This "senior technology reporter" doesn't understand the GOMS fundamentals of a television remote.
GOMS only applies to skilled users. It does not work for beginners or intermediates for errors may occur which can alter the data. Also the model doesn't apply to learning the system or a user using the system after a longer time of not using it. Another big disadvantage is the lack of account for errors, even skilled users make errors but GOMS does not account for errors. Mental workload is not addressed in the model, making this an unpredictable variable. The same applies to fatigue. GOMS only addresses the usability of a task on a system, it does not address its functionality.
The comment is taking a swipe that the disappointment here is the reporter's lack of grasp of why the remote control is designed the way it is when they complain about it. The downvotes are likely that the comment was made in a relatively low effort/attack-ish way rather than discussing why they think that.
I should've offered more explanation in my, regrettably, "snipe-ish" earlier post. It was wrong not to do so.
I was, and still am, frustrated that someone whose bio indicates a decade of consumer tech review experience doesn't understand modern OEM TV remote design isn't about being GOMS-efficient.
Honestly, "TV" remote GOMS usability probably peaked with the TiVO.
Modern OEM remotes attempt to derive slivers of software revenue from these commodity and retail loss-leading hardware products by explicitly injecting less-efficient workflows into common use cases.
This analysis was done (poorly) at the beginning of the article, but the the writer doesn't connect the obvious dots wrt to removal of the "Input" button.