Now, I am sure there will be not a few disagreements that Mint should be the canonical beginner's choice. Honestly, fine, if there's a distro even more dead-simple it could be that, but bike-shedding won't help. We don't need to find the best distro for each user, we just need to give them a safe and comfortable starting point.
The problem is approaching these decisions as if there were final and irreversible decisions from which one answer is right and the other one is wrong followed by eternal doom. That's not the situation at all. Most of these decisions are similar and you can change your mind at any time.
Choosing a Linux distro / DE / whatever is not going a supermarket and choosing a bottle of water. It is choosing a bottling factory next to a sewer or bottled distilled water.
Of course, each of them possesses some advantage that Windows lacks out of the box, and sometimes at all.
This fragmentation is biggest barrier against the wide adaptation of Linux. I mean Debian and Ubuntu and Arch and openSUSE and Gentoo and.
I see Linux as an idea. Or more like an umbrella of ideas that several OSes share. Which sounds good on paper but not enough for end users and for the 99.99% doesn't make any difference. At all.
The only thing I personally I recommend to friends who switch to Linux is to use an immutable distro because those are the most breakage resistant ones. Fedora Kinoite or Silverblue are nice. But then we will have Ubuntu Core Desktop soon as well. And other distros. So the wheel of fragmentation rolls forward.