It's indicative of iOS as a whole, and it's disappointing. At one point I thought Apple were moving away from that by giving users a bit more control, but it feels like one step forward, two large steps back. Or, if you prefer, monkey paw.

You want a full app list and to have greater customisation of Home Screen with widgets? Okay, but you get app folders that are absolutely not under your control. Not only will apps sort into folders you don't want them to be in with no override, but we will also move the folders so you don't even get a chance to have muscle memory for the bad decisions made for you.

I am ultimately happy with my XR, but this may well be my last iPhone as well as my first.

That's a good point. Really it's a comparison of public profiles, and that's not exactly the gold standard of usable information. I imagine a certain amount is also gleaned from Mein Kampf, and an elected figure is inherently more public than royalty. Hitler put himself on display, and I imagine Leopold wasn't quite so interested in that.

I didn't know that about Hitler being awkward and dull, that's interesting.

There seem to be mixed opinions on what redeeming qualities are, and even this page contradicts itself by following its definition with usage examples that do not completely redeem a person. The examples show insufficiently redeeming qualities still being redeeming qualities, and I think whether or not that counts is what it comes down to.

I've always understood redeeming qualities to be positive traits, not necessarily ones that completely redeem. Things that shift the balance, if only the tiniest amount, from "bad" to "good". In this context, Adolf Hitler vs Leopold as people is the subject so I would think any positive attribute counts.

To circle back round to the original point of why I commented, we're talking about a race to the bottom where the usual contender for "Worst person ever" has slightly more in his favour than Leopold: the lesser known but in /u/Yardsale420's opinion arguably worse person. I would absolutely include your point of better intent, too. At least he thought he was doing something for the greater good in his twisted mind. Replies ignored everything and cherrypicked "Dogs mean Hitler was an upstanding citizen on balance", which is a gross misrepresentation even if you disagree with a definition.

A redeeming quality isn't something that completely negates all negative actions. It's merely a point in the "Good" column.

What made you think that the commenter was trying to convey that a love of animals counts as redemption for what he did? Even without a definition it's pretty easy to pick up the point being made.

Has that cat been playing Mega Man?