I don't have any experience with Ada, and I don't intend to refute your points. Nor do I have oodles of experience with either Rust or Go. However, as I see it, the problem with our current language ecosystem isn't "we lack a safe, fast, low-level language in which to implement things"; as you've pointed out, we've long had Ada. Instead, the problem is "people are using C++ to laboriously construct applications that, while not safety-critical, still require a high degree of reliability". This is a social problem rather than a technical one, and it probably has more to do with path dependence and resistance to unfamiliarity than with the technical merits of the modern iterations of either language.
In a perfect world, perhaps we'd be using Ada for all tasks that currently require C++. However, the fact that we're still using C++ over Ada suggests to me that there is still room for new languages in this area. I agree that it's sad to see so much redundancy and duplication of effort. But if the end result of all of this is that future applications are written in a more reliable language, isn't that still a net win for society, regardless of what that language is?
In a perfect world, perhaps we'd be using Ada for all tasks that currently require C++. However, the fact that we're still using C++ over Ada suggests to me that there is still room for new languages in this area. I agree that it's sad to see so much redundancy and duplication of effort. But if the end result of all of this is that future applications are written in a more reliable language, isn't that still a net win for society, regardless of what that language is?