Elitist and I'm arguing against the flamboyant and expensive option that only exists to enrich the wealthy?

That rule breaking part of your comment aside, and since we're on a science adjacent page;

Thermal inertia isn't a bad thing, and most chefs utilize it during cooking explicitly. No chef, on earth, in any professional kitchen, leaves a pan on a burner and just turns off the burner. None of them. If you need heat to stop building, you remove the food from the pan. If you just need the inertia from the pan's material, you move it to a dead burner. All stoves have thermal inertia. Even gas stoves. No stove on earth stops transferring heat immediately. That's not how thermodynamics works.

Gas 'appears' to change temperature faster because the range of heat is higher, since it is so much less efficient. The typical gas stove can output 1300c at it's max (usually largest burner on a four burner stove). An electric, properly working, should never get above 900c. No food on earth is edible for any known lifeform once it has reached 300c, even when cooled down after. So yes, you can make a pan hotter faster by subjecting it to nearly enough heat to melt iron, but you won't be cooling it down realistically any faster if you go up to that point.

This paired with the lower amount of control over temperature for nearly all gas stoves results in less efficiency every where. Actual chefs use predictable heat. Anyone pretending gas is better in anyway is the same type of person that still believes they can switch gears faster in a manual car or that its cheaper to just take your shoes down to a cobbler to get new soles.