Of course, it is not about the fatality. It is an example to point out that a rarely used feature does not mean it is not important.

Another example is Google search remove the ability to perform exact text search such as "some phrase I found important to search". Maybe based on statistic, it was 20% of user using that, 80% of users does not rely on this feature. The logic is saying messing up 20% of user is not a problem. We are serving the 80% of users pretty great.

The current paradigm of UX design for providing "good default" to serve 80% of users and removing customization to screw 20% of advanced user makes me pretty helpless for using modern app. That's why I prefer cli nowadays for the flexibility of those software.

So now you have to rely on hardcoded heuristics based on the website’s domain name instead of just being able to choose. There are so many complicated heuristics to choose this hard-to-predict factor which it still gets wrong often. Removing the user’s control over this seems like a dreadful move.

> This is a feature that is really not often used, whose omission is not fatal, which often requires several tries to get right, and which is increasingly less useful thanks to gradual changes on the Web.

How often do you visit small indie websites in non-English languages? Because in my experience, as soon as you do, this is not a rare occurrence.

It breaks things without possibility of repair for a certain group of users. How is this not an issue?