If things were to otherwise stay the same, then it would. They won't. Some descendant of "vibe coding" will become the dominant mode within 20 years. Probably a *lot* sooner. Next year wouldn't really surprise me.

Also, Rust is more complex to use than C, so a small program is much better in C. And a large program is probably better in either C++ or Python(with a lot of library calls).

I don't like Rust, so I'm probably not being fair to it, but I struggle to identify a good use case. (Personally, I'd rather use Forth than Rust.)

Note however "will be", not "is". It's not there yet.
Then you have the problem of getting the right standards.
Then you have the problem of getting the right specs.
Then you have the problem of getting the right problem. ...
There's probably an end to this somewhere, but I doubt that it will be in perfection.

Nobody can write safe code. People, can, however, test the code they write, and if there is a comprehensive test suite, fix it so that it works safely. Debugging is mandatory!

It sounds as if he was referred to the bar association evaluation committee. IIUC those are he folks that can do the disbarment. A court can only say "you can't be a lawyer before us anymore", but he'd still be fine in a different court.

No. Not "is generally", but rather "must be". If the software can decide to ignore it, it's not a kill switch. (OTOH, computers today don't tend to come with kill switches. Those would prevent remote wake-up commands from working.)

How long ago did this happen? The summary didn't list the date of the submission of the "testimony", but thing like this tend to take time to process, so I'm guessing that it happened well over a year ago. This make his claimed "honest mistake" due to ignorance believable. But it also negates your point.

That said, they won't be able to stop hallucinations without breaking the AI models. That's a mistake that people make all the time. What they need to do is prioritize having the AI determine how certain it's statements are, and including that in the statement...but people won't like that kind of answer.

OTOH, this sounds like one of the reasons I prefer debs from the standard repository over things hosted on other sites. Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's safer than lots of project specific repositories. (And it's one of the reasons I try to avoid Javascript, Go, and Rust.)

You're assuming they can't connect to a nearby open wifi net. Some reports have them doing that, though I don't know how valid those reports were.

Maybe not, but some are considering, e.g., salt water. Of course that's for "cloud brightening". And irrigation is already causing some areas to experience excessive salt in the agricultural land.

Lots of things in medicine and biology were discovered long before there was and plausible reason. And how many people understand, e.g., alcohol. Often even when you do understand part of it, you don't understand all.

What this needs is a large double-blind experiment. Worry about the explanations later. (And EXPECT the first ones to be wrong.)

It is dangerous. So is deciding the other way. I think this is one of those cases where there isn't any really good answer. I bet the one they settle on is that "approved" researchers will be allowed to get answers.

Well, sort of. I really have trouble with the initial expansion, though. I've been assured that we're not within a black hole, and that makes it hard to understand how we ever escaped the Schwarzschild radius. Also time runs slower when gravity is stronger.

But, yeah, I'm no expert in the field.

"Dark Energy" doesn't qualify as a theory. There are at least a few theories that explain the observations labeled "Dark Energy". None of them are generally accepted. So, no, there's no competing theory that apparently explains the "anisotropic expansion", though I've got a partial one (I'm no expert in the field). My theory is that the matter of the universe isn't distributed equally, so some parts have more intense exposure to gravity than others. (I've encountered claims that it's really pretty evenly distributed, but I keep running into observations like "The Great Attractor" that seem to deny this.) This would account for "anisotropic expansion",

If "novel" means "unexpected", then it did something novel. In a complex system, don't expect anyone to understand all the pieces and how they interact. I'm sure that there was someone who could have told them "Yeah, that's a possible interaction", but he was probably working in SysOps rather than Research.