Add here a fact that specifications does not obligate manufacturer to actually test all watches with less than 100m WR. If it's less than 100m, it's enough to randomly test some examples from a whole batch. But if it's 100m and more, every single watch should be actually tested for WR. So it feels more secure I believe.

Nobody deserve any hate.

Wow, looks $150000 different

I agree with those who say that it's a matter of taste. I'm not a fan of patina myself, but I wouldn't call bronze or silver patina ugly, it's kind of cool. More on that, I find Tudor's idea to create watch case from silver quite unique and interesting. However silver tarnishing is different from bronze, maybe that's why some people don't like it.

No offense, that just seems awfully stupid.

I would argue that values judgements in this given form are offensive by default.

However, answering your question, I would say that some people are interested in timekeeping devices history/horology, and probably want to have something commemorating this history.

I can swim but live in the desert!! I just dont understand my interest in dive watches..

Diving watches are also dust protected. Nothing to do with with water pressure though, but kinda works.

It is indeed. With some modern touches like date window position.