Funny, because I came out with the almost opposite impression: that perhaps the legislators will require something stronger than even Rust to consider something

Funny, because I came out with the almost opposite impression: that perhaps the legislators will require something stronger than even Rust to consider something "safe" because Rust still allows easy access to things like `unsafe` and FFI like most other languages - and true safety may require more than that. I think our biases, together with the lack of a firm conclusion in this post, leaves the door open to vastly different interpretations.