FWIW, I'm not saying we must have a perfect solution: I'm saying that we have to build systems which make the implicit failings of their imperfect solutions explicit. As an example, it is impossible to build a system which gives one person access without permitting that person to lend that access to others: we need to acknowledge that rather than pretend it's untrue.
Sure it is. Just take your computer, put it in a furnace, turn it to ash and bury it couple of feet in the ground. Now its attack surface is 0.
You would first have to verify the furnace and the "turn it to ash" process.
And the ash itself has to be perfectly random, otherwise someone could reverse the burn and reconstruct the computer.
See "perfect solution fallacy"
It's not a fallacy if you're responding to someone who says "we absolutely must have a perfect solution"
FWIW, I'm not saying we must have a perfect solution: I'm saying that we have to build systems which make the implicit failings of their imperfect solutions explicit. As an example, it is impossible to build a system which gives one person access without permitting that person to lend that access to others: we need to acknowledge that rather than pretend it's untrue.