Calm down, I saw the image just before reading this thread and found it both amusing and appropriate and was reasonably sure nobody would take real offence.

As it happens I find the psychology behind things like this extremely interesting. To see how much even a relatively small change in the user interface of a service like facebook can impact people is deeply interesting. The fact that it even seems to impact people in a technologically focused forum, where you'd expect the most flexibility in adapting, only emphasises the point.

It leads to interesting questions about how much you can change in a piece of software before the negative impact is greater even than actual measured benefits. You see this in things like the backlash against the Ribbon UI and even the Metro UI. Do the complaints originate from genuinely measurable metrics or is it a purely psychological response to change. If it is, how much can we truly change an interface to benefit users before such a response kicks in and negatively effects users experience?

It is particularly curious when it comes to the web, where we are constantly being told that it would be better if browsers were revised often, allowing web developers to embrace newer technologies quicker. Would that actually benefit users or does their aversion to change actually mean we'd be better with the slower release cycles that corporate networks have preferred for years?