How is any of that wrong?
In other words, they're upset that a new thing isn't popular so they're trying to think of any argument against it, but none of their arguments are relevant. Yes, you can still write bugs in Rust; of course you can. What you can't do is write memory safety bugs in Rust, which are a huge proportion of security bugs that occur. Rust gives you a massive decrease in attack surface automatically.
This is ignoring the ecosystem, which is full of better tooling, better library packaging, better testing, and just in general an overall better language, but instead of trying to argue the language on its merits they're trying to argue that it's not perfect so why bother.
I've also heard the same arguments about C++; 'anything you can do in C++ you can do in C!', which is technically true but ignores the fact that if I want to do something C++ does it usually makes more sense to use C++ to do it rather than e.g. trying to hack the concept of objects, private methods, templates, etc. into C myself.
2. You can still write bugs in Rust but the point is you are far less likely to.
They've also seen improvements in developer confidence and onboarding time, but not to the same degree.
I mean if you don't know what you are doing you are going to make mistakes that go beyond memory safety. Look at Log4shell for example.
Just saying "but you can still make mistakes" is dumb and irrelevant and it's kind of disappointing that it's such a commonly bandied non-argument that Google still had to address it in this post.
If people don't want to use the language then that's fine, no problem, but a lot of people do want to use the language because it's just a great language to use as well as having memory safety.
