Everything in modern computing seems driven by performance graphs for software (and firmware) that is full of security vulns, the theory being that this is okay because mitigations can get applied later before (too many) users are permanently harmed. Ideally minimal fixes that fix each individual bug as they are found, as narrowly as possible, thus not moving the benchmarks to maintain maximum performance and vulnerability.

Your computer is designed for harm and performance, not your safety, at this time.

You may think hey that is unfair it is not designed for harm. But there are choices made every day to not make the system safer, so it is a design choice.

Would you be ok with a bridge that was designed to fall apart slowly with a plan to continually patch it after anything broke, because this cost your govt less money? And then parts of the bridge roadway would fall off at times, maybe while people were driving on it. They would quickly repair those within a few days with a “fast patch” and there would be articles praising them for acting quickly to protect drivers from the holes in the bridge. But would that not be designing for harm? Because there are other choices that would avoid that, which we see in bridge building. But that is how computers currently look from inside security teams.

https://www.cisa.gov/cisa-director-easterly-remarks-carnegie-mellon-university