In the very strict interpretation probably nothing is unhackable, just not hacked yet. But one should also be pragmatic about what "unhackable" means in context. Without the power of hindsight, a consumer device that stayed unhacked for ~13 years can be reasonably called unhackable during this time.

Calling something 'unhackable' because it survived 13 years is like calling a safe uncrackable because nobody showed up with the right tools. Time isn't proof.

Most hacks are about cost, not possibility, and the economics for attacking consoles change when resale value, nostalgia, tooling, or side projects make the upside worth the work. People overestimate the "nobody succeeded" part and underestimate the "nobody cared enough yet" part.

We don't need to contribute to word inflation. There's "really hard," there's "nearly impossible," there's even "impossible – as far as we know." I don't think it shows a lack of pragmatism to assume a technological claim, made by a technology company, should't be taken at face value. On the contrary, I'd advise more pragmatism to anyone failing to disregard an "unhackable" claim made by Microsoft specially even after fixnum years without known exploits.

I think it's like calling a ship "unsinkable". Yes, you engineered it to not sink, in accordance with strict maritime standards no doubt, but just don't call it unsinkable. If you call it unsinkable you're just begging for a century of snickering at your hubris.