I don't disagree, but this kind of goal post moving is how zero cost will turn into a buzzword down the line because it'll really mean zero incremental costs wh

I don't disagree, but this kind of goal post moving is how zero cost will turn into a buzzword down the line because it'll really mean zero incremental costs when referring to operations. Plus, zero incremental costs may only apply if you match the situation being presented. If not, you may have real costs associated with implementing obscurity. This evaluation of whether you will get zero incremental costs or not is a cost in itself. It's just a misappropriation of the term from zero cost abstractions and it bugs me, especially since it's being ported from compiler theory/engineering to operations, two things which rarely have anything to do with one-another. They'd be way better off coming up with "cost-effective obscurity" ideas, instead of calling this zero cost.