Okay you say this but these tools are privately owned. What happens when one day the provider slams them with a 1000% price increase? They can either pay or go back to doctors who detect cancer even worse. It gives these AI companies undue influence and turns a tool into a crutch and an addiction which can be leveraged to drive up healthcare costs and punish providers who don't play ball perhaps resulting in deaths from doctors in systems that don't have access to the tool because they're in a payment dispute with it or they had it but stopped paying for it and patients may not know any of this.

This is a nightmare for human beings who have fought hard to grow smart, to be intelligent as a species and to have educated professionals who have learned to use their brains be instead trained by these machines to stop using their brains, to atrophy them, to become dependent on these systems and worse than before the moment they are removed.

It will be used to attack the wages of doctors and I guarantee that they won't be compensated with cheaper schooling (doctors need at least 6 years of university plus additional years in training before being able to practice on their own, it's an immense expense and burden in a time of rising costs and huge debt). Which will lead to shortages of doctors and they'll be replaced with AI and nurses not up to the task and we'll be told this is fine. Having access to a thinking human being may become a gated luxury that few insurance companies want to shell out for until after you've been evaluated by AI systems several times and only IF those systems deem it necessary. Some AI systems will make mistakes that kill patients and insurance companies will be fine with this as a quickly dead patient is usually cheaper than paying for months or years of treatments and/or surgeries so they'll have a perverse incentive to push patients towards those systems. Doctors take an oath not to do harm, not all take that as seriously as they should but usually there's some compassion there whereas a computer system would not care one bit if you're denied and unlike a doctor won't fight for you against the insurance companies.

Nvidia compatibility had been getting steadily worse on x.org for the four or five years prior to the switch to wayland. It is getting steadily better on wayland now and I would pick wayland from a stability point of view right now.

Sadly, that has not been my experience. I tried using wayland on several different computers with nvidia cards (yeah yeah I know, would not buy them again today), and the result was pretty terrible. Random crashes terrible. The same is not true with X. It is also not simply the case of the nvidia propriatary drivers being terrible (they are), because on one of the machines, I installed the open source driver instead (mostly because the proprietary driver would spin the fan full speed all the time, and I found no way to stop it from doing that).

This is true.

However, I think there is some hesitation from folks who actually rely on x11 and one thing Wayland and its projects are not great at is suggesting ways to bring apps into the Wayland "way" of doing things.

Projects like wayback are probably going to end up being the best approach to these: bring all the x11 apps forward into wayland, which buys time for devs to adapt or adjust or abandon.

Generally, I don't particularly care for one over the other. But I also use xfce, and I will continue to do so.

I have no compelling reason to move to Wayland yet, but I'm getting a bit concerned that this "thriving ecosystem", as you call it, will force me into a DE I don't want to use for a reason that isn't clear to me right now.

This urgency to move to Wayland that has surfaced in the last year or so is strange. Wayland has been around for more than 20 years, I don't get why this all has to happen in such a short time frame.

I never felt systemd as addressing any issues I personally had, so meh, I still don't use it and don't feel the need for it. Of. Course, this is only my personal choice. Good to have.

Maybe systemd fixed issues for other use cases, so there is that.

Wayland too, but the rel difference is that X has been an unmaintained mess for decades and was designed for different technology. Hard to adapt to modern issues like privacy, security and hardware acceleration. So Wayland is a good way forward, and still backward compatible which is a cool and needed feature too.

While systemd, after decades, I can still do without in all my use cases (personal use laptop, various servers, work workstations, and a largish work laboratory with a few mixed workstations and servers). Don't get me wrong, it's good to have. But also yo have choice.