The Verge⁠55%

Windows 11’s big patch Tuesday allows you to hold off on updates for longer ⁠58%

By Emma Roth⁠43%

7/14/2026, 9:32:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 51.5% saturation with 104 hits. Analysis detected 670 faulty-reasoning hits from 202 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (9,061 of 21,108 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.10% of the article peer group.

Microsoft just released a long list of improvements for Windows 11 as part of its bigger patch Tuesdays, and that includes the ability to pause updates indefinitely, as reported earlier by Windows Central. 
This option rolled out to Windows Insiders earlier this year, allowing you to hold off on updates for up to 35 days and repeatedly extend the deadline after that. 
It comes as part of Microsoft’s plan to revitalize Windows 11 with updates focused on addressing user complaints and improving performance. 
Microsoft patched a bunch of security issues with this update as well, which the company said we can expect to see more of in future releases as it uses AI to identify vulnerabilities. 
Last month, Microsoft previewed several other features arriving in this build (KB5101650) in an optional June update. 
That includes a new “Point-in-time restore” option, which can restore your PC, along with your apps, settings, and files, to a previous state. 
The update also adds some customization options to Widgets, a more precise magnification tool, and improved stability with certain Bluetooth devices. 
You can view the full list of changes on Microsoft’s website. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 4.7%The Verge: 3.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 2.2%The Verge: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 32.7%Emma Roth: 4.0%The Verge: 3.7%Availability Heuristic32.7%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 1.5%The Verge: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Emma Roth: 11.4%The Verge: 6.0%Framing Effect6.9%This article: 14.4%Emma Roth: 1.4%The Verge: 0.9%Loss Aversion14.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 1.4%The Verge: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.4%The Verge: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 49.0%Emma Roth: 7.3%The Verge: 4.0%Optimism Bias49.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.9%The Verge: 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Emma Roth: 8.0%The Verge: 9.4%Negativity Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 3.8%The Verge: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Emma Roth: 1.0%The Verge: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error10.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.4%The Verge: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.6%The Verge: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%Emma Roth: 3.0%The Verge: 2.9%Halo Effect21.8%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.4%Emma Roth: 2.6%The Verge: 1.8%Recency Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 1.2%The Verge: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.6%The Verge: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 43.1%Emma Roth: 8.4%The Verge: 4.0%Appeal to Authority43.1%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.6%The Verge: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.4%The Verge: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.4%Emma Roth: 3.4%The Verge: 6.7%Hasty Generalization10.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.9%The Verge: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 1.4%The Verge: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.5%The Verge: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 16.3%Emma Roth: 4.5%The Verge: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.3%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 3.3%The Verge: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 2.0%The Verge: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 4.3%The Verge: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.8%The Verge: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 51.5%Emma Roth: 5.6%The Verge: 2.5%Unattributed Quote51.5%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 2.2%The Verge: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 51.0%Emma Roth: 9.3%The Verge: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice51.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 1.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Emma Roth: 4.4%The Verge: 4.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.4%

202 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker35%attributed speech131writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageMicrosoft • 21 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 33 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Microsoft

100%flagged-word coverage
71 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+74.8 ptsWriter: 25.2%Microsoft: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.0 ptsWriter: 53.4%Microsoft: 46.5%46.5%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%Microsoft: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.