My issue with dynamic range is that one or two stops more isn't, generally, going to make the difference.
What is "the difference" though?
If there's a difference in the ability to recover shadows, there's a difference. Worrying about tiny details in every aspect of taking a photo, the framing, the composition the camera settings, etc, is what makes a great photo. You can argue that at a certain point a minor difference is not going to be that significant. But then again you can also argue that point all the way to the point where you just have a crap photo because you decided that XYZ didn't make enough of a difference to worry about.
So honestly I don't care if it's a stop or a fraction of a stop more dynamic range. It will allow my photos to be that much better. And note that I didn't say it will make them that much better, because of course it's all about what you as the photographer do with the camera that makes the photo. But ultimately the better the camera, the less constrained you are by what you can do with it.
Arguing over 1 stop or even less is ridiculous, we have more photographic dynamic range than we have ever had, if Ansel Adams could get the tonality he wanted with the equipment he had then we can do much much better. Very rarely is the dynamic range the limiting factor in capture, yes we can contrive scenarios where it all falls down, but generally we can make scenes work.
What Ansel Adams did was significant because of the time that he did it in and the way he pushed the level of technology he had at the time. And yes it was important and significant, but honestly anyone could take photos like him today because just about any camera made is more capable than what he was dealing with, and it's exponentially easier to carry out into the wilderness than the equipment he had to lug around. As you said, we can do much better than he even could, and we should, and we should continue pushing the limit of what our photographic technology can do today, and as far as landscapes go, that means being able to properly expose a very contrasty scene.
And in the situation I was talking about, I wasn't "contriving" some sort of theoretical situation just to try to trip up my camera. It was one of the most beautiful things I've ever taken photos of, and I was genuinely disappointed afterward when I got home and realized that I couldn't quite recover the shadows as much as I would have liked to.
Nothing is going to change until we go to 16 bit files and then we will get a maximum of 2 more stops, which in my opinion, is still not worth the effort as it still won't cover the shadowed mountain valley and cityscape in one capture, nor my interior with view scenario.
If incremental improvement is insignificant to you, then by all means, stop buying new gear for a decade, enjoy what you have, and come back in 2028 when cameras will be significantly improved enough for you to actually consider it worth the effort. But honestly I'm surprised that that's truly the way you feel if you're on this forum that's heavily devoted to discussing every tiny rumor or development of Canon's photographic technology.
I want the best that current technology can offer, because ultimately everything you take a photo of, you only get one chance at, and due to that I'd prefer the photos to be the best they possibly can be, even if the improvement is only one or two stops of DR.