The answer is simple: Linux falls behind Windows when it comes to hardware support and software compatibility.

And as usual for simple answers, it's dumb and assumptive and wrong.

The core issue is cost of switch: learning new things takes time and effort. This would still apply if Linux and Windows had equivalent hard/software support.

For contrast, consider language learning. No language is so hard you won't see a bunch of 6yos speaking it; and yet a lot of adult L2/L3+ learners fail to go past the basics.

The slippery slope of dual-booting

Dual boot is not a "slippery slope". It's simply paying that cost in instalments vs. paying it all at once.

And if the user is not willing to pay that price, they're likely to fail migrating even without dual boot. They'll instead struggle frenetically with Linux for a week, burn out, and say "I got shit to do with my computer, I'm not some basement dweller to waste time with this shit".

Some users may also believe that Linux is inherently more complex than Windows, so instead of even attempting to take a deep dive into the system, people will try to follow the path of least resistance, by making the transition less costly and less scary by providing a safety net of familiarity.

Emphasis mine. The author is being assumptive, again. About something they cannot reliably know: what others "believe".

This approach seems wise and therefore appealing because it reduces the perceived cost of switching, but in reality, it's a form of procrastination

Yeah, just like poor people "procrastinate" their debts. It's all laziness. /s

...I'm being cheeky to highlight something here: doing things slowly is not procrastination, as long as you do them.

And believe me

Stopped reading here. If your arguments don't hold merit on themselves, calling the reader gullible through a "chrust me lol lmao" won't change much.

If you want to encourage someone to migrate consider tutoring them. Just having someone patient to help you out is a godsend.