If you want ergonomics, go for ProArc EM03 fingerball (and the Nulea / Sanwa variations, all MTE clones). If you want more buttons, go for the Elecom Huge. FWIW, I stopped using the Huge after getting the ProArc (much better ergonomics)
In general you'll be happier if less fxxk is given to someone else's opinion. I'm not sure how important "someone else" being a parent is, other then maybe the correlation with the time spent with them or the survival resources they had control over, etc.
Nowadays I'm mostly using a layout that I made based on the original Maltron layout as designed by Lillian Malt (where you put 'e' on a thumb key, and 's' on the vowel hand index home position) and only fall back to dvorak as a last resort (travel on a laptop etc.) It's more about reducing the use of bottom row mid/ring/pinkies than speed or other related statistics (the theory is that by restricting them to the top two rows, they stay longer in their more natural curvature, thereby reducing tendon stress). With 'e' on a thumb, you avoid the double stacking of the vowel cluster of most modern layouts, but still have the vowel hand index finger freed up for consonants, which then makes it easier to only have infrequent letters on non-index bottom row.
I typed dvorak at about the same speed as you, and got up to 110~120 on semimak when I tested it, before moving on. I have no doubt I could have gone faster by keeping at it (my problem was with the stuffy feeling of the 3-finger vowel cluster), so I think you'll have no problem exceeding your dvorak speed. During my test drive, I was able to switch back to fluent dvorak typing after perhaps an hour or two of acclimatization (fwiw, I mirrored the left/right hands on semimak, which eased the learning, but may have made frequent switch more difficult.) A different physical keyboard may help: I did find it easier to switch back on my Microsoft Natural, which is what I used for years with dvorak.
IIRC, Xah Lee in his review specifically mentioned that glove80 are better suited for smaller hands than KA360 as it feels more compact. Having a different pinky column curvature probably also helps. I'd also be interested to know if glove80 is factually more compact (in terms of e.g. key spacing).
Take a look at u/noneagoninf 's reviews here for more first hand experiences.
I agree with ya. I can hear it whenever I intentionally seek it out, even when it's relatively loud out there. I tend to think of it as some baseline intensity (at some extremely high frequency/frequensies I've tried but yet to pin down) my brain perceives, that gets washed out more as external stimuli become stronger. This is partly what prompted me to speak about a reference level of intensity distribution over frequency (and therefore a power spectrum if you will) in the other comment thread. Normal brains have a reference level that adapts to the environmental average. Those of us with tinnitus have some nasty spikes at high frequensies. "Hearing silence", I speculate, is more of a response to a changing reference level -- some of the responses will be the brain compensating for the change and thereby inducing acoustic (?) illusions reported in this work. A tinnitus brain will respond to a receding reference level by focusing again on those nasty frequency spikes.
Having read the NYT article (with the PNAS paper still not available through a certain hub), I think a useful analytical framework would perhaps be to think of silence as a negative space. E.g., take some background noise (this could be the environmental noise averaged over some time scale) at certain overall intensity as "zero" (or reference level), then complete silence will have the same frequency content as that background but with negative intensity. From there one can start talking about various forms of "partial silence" as different spectral compositions of negative intensity. I'd even posit that some of the illusions they discovered would work in a similar fashion with positive intensity boost as well (e.g.two disjoint boosts vs one sustained boost). It is probably more about the frequency content than the intensity relative to the reference level.
In fact this goes all the way back to Hamilton when he invented quaternion, in which i,j,k are used as basis vectors (which are generalizations of the imaginary i). Later Gibbs dropped the scalar component and gave us the modern vector.
LOL usability didn't occur to me somehow. Was totally immersed in the beauty of it 😍