It's a useful excercise, I think, in that it demonstrates that even the most hardened of codebases still has security bugs and it also serves as a cautionary tale for people who think they don't need multiple layers of defence..
Browsers the most hardened codebase? I nearly spilled my coffee ; )
Every single browsers out there (including Chrome) was designed with security as an after-thought.
As for me I browse the Web from Linux, using a throwaway user account which doesn't have Java installed. And that user account is itself "hardened" (e.g. no login shell, specific per user-id firewalling rules, etc.). At this point seen the state of insecurity the Web is in I'll probably go back to the VM route (a browser in a locked down separate user account, but itself running inside a KVM VM).
My definition of an hardened codebase would be something like OpenBSD or OpenSSH or esL4 (in esL4 the code has been verified (using formal provers) to be free of buffer overrun/overflow and whatnots).
What I don't like about your comment is that you consider the current situation to be "acceptable". You apparently do really believe current browsers are "hardened" and that there are people thinking like you is precisely part of the problem.
We can do much better than that.
For a start I'd love to read a rant from Theo de Raadt about what should be done to conceive more secure web browsers.