There is no legitimate reason for it.
I think Microsoft has, in the past, been too heavy-handed with forcing updates, with the initial release of Windows 10 being the most egregious example. However, in this case, it's a relatively much smaller upgrade from one version of Windows 11 to another. The vast majority of consumers aren't going to notice a difference, and as far as people who might, presumably by now any businesses or power users who do not want this have measures in place to block it. Additionally, Microsoft now lets you roll back feature upgrades for I think 30 days.
As far as legitimate reasons, I would say moving users from an unsupported, unpatched release of the software to a patched release of the software is a valid reason.
All this will do is force tens of thousands more tons of e-waste into landfills as people chuck perfectly good systems because they've been conditioned to be afraid their machines will collapse if they're not on the latest and greatest pile of shit coming from Microsoft.
Microsoft does do things that would generate e-waste. Automatic upgrades are not one of those things. A much better example of Microsoft generating unnecessary e-waste is the arbitrary requirement for Windows 11 of an 8th generation or newer Intel processor (or AMD equivalent) despite the fact that the OS works just fine without this hardware. They can't even say it's about TPM 2.0 because that's a separate requirement entirely that is tracked on its own; you can even get add-in cards that will provide TPM 2.0 on older systems.
People are plenty likely to abandon hardware that Microsoft says is unsupported; nobody's going to abandon hardware because they didn't receive an upgrade from Windows 11 22H2 to 23H2. Your average consumer doesn't even know what those things mean.
As for the general sentiment from your post and other replies to it that it's completely fine to use unpatched Windows, or that "hackers will get in anyway," a sufficiently determined thief will get into your house even through a locked door, that doesn't mean you should leave your doors open when you leave. Two of the most fundamental aspects of computer security are (a) understanding the kinds of threats you will face given your profile, and (b) minimizing threats you are likely to face by reducing relevant attack surface.
When talking about your average consumer, the vast majority of threats they will face are going to be drive-by attacks from things like malicious ads and malicious documents, these days usually with the end goal of scraping valuable information like credentials and credit cards or installing some kind of crypto miner. These are typically very low effort programs and target low-hanging fruit to get the most people with the least effort. This means targeting recently disclosed exploits that are well-documented, easy to reproduce, and have a high severity factor but that many people haven't patched yet. Staying on top of patching will outright block many of these threats simply because the exploits they use have already been patched on your system. It's not a silver bullet in and of itself, but it's one aspect of good security.
For your typical consumer, I'd say the important things to push are install an adblocker, keep your browser up to date, keep your OS (which probably includes Defender) up to date, and basic common-sense stuff like don't run untrusted files. So yeah, I don't think patching is a joke here, even for end users, any more than I think locking your door is a joke just because a determined thief can get through it anyway. It's not about blocking all threats, it's about a comprehensive plan for blocking most of the most likely threats.
Wi-Fi 7 also uses a clever new feature called Multi-Link Operation (MLO) that lets devices connect to two bands at the same time, leading to better signal strength and bandwidth.
That could be useful, if only for the signal strength. At this point, ISPs near me don't offer sufficient speeds for bandwidth increases to really matter all that much. Signal integrity and resiliency improvements are always nice, though.
FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis