Not sure on the developer count, I would think C# would not be substantially different from Go. Also with CLR, and to lesser extend with JVM, you don't need to install anything on target nowadays with ahead-of-time compilation. I do agree that the decision was clearly done with good PR in mind. All three languages mentioned (C#, Java and Rust) are far better candidates for the project on technical grounds.

Easy is not good enough. The language has to be productive. Firstly, let me admit that the python is pretty high in this metric. Furthermore, I'd probably agree that ten years ago, it was arguably the most productive widely used programming language, given quality of ecosystem in both libraries (numpy, sqlalchemy, django, etc), tooling (jupyter, venv, conda) and ubiquity.
But times have changed, FP influenced statically typed languages made a lot of progress. To me it's not obvious anymore that dynamic typing gives any serious advantages in productivity vs say Kotlin/Scala/C#/F# or even modern Java. Sure, Python is still "simpler", but it's not a productivity argument anymore, but a social argument - "quicker to teach", "non-specialist can use it", etc. There are still niches Python rules supreme due to simply overwhelming library support, like ML and numeric methods, but not for general computing. The main issue though is that contrary to static side making huge strides in productivity, Python made very little progress on its Achilles' heel - speed. Thirty times slower and GIL is just not good in 2024. Hence the rise of Go and alternative "pythons" like Julia and Mojo.

Just like Russian military tech, which was so advanced and beyond stagnant US... and then boom! Twenty HIMARS systems equipped with the shortest range missiles reversed the course of the war on which the whole existence of Putin depends on.

...people are sill using Power? and IBM? WTF! I assumed everyone is on M2 and Caramel Ribbon Crunch Frappuccino.

having our buddy Edward around should be handy for Putin!

Had it for a month, comparing to Galaxy Tab...
Positives: usable stylus for $300, fast, speakers, minimial bloatware
Negatives: drains battery pretty good even when idle(can't survive 2 days for me), slow charging from PC USB port, glitches in Write stylus app

WiFi works well, so it's not the CPU on the phone. At least here in NYC the problem is not even the slow speed, as much as the the network is so oversubscribed that the phone can't get any response and the browser just times out.

> If your hypothesis was true, it would be true for ALL soviet bloc nations. However, nations like
> Romania, Poland and the Ukraine seem to have come out of it. The reason why the Russians could
> not come out of it has NOTHING to do with how the west handled the situation.

I'll try slowly again:
First of all I'm talking about the current perception of the US in Russia, not my view on the world history. The perception I don't share by the way, but this doesn't make it invalid. Giving my experience it's also a widely-popular opinion and shared by people of different social status, profession and wealth in Russia.

The perception is that during 90s, the West (with US playing a leading role) tried to weaken Russia into a submissive role in the world. The dreadful reforms (which were advised by mostly Americans) performed during the time, certainly seem to confirm this point in the aftermath. There are obviously numerous benefits for the US/West from a subdued Russia - cheap and reliable energy sources, one less independent player in a world affairs, cheap intellectual capital, etc. The example of Romania, Poland and the Ukraine is simply not correct, as there is nothing in those countries of value to the West outside of publicity effect of "free markets" success. By the way those countries certainly don't "seem to have come out of it", as I would say Russia currently is much more stable and prosperous of the four.

Amplifying this view is also the fact that when Putin came to power the tide turned, and while relationship with US soared and western influence weakened, economy and living conditions quickly improved. Now I personally think this is mostly due to oil prices then anything else, but Moscow propaganda certainly can easily distort the picture for the masses. Nevertheless it's not hard to see that the current course is much better for the Russia than the one during Yeltsin' era.