Why are symbolic links more common than hard links in Unix/Linux?

I frequently find myself googling the difference between symbolic links and hard links. Each time, I conclude that hard links seem superior in most use cases, especially when Linux is my daily driver. However, I find this conclusion unsatisfactory because almost every tutorial, blog post, or Stack Overflow answer discussing links overwhelmingly recommends symbolic links instead. My understanding so far: - On a Unix system, a "**file**" is essentially an address pointing to data on disk. - A hard link allows multiple addresses to reference the same data, making it a powerful tool. For example, if I create a hard link to a file in ~/Documents, I can access the same data from ~/Desktop, and if I move the file from ~/Documents to ~/Images, the hard link still works seamlessly. This behavior reminds me of Windows shortcuts but without the fragility—hard links remain valid even after moving the original file. On the other hand, symbolic links break if the target file is moved, which seems like a significant drawback. The only major advantage of symlinks I’ve found is that they can span different filesystems, whereas hard links are restricted to the same filesystem. Given this, why are symbolic links the standard in most cases? What are the practical scenarios where symlinks are preferable over hard links?