Except that in this case, the possibility of something like this probably is worth it, because system vulnerabilities are solvable problems, while ignoring the ability to improve system efficiency is a static stance. A lot of things have driven up the price of groceries since that time. You mention "comparable or lower inflation adjusted prices", but this hides the fact that the inflation adjusted basket of groceries in the US is near inflation (105% vs a baseline of 94%), while the input costs to that supply chain (like labor, and diesel) have gone up faster. The efficiency isn't doing nothing, grocery prices would almost definitely be higher without it.

▲

EQYV 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> because system vulnerabilities are solvable problems

If only…

	▲	karahime 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's why I spoke of them in the plural. Obviously the possibility of a system hack (presumably) won't ever completely go away, but individual vulnerabilities as they appear in specific systems are usually tractable problems, especially if you narrow it to things that one wants solved rather than all possible vulnerabilities regardless of severity or accessibility.

▲

DemocracyFTW2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> system vulnerabilities are solvable problems

Which apparently why after >2000yrs of effort from both sides we now, finally!, have locks that no lockpicker can compromise.

	▲	TeMPOraL 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's not what "vulnerabilities are solvable problems" means, except maybe for cybersecurity maximalists who believe that, "bro, add passkeys, and just one more thing, attestation, and W^X, and ..., and there will never be vulnerabilities". Vulnerabilities will always exist. Systems will always be hackable. You solve the problem by patching what you can, and cleaning up after what gets exploited, if and when it gets exploited.

▲

pessimizer 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the inflation adjusted basket of groceries in the US is near inflation

You must not mean what you have said here. If so, you are double-dipping.