> You've now used this fallacious analogy twice.

It's not fallacious, it focuses the issue, and in this particular case shows that it's not about "binary thinking" it's about risk.

And my original puzzlement continues. At what level of risk, does limiting the number of devices on board to 500 or even more, actually accomplish anything?

If they're not all that dangerous, then why limit them at all? And if they're dangerous enough to limit at all, why in God's blue sky, would you allow that many of them on a plane?

We don't limit people to 1 knife per person, even though knives have utility to a lot of people who carry one with them every day.