Let's take cars. Is it "simple" to have one tablet on the dashboard for all controls? Or having physical buttons for commonly used functions is actually the "simple" option?
The simple option is no dashboard at all. The AC can be set at the service center.
There are two people involved in this scenario: the car driver and the car manufacturer. For the car driver, physical buttons are simpler (less cognitive load and safer to operate). For the car manufacturer, a single tablet is simpler (less manufacturing complexity and cheaper).
EDIT. I forgot with the Right to Repair issue, there is a third person, the neighborhood general mechanic. With physical controls, the mechanic is more likely to be able to repair the broken switch/electrical relay. With the tablet, the mechanic cannot.
You are probably already aware of this excellent talk that discusses exactly the points you made: Simple Made Easy by Rich Hickey. I assume this has already been linked 30 times in response to this article but here it is again:
This is also evident in the extremely overused phrase "simple yet powerful" that software libraries/tools/etc use when pitching themselves. Everyone apparently thinks their own inventions are Simple Yet Powerful.
https://github.com/search?q=%22simple+yet+powerful%22&type=C...
The post isn't observing a lack of desire for simplicity, they're observing a very common case where people evaluate "simple" relative to their own familiarity with tools or techniques rather than a comparison of perceiver-independent properties of the tools and techniques vs their alternatives.