In so far as you can prove properties, you can do it with code as well as specification.

And how many users are there of these architectures, who also want to be on the most recent Debian?

That is possible and it is always a risk with a new language. Then again, it is also a risk with old languages. Fewer people work on them, fewer know how to fix them, they just hang around and slowly wither away.

You should never rewrite code. You should never rely to legacy code. Get used to it, it's engineering, everything is a compromise.

Lots of languages do not have a full spec. And even those that do, often have a spec which does not define all behaviour.

The main reason that people worried about a spec in the past was to avoid vendor lock-in. An implementation which is available under a public license is a good solution to that problem also. The full spec is well underway for those areas where it is a necessity, but it will track a few versions back.

I think this is hyperbole. A fallback would be simple now, but would have to be maintained and tested.

At a certain point, you have to ask about the cost benefit from maintaining backward compatibility because it comes with a cost. Debian is not particularly designed as an light-weight, support architectures for every distribution.

The only reason, really, this makes news is because it is Rust which seems to trigger people for some reason.

Yes, that is possibly true in this case. I suspect though this rewrite is for three reasons: memory safety, to see if it can be done for more widespread usage, and to switch licence. FIL might achieve one of these two.

FIL looks nice, but it is garbage collected with run time validation. Rust is deterministically memory managed with zero cost abstraction.

This is one of the reasons most renewable generation gets a much lower price per kWh than, say, gas. The exception is rooftop solar which is very expensive per kWh, but it still viable because it feeds in directly to the consumer, so it reduces expenditure at consumer rates, rather than selling at wholesale. Even with all this renewables still work out as cheaper, and given the falling cost of batteries and renewable generation that is likely to remain true.

If you feed real patient data into an AI, that would require ethical approval. If you use an ai afterwards if would not

It is not a new idea. Some of the next gen designs for nuclear have integrated thermal stores. Concentrated solar power plants have done the same thing.

But this sort of thermal plants still makes sense. If grid electricity prices routinely go low because os generation consumption mismatch, then you can heat them up for little. It might even make sense to build them larger at nuclear power plants. You could turn the grid backwards and use external wind or solar to heat the nuclear store. After all, nuclear power plants have really good grid connectivity, turbines, cooling and all that you need to turn heating into sparks. The heat doesn't need to come only from nuclear power.

The bell they made on the first attempt cracked. So, the answer is they cooled it down as slow as possible.

Rust supports one compiler, with another for bootstrap and GCC on the way.
It does support no float platforms with the nostd option. Not everything works in that environment.

Curious, which platform for Rust works only with a commercial compiler?

My assumption is that the rust in Linux code would package as crates so that you can just import the bits you need.

I haven't seen the part where they can pull in any crate. Do they,

I think you mean external dependencies. As far as I understand all the code needed to build Linux is in the tree. Only the rust standard library is "external". That the rust builds into several crates doesn't seem a worry to me.