Better locks also increase the time to break them. More time == more chances to be disturbed and have to go away and also an incentive to move on to the next house, bike, etc. In the case of bicycles I also advice to lock them close to much better bikes with similar locks: chances are that the thief will invest those 30 seconds to break the lock of the better looking bike.

locks exist to prove unwanted entry more than they exist to prevent it. They prevent "casual" attackers as in they also prevent opportunistic attackers. They increase the level of premeditation necessary which in turn increases the risk for the attacker due to having much less of a sustainable defense.

ultimately, nearly everything can be destroyed in such a way as to gain whatever access to anything that you want.

A trustless society is a pipedream, but security theater creates an emphasis that limits plausible deniability. an attacker can no longer claim they targeted something they believed no one cared about, or that wasnt a big deal. For example, the level of theater involved in the TSA does not exist to catch every possible threat to aircraft. It exists so if anyone is dumb enough to smuggle a weapon through it and get caught then security can arguably gun them down on the spot. without the theater, the social contract is less obvious, and the plausible deniability for the attacker is stronger

This is probably less security theater and more not-getting-sued theater.

Yes but that anyone can open my car halfway across the world for the lulz is another matter.