The Rosenbergs weren't spies, they were entrepreneurs providing an essential service to the nuclear proliferation industry!

When it comes to crypticurrencies, no, the "hack" that turns out to be an inside-job rugpull is so common that the correct burden of proof is on the people who think this wasn't an inside job.

Apple was the primary and only major sponsor of Objective-C, used it as the core foundation of their entire platform, and dropped it like a stone with little warning or ceremony. Yes, being tied so closely to Apple is an existential risk for Swift. One need only look at the quality and trajectory of MacOS to see that Apple isn't a software company, let alone a company that cares about developer experience (Xcode, anyone?). As far as modern Apple is concerned, the primary benefit of Swift is that it produces a tiny bit extra lock-in for iOS apps, by making cross-platform development more difficult.

For replacing a Python project with Rust, unsafe blocks will comprise 0% of your code. For replacing a C project with Rust, unsafe blocks will comprise about 5% of your code. The fact that the percentage is higher in the latter case doesn't change the fact that 95% of your codebase is just as safe as the Python project would be.

Yep, it's like Coke Zero vs Diet Coke: 10x the flavor and 10x the calories.