Hmm..., I didn't get that from your first response. But thank you for clarifying!

Once you start getting into the territory of layering new tools/drivers/whatever on top, you’re reintroducing the statefulness that the atomicity was supposed to eliminate.

I agree with your sentiment overall, but with a lot of nuance. I'd rather formulate it purposely ambiguous as follows: Once you start getting into the territory of modifying stuff, you might reintroduce some of the statefulness that the paradigm was supposed to eliminate.

I am aware that this ambiguity invites clarity and elaboration. And therefore I'd like to offer my genuine apologies for not responding to said invitation. However, I hope that this excellently written blogpost suffices in conveying how systems can be both stateless and ever-mutable.