Ha, that's not the most inspirational ending.
I would have hoped that stability doesn't even need to be mentioned, considering that this is now one of the default images on AWS. I don't think anyone would choose this kernel if they thought there might be a higher chance of it crashing and taking down their server.
https://www.ubuntu.com/server/livepatch is a commercial service that can apply security patches to a running kernel.
* Disabled CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL to eliminate deadlocks
on some instance types
Each time I look at what the last stable Ubuntu release is, I feel like the years are rushing by too fast. I slowly drift further and further behind schedule, though it still doesn't seem a minute since 10.04 came out!
The idea of "LTS" is a stupid reversion of something better we already had - the idea that upgrades are always reliable.
Saying "LTS" for me sounds like "we have lost control over the upgrade process."
Of course I must add that updating from Ubuntu 14.04 to 16.04 went ok on all machines I have seen (servers and also desktop workstations) - this should not be surprising, but the expected default, then we do not need no "LTS" theater.
And at least I never do an upgrade anyway -- I always do a fresh install from one LTS to the next one on bare metal -- and simply recycle VMs in the cloud.
An Ubuntu LTS gets updates for 60 months. A non-LTS release gets updates for 9 months.
That being said, systemd is a larger change, but I just use a single script to start supervisord, then run all my stuff under that anyway.
(Though, it's worth noting that CentOS still does not have Python 3 support out of the box.)
What does it mean? I know that all t2.micro instances are CPU throttled (credits system)
Ubuntu 16.04 already supports the ixgbevf driver, I believe. 
I wish SUSE (SLES) also had a smoother / stable performance on AWS (e.g. recurring issues with their susecloud on aws repo).