The statement is not a logical falsehood like 1 + 1 == 3, it's epistemological possible i.e. it's possible given you are not omniscient.
It's also not the case that 'nothing to be gleaned from it whatsoever' because:
A) there are other categorically similar statements (the category being "things developers would dislike") that are 'true'. The structure is still valid, ie: If "X, and X->Y then Y" is useful despite the fact that the second clause is irrelevant for "-X", because the same logical form is valid for other 'X's. It is presumed that the original, given example isn't supposed to represent a general falsehood.
put another way, the category of the statement is "changes developers would dislike, whether productive an non-productive" not "changes developers would dislike, that are also non-productive"
B) The given example ('X') is offered as one (of potentially many) influencing factors. I some cases, developer bias will be more, or less relevant, according to many factors. Its not possible to generalise by stating it is a falsehood; in some cases it will be true that developer bias is relevant. Again, the argument is qualitative, not quantitative (which would be difficult anyway).
The point is this: developer preference can influence their judgments. that is all.
saying "NFL players would be likely agree that sports cars helped their performance", is a similar way of saying the same thing, this time using NFL players and sports cars as a proxy for the same point.
If you can't give a single example supporting your claim, without instead resorting to confused mental gymnastics, there will be no merit to your case, however much you want it.
Share an example of where developer preference is orthogonal to developer productivity.
> saying "NFL players would be likely agree that sports cars helped their performance", is a similar way of saying the same thing, this time using NFL players and sports cars as a proxy for the same point.
Sure, and this is what a bonus is. People are given bonuses, in all fields. They wouldn't be if it didn't work.
Creationists claim the same thing.
I've explained well enough, it should be explicitly clear by now. If not, I find it unlikely you'll get it from further discussion.
If up was down, up would be down... But why is that point made? Sure, the statement based on the false premise is true, but there's nothing to be gleaned from it whatsoever, because it is never the case.
I accept the 2 step logic. I don't accept that it conveys any relevant information, because it is based on a premise that will never be true.
So why is "the point" made?