> The problem is that LTS proponents pretend that those costs disappear when in reality you are actually paying them as a huge sum every once in a while and that sum is usually much, much higher thanks to something comparable to interest (also compare to the technical debt analogy) than the actual small costs of frequent change.

I disagree.

Each update brings with it a fixed cost/overhead of re-validating your system/workflow. Doesn't matter if there are 1000 changes or just 10 -- you still have to pay that fixed cost, re-integrate, and test.

Yes, there are ways of reducing that overhead (ie automation), but those also come with their own implementation and validation costs. Like everything else, there's a cost/benefit curve in play, but in practice it's often *much* cheaper to do fewer larger updates than more frequent smaller ones,

FYI: My last two $dayjobs were in very heavily regulated spaces, with legally mandated support lifecycles that end at least a decade after the final unit was sold.. and that's after 5 years of development+certification before the first unit ever ships.

"When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the airplane, only then you can go flying." -- Donald Wills Douglas