I was just supplying one reason for changing it, other people may just prefer some particular site or application in light mode versus dark (and vice versa) instead of managing multiple instances of the same thing like I am. Suppose you're editing documents and your word processor has dark mode, but you want it to always be in light mode. With the described control in the article you would have to change the behavior in the evening, specifically, to get it to stay in light mode permanently (or change your system settings to be opposite your normal settings, switch it to light, and then switch your system settings back).

There is no way any one with any common sense can think that this two-choice option (one is magic, one does what you would expect; which is which depends on time of day for many users) is better than a three-choice option where each choice does exactly what you'd expect.

But this change breaks functionality for some people, without correspondingly improving anything for others. So what's the point?

In my experience, software that is designed to work only for the most average user ends up feeling terrible for most everybody, because most people deviate from the average in one way or another, at one time or another.

It feels especially bad when the software makes assumptions about what the user wants, to the point of including a button that doesn't always do the same thing when pressed, and which doesn't even tell the user it doesn't always do the same thing when pressed.

Just look at all the complaints Microsoft gets for the way Windows constantly reverts or ignores user settings.

Or the way it feels to google a very specific set of search terms, only to receive back 20 completely irrelevant listicles that answer a statistically more likely question you didn't ask.