now please translate it into non-marketing words, please.
He says Rust is on the top safe (vertical), but not at the bottom, because the bottom isn't fully proven.
He also says Zig is horizontally safe -> there is unsafe code on any layer, but also safe code.
Also, it doesn't seem like there is something like "unsafe" for Zig. How can you say anything is safe then?
So Zig has one feature that makes it harder (impossible?) to write broken code than with Rust in UNSAFE code.
How does this bring anything to the table besides eloquently dismiss Rusts safety guarantees? E.g. allowing to state libraries to only have safe code in them>
Afaik Rust let's you fully use the HW as well (and as much as possible within safe code).
The safety guarantees don't come for free. There are tradeoffs. That should be clear from the fact that Rust as a language is still changing, i.e. relaxing ownership rules and adding new mechanisms to the type system. If there were no problems, then there would be no language changes necessary.
Examples of people writing Rust code and hitting problems of expressiveness and performance:
A common tech-bro fallacy. We understand exactly what is happening at the base level of a statistics package. We can point to the specific instructions it is undertaking. We haven't the slightest understanding of what "intelligence" is in the human sense, because it's wrapped up with totally mysterious and unsolved problems about the nature of thought and experience more generally.
The fallacy is the god-of-the-gaps "logic" of assuming there's some hand-wavey phenomenon that's qualitatively different from anything we currently understand, just because reality has so much complexity that we are far from reproducing it. You're assuming there's a soul and looking for it, even though you don't call it that.
Intelligence is mysterious in the same way chemical biology is mysterious (though perhaps to another degree of complexity)... It's not mysterious in the way people getting sick was mysterious before germ theory. There's no reason to think there's some crucial missing phenomenon without which we can't even reason about intelligence.
I don't see any technical evidence of that. matrix is a single unified protocol, maintained by a small core contributor group. matrix has no extensibility mechanisms. not sure how you can make a claim like this.
