I totally understand what you are saying, in terms of probabilities, but what I'm arguing against, is thinking that safety, robustness etc. for a program is jus

I totally understand what you are saying, in terms of probabilities, but what I'm arguing against, is thinking that safety, robustness etc. for a program is just a given, just because you happen to use Rust or whatever else is claiming X feature. In it's essence, it's like saying something is made of military grade materials, but then the materials are used all wrong in the actual design or not of importance at all. The fact that someone used Rust, does not really tell me much, other than certain types of errors are eliminated, and that is assuming they used Rust correctly, for the type system to work properly. If you ask people explicitly about whether Rust just makes better products, they might say that they have doubts, or give a vague answer. But asking like this is just a leading question, and therefore the process itself of asking the question, will probably cast doubt over some automatic assumptions about what the type safetly of Rust really does for the end product. But the reality is, "Made with Rust" is starting to look like a certificate/claim of validity, and its definitely not, just like any other language isn't either.