You missed the very true point they made about overstated vulnerabilities. The odds of actually having your data compromised due to not updating for a few weeks or even months, is low. Particularly if your browsing and computer usage doesn't involve downloading dodgy software and browsing to shady unfamiliar websites, and you're at least half aware of sensible computer use, password and login use.
Poor analogy, and typical of the deferred-update paranoia crowd, thinking the worst and feeling exposed because Microsoft says you are in "critical danger".
A better analogy: You should keep your bicycle helmet on in the shower due to the slippery tiles and statistics of shower-related head injuries.
Or this...
Believe it or not, when you leave home without your umbrella, it may not rain. You know this, but you take your umbrella anyway. I choose not to.
The analogy was more than apt: a car crash is devastating, as is losing your identity, it's more likely than people tend to think, and the cost of protecting yourself against this devastating thing is relatively low.
If anything, the umbrella analogy wasn't great, because getting wet is a consequence of forgetting your umbrella, and that's far from as devastating as having your identity stolen. Further, you getting wet doesn't create a negative network effect like having your computer hacked does by adding your computer to a nefarious botnet.
This isn't Reddit, you can agree that the comparison was solid, but that the conclusion was still wrong. No need to go into Internet argument mode; we can have a discussion. For example, your helmet analogy in the bathtub is a decent one, except for the fact that it costs way more than running an update does to keep you safe.
Are you critically vulnerable all the time? No. Are you better equipped than Microsoft to judge which updates are important and which aren't? No. It's, as I said, the definition of hubris to think otherwise.
If you don't like how Windows does updates, don't use Windows -- lots of other great options.
Besides, the cost is absurdly low to keep yourself safe. If you're making the choice to run an un-updated Windows machine that's connected to the Internet, you are driving without a seatbelt, and not only are you literally risking your own livelihood, but you're also putting others at risk.
Try disengaging "worst case scenario" mode. You argument is hinged on seat belt catastrophe, loss of livelihood, identity theft, botnets, and general worst case computer doom.
Losing your livelihood because you didn't update Windows in a timely manner? That's beyond a joke. Besides, Anti-virus software would do a better job of preventing these worst case events.
The reason people have their identities stolen or computers hacked is mainly because of human error. People open attachments; people fail to identify scam emails and start engaging with criminals; people enter information willingly on websites they shouldn't, people put USB drives they find on the ground into their computers; people do dumb things and no "critical security update" is going to stop that.
Yes, forgetting your umbrella results in getting wet. Running with your logic, we need to extend the analogy. The rain gets on your watch causing it to malfunction and tells the wrong time, so you miss your train. You turn up late to the interview, you don't get the job, you can't pay the rent, you get kicked out, you're now homeless and living on the street. Really should have taken that umbrella.
It's not a joke, ransomware for example is real, and it's a huge problem. If you know anything about security you know that ransomware is on the rise and it's getting worse each year.
Malware infecting an insecure computer is not a "worst case scenario", this happens to millions of computers each year.
"Only" 6 million car accidents happen per year in the US, even though there were ~10 billion car trips over that same set of people and area, which makes the incidence rate 0.06%, so why bother with a seatbelt? It's "beyond a joke" to think you're going to get into an accident today!
This isn't a debate; keeping your system up to date is, by far, the best way to stay safe from a real threat. You can pretend it's not there all you want, but the rest of us are going to take care, and would appreciate if you didn't contribute to the sea of botnets. You make everyone less safe.
Be advised that you don't get to decide on whether this is or isn't a debate. You are attempting to re-frame the debate to suit your precarious position.
This debate as specified in the parent discussions, is about Microsoft enforcing updates on people without choice. This causes annoyance and even loss of work. The top comment describes Windows as an "an update engine that will sometimes also do computation for you". This is a significant and legitimate criticism that trumps your arm-flailing about malware (which as I said would be better defended with virus protection).
As the parent poster said, many of the vulnerabilities discovered are exploitable only locally, or under very specific and rare circumstances, yet are still flagged as "critical" and bundled with user interface updates.
Then you rode in on your horse, citing car accidents and seat belts, which really doesn't help in the context of having control over when system updates are performed. Nobody said "never update". It's about control over when those updates happen.
> ...but the rest of us are going to take care, and would appreciate if you didn't contribute to...
You're having a hard enough time speaking for yourself, please don't branch out to speaking for others.
