> However, when pinning, when one of your static dependencies is broken due to a change outside your control (e.g. hardware, operating system, security issue making it unusable, or something else), the user's only recourse is to call the developer to fix the software.

In practice, this happens so infrequently it can be ignored as a risk. (When it does happen, users generally don't expect the software to continue to work.)

> dynamic linking has at least one extra advantage...

You don't seem to be acknowledging the downside risk to dynamic linking which motivates the discussion in the first place. An update to a dynamically linked dependency which breaks my delivered artifact is an extremely common event in practice.