Do you think it's worth using bleeding edge distros instead of having a sheltering system that decides what goes in or not with proper screening? Or is it futile anyway and any distro gives up to the pressure of using the latest packages? How would you describe the bleeding edge, and how would you describe stability? Which one do you prefer?

>>105984567 (OP)
my work machine is airgapped. so once i zero in on a work environment i lock it in.
i make a disk image and never touch it again

my internet facing machine ought to be up to date bc security and shit
never use bleeding edge because thats experimental versions unless they contain a feature you desperately need
thats using loonix 101

Kind of depends. Bleeding edge distros sometimes have issues with packages.
Also if you need anything from big corporations like amd rocm or you need to build something, the supported system is usually pretty old.

But stable systems have issues too if you need some unkown project from github because those people usually use some bleeding edge distro.

I use debian stable and run anything that doesn't work in it in chroot / docker.
You might also want to have some newer distro like the latest ubuntu lts for dual boot.

>>105984567 (OP)
I prefer working on a stable fixed lts distro (debian/devuan, alma/rocky, slackware/salix, etc...), and setting up a chrooted environment (debootstrap, podman, etc...,) with more bleeding edge libs if i need to.

if you've got a reasonable amount of time to get dirty and "debug" stuff then sure. otherwise stick to a stable release and spend your free time on something else instead.