For example, if people were getting hacked through remote desktop connection all the time you could have said that macOS has insensible defaults on the security or even existence of that feature.
However, with macOS that's not the case, in fact macOS has so sensible defaults that a lot of its users have no understanding of how it works and yet successfully use it for years with no issues and not gaining any understanding through the years.
The thing is so well designed that it's often dissed as a Starbucks machine, implying that it is used by people with a lot of money who don't know what they are doing while simultaneously is an extremely popular machine among creative professionals and engineers who also like coffee and know what they are doing.
Having options is nice, for example I dislike dark mode but I like the dark statusbar so I have a customisation for it. I dislike autosorting of the Spaces, so I disabled it. I prefer to simply tap and not have to press on the trackbar so I enabled it.
However I would't call the defaults not-sensible, it's just that I like some stuff differently from the defaults.
This is true of every popular operating system. Most people just adapt to the defaults regardless of the OS. There are millions of people who use windows or chrome os, or even ubuntu as-is out of the box. Whether or not people want to change the defaults just depends on what they're used to, if you used windows for years and switch to macOS it's very likely you're going to be inclined to modify certain defaults and the same is true in reverse.
Windows (and most Linux DEs like KDE) come with out of the box snapping windows to the four corners of the screen and to the left and right which is perfect for how most people use their laptops. Most people need two separate windows open side by side because most jobs are about synthesizing two separate flows of information in some way (research in one window while writing a document in another for example).
In mac you need to install an app to do this (Rectangle/Spectacle). Now, that's fine because you can click and drag the windows where you need them to be. But it wastes your time whereas the default in Linux/Windows saves your time. Sensibility over power.
Why would you call a script that actually changes things and doesn't actually show you a cheat sheet a "cheat sheet?"
That's true of any script. The fact that this one is well commented doesn't make it not a script.
A cheat sheet is something you hang on a wall and glance at every so often. A script is something you run to make changes to a system. You can't run a cheat sheet.
`#!/usr/bin/env bash` is a bit of a dead giveaway.
How can you tell if the series of dots you perceive as an LCD isn't just a photorealistic painting glued to the front of the screen?
How do know if your nervous system isn't just your bain in a vat connected to a matrix-esque electrochemical system?
How can you tell that anything you believe to be real isn't just a sophisticated simulation?
How can you tell if someone on hackernews isn't just making a specious argument just for the sake for arguing?
No. A cheat sheet is used as a reference to some subject and is for making it easy to look up things many times, over time. This is something you read through once, apply the full thing / parts and then forget about it. Pretty big difference.
macOS already has sensible defaults, that's how people who have no interest in dealing with computers can use their machines for years with no issues or servicing(unless a latte is spilled over the keyboard).
Then, you can customise behaviour for some specific things to fit your workflow.
The problem with diverging from defaults without putting much thought on it is that if you don't use it frequently you forget about it and when weird bugs happen it gets very hard to debug because a common issue with a straightforward solution may no longer apply to you and you have no idea why since you cannot make the connection because you don't remember changing it.