them (the medium).

Images (as in, images that are somehow memories, mental images, which can be either memories (that is, based on our personal experience of reality) or premonitions (that is, a mediated, counterfeit, artificial, imagined experience with the content of the image). A photo of my room won't match your artificially-created mental image of hoarding sourced from media because a (more genuine,) older definition of hoarding describes my habits than the definition of hoarding used by media. The visual aspects of the photographic definition being espoused by the media agent is not the verbal definition being espoused by the media agent. If the mental image uverruled, held more weight than, the photo, the disparity between the mental image and the definition of the word would have made it seem that the word was erroneously applied to the content of the photo, my room.

So does the photo override the mental image? Sure, photos evidence objective reality, mental images are personal and therefore subjective. The viewer's hoarding hueristic is adjuted, not to expand the definition of hoarding to include the older meaning correctly applied to my room, but to expand the applications of the stymied mediated definition to include my room all the same.

Can we learn to accept that photos aren't real? Or is the brain too impressed by visuality to fully understnd what it means for photos to be weightless and to assign criteria for assessing the meaning of photos based on something beyond visuality, something like definition, message, imbued meaning, context, published media* we know this cause the visual doesn't hold an inherrently correct meaning  

Use of the phrases "Which is to say" and "In other words" demonstrates that words are not so good for conveying ideas. Word : Idea is not a 1:1 perfect match or translation, and this is true of single words (hoard means different things to different people) as well as combinations of words. Which is to say, the absence of a 1:1 meaning : idea ratio exists for any ideas (single words as well as combinations of words) that can be understood differently as words in the listener's head vs. words other people (speakers) chose within another (the other/speaker's own) context. We're all just trajectories of infinite contexts.

*Don't confuse signifier and signified: the published medium can't be the criterion for assessing the meaninig of the photo in cases when the visual image can't be trusted, the published medium is only the signifier, ony the package on the outside with the word which is itself a vessel for meaning on the inside. If a photo does not require in order to retaintain its meaning publishing in a particular medium then the meaning does not rely on the published medium.

Therefore the nature of its published medium will never reveal a photo's unchangeable/natural (core/base) meaning, only the changeable meaning. medium = person (trajectory, consciousness, or the momentary context of a conscious trajectory)

When we stop trusting each other's contexts to define a word for us, we'll look for the true meaning, which will not necessarily be the most popular current meaning, do the original meaning is used for purity and clarity. The entolmological definition is a base point against which we can measure the impact of context (person) on the meaning. The way we use a word (the way we contextually apply a word's definition) can evolve, adapt, get better over time, the definition of the word can not evolve.

Academia will skip over (exclude) the most subjective of the new words admitted into the OED, eventually come to stop using updated versions of dictionaries, and  and use entomologies

A satire or distopian fiction or whatever this group is- 1984, brave new world, handmaid's tail- isn't fction it's just recontextualizing ideas that already exist in order to create additionl meanings for those ideas through juxtaposition. Intent is responsible for the distinction between creative fiction and distopian/satirical fiction.  Non-non-fiction writing is either creative (fictional) or it has the intent to create new meaning through juxtaposition. And the distinction between fiction and nonfiction gives no indication of the author's intent. So a second destinction must be added between genres of writing, including satires and so-called "dystopian fiction", that define the unchangeable meaning of existing (non-fiction, believed) ideas by proving algabreically the extent of an alternative changeable meaning, and non-non-fiction.
Maybe author's intent to create an algabreic equation isn't necessary. Is it able to be used as an algabreic equation pertinent to held beliefs, pertinent to existing/true/non-fiction information? If so, it's non-non-fiction, because it is defining non-fiction ideas, and so must exist on the same plane as the non-fiction work it redefines.
"and so" = and resultantly, and for that reason
"and therefore" = by those means

To juxtapose = to define the difference between a meaning (signified) and information (signifier)

A juxtaposition = an algabreic equation assembled in order to (yes, teleogically) define the extent of the impact of informtion's context on its meaning.
To change the changeable meaning of that information to reveal it's unchangeable meaning.
Without two points of reference, we don't have a value for the extent of either type of meaning, and we can't distinguish changable meaning from unchangeable meaning.
The changeable meaning must be changed while the unchangeable meaning remains unchanged (= a corrrect sattire that defines the line between the changeable meaning and unchangeable meaning and in doing so assigns relative value to the extents of each.
Segregating, with algebra, an idea's unchangeable meaning gives outside boundaries around the contents of the idea's unchangeable meaning but is not an inside boundary guarding a specific definition.
A more thorough and correct (not thorough but spot-on, a satire that works smarter but not necessarily harder than the previous most precise survey/definition of unchangeable meaning) wrangler of unchangeable meaning (eg a satire or a work of dystopian fiction) can diminidh unchangeable meaning and push the unchangeable meaning's outside boundary further inside it. Perhaps the satire doesn't exist yet. Perhaps it exists but you haven't seen it. The unchangeable meaning can be eroded (changed, outer boundary pushed in) by an equation that defines an alternative meaning for all or part of the unchangeable meaning. If it's changeable by means of replacement with an alternative, it's not unchangeable, or an always-true true.

I(Information) + C1 (context or presentation 1) = UM (unchangeable meaning) + MA (changeable meaning a)

What is the

I (Information) + C2 (context or presentation 2) = UM (unchangeable meaning) + MB (changeable meaning b)

satires and dystopian fictions reveal truths and they are non-non-fiction. Adding a distinction between two types of non-non-fiction: 1. fiction, and 2. work that redefines non-fiction, creates three categories: works of non-fiction (works of truth), works that provide alternative meanings to (non-fiction) truths, and fiction. How can it be fiction if it restructures meanings used in non-fiction?
Yeah it's not the author's teleological intent that estabishes whether a written work is creative fiction or a presentation of/vehicle for an alternative reading of non-fiction. Not intent, rather the ability to be converted into an algebraic certainty that presents alternative meanings of non-fiction.

if i think i understand the method used to make it and i value mastering that method then i think it is good/ done well/ made well because i have a congratulatory self-association with it due to my unsubstantiated (possibly-incorrect) understanding of the method. My context is my interest in and understanding of the method. A different context might not care about how it is done and might yield the opinion that it is bad. The role of context in subjective opinions: changing context yields changed opinions on methodological quality (that is, the quality of output produced by the methods) while method remains unchanged.