The term "stable" is not meant to be used as a synonym for "reliable" when describing distros.

As others have said, “stable” and “unstable” have a different connotation in the FOSS world.

Rolling releases probably don’t have more software crashes than their stable counterparts, which is what you meant.

However, some use cases prefer that they are able to use the same config for a long time, and when software updates frequently, system administration can become a cat-and-mouse game of “What config broke this time?” That’s not to say rolling release is bad, but sometimes it’s like using a power drill instead of a screw driver.

Also, I definitely feel like a stable distro is more likely to survive a software update after not using the computer for a few months to a year. Granted, I’ve had a Debian Testing (rolling release) install that did survive an upgrade after a year of non-use, but I’ve also seen Arch VMs that broke after just a couple months of non-use, forcing me to reinstall.

It depends on the distribution. In example Manjaro was unstable for me, while EndeavourOS is stable for the most part. In fact, Manjaro was holding back packages and is less rolling release than EndeavourOS, and yet less stable (for me). :D

Maybe you're right. But arch is stable.