Take Rust in Linux, for example. Even with support from Linux’s creator, Linus Torvalds, Rust is moving into Linux at a snail’s pace.

Because Linux is the biggest software in the entire world and they do lot of stuff their own way. Rust is integrated slowly for future new projects. It makes sense to move in snail pace. The government doesn’t suggest the Linux project to stop using C entirely. The government “recommends” to start new projects in memory safe languages, if it is a critical software. That makes sense to me.

Doubly so… Don’t care what the language is, or what the advantages are… Even if there’s a considerable security advantage to a new language… There’s no such thing as a language that’s advantages outweigh the security risks of rushed development to convert decades of tested code.

Honestly I think the biggest issue in law enforcement in general… is human testimony has this kind of weight to begin with. This guy was convicted of murder… with apparently the entirety of the evidence against him being “a criminal said he did it”.

Even if the penalty was JUST 20 years in prison, and death penalty wasn’t on the table, that’s so wrong to me. 1 man’s word is not a reliable way to confirm anything. People have garbage memories, and can lie.

Agreed we can’t tell which way the flip is… and that’s kind of the crux of the issue… The evidence was unverifiable from day 1. So even if the death penalty was never on the table… this man had nearly 30 years of his life taken away… on literally one persons word, to top it off that one person was confirmed to be a criminal.

So yeah there’s 2 major giant red flags to our justice system in this case. 1. The terribleness of death penalty to begin with. But 2. the idea of a single eye witnesses word having the ability to take decades of someone’s life away,