Yes, I do and that is why I am very careful when using such an expression. I understand that this language should be used for extreme cases. Software and it's use cases can be complex and in some situations it is hard to see what is right and what is not.

This is exactly why I used this language in this case: because it is just so blatanly obvious that this change is something they have done for whatever other reason (perhaps to make their life easier?), but not to care about its users. This is not even a new feature, this is something that has already worked and a lot of users were depending on. They are literally breaking many setups and are forcing the users to expend time and resources to immediately (was there even a warning) come up with other solutions and re-create their configuration.

I think that if they cared even a little bit, with whatever other reasons they had for this change, they could easily make it an option with a sane default, instead of a locked functionality.