I find "Web Core Vital" to be fairly useless (outside of trying appease Google.) I can make a page load slower and feel worse for anyone visiting the site...and

I find "Web Core Vital" to be fairly useless (outside of trying appease Google.) I can make a page load slower and feel worse for anyone visiting the site...and the "Core Vitals" score will increase. So, how is this about the user experience? You can inline all of your CSS to increase your score, but what about users that visit more than one page? Now they have larger payloads per page. Then at that point what is the point of rewarding all inlining, but then throwing a fit about not using a CDN with a long caching parameter? It's not consistent. Why not just use overall page size and ttfb instead of this nonsensical metric that isn't a great measurement, in my experience, of website performance/user experience; outside of keeping everyone guessing what Google might do next, what's the point? I also find it extremely ironic that many of Google's own products are complete failures on the metric. I've even found that you can trick the metric by essentially loading a blank page where a browser will feel the page is fully loaded, then having a delay that loads the page.